<%BANNER%>

Socio-Economic Impacts of Controlling Melaleuca in South Florida

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110217_AAAAEA INGEST_TIME 2011-02-18T03:29:12Z PACKAGE UFE0014641_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 8423998 DFID F20110217_AADACE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH finn_k_Page_055.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
00c46456302c91590b7afb7a2ce56c76
SHA-1
5700f3dc46c9f93660dc5543d0c859d27ee30b9e
F20110217_AADABQ finn_k_Page_038.tif
15c9c8262dc1083d90ca19b6b7b2d2cc
5c0773d38d6e78162de8ae49a22816533690da90
2100 F20110217_AACZZU finn_k_Page_099.txt
9c88618a7699e65b263ed1a398cf1542
caa358c6ac63e7b1cf7c75e1dc88b87b87721fc4
F20110217_AADACF finn_k_Page_057.tif
c5751c76742dc2b8587a6957df0cb6e3
da00cfbd5cad470f81c2b4d21348ba0fac3f3b1b
33989 F20110217_AACZZV finn_k_Page_036.QC.jpg
724f7d4cdd7f08ffd3399c68a72c7914
a11abfca499b8c9edfab86dafdf104463c129ede
F20110217_AADACG finn_k_Page_058.tif
c2db7e0ad6dd0661d456af598160b0ef
105ce1280ed42169845fdf036a4c39d7918d3125
F20110217_AADABR finn_k_Page_039.tif
191387e0f121ded80a8f903486040556
5c5f3f20600a85a0062cdb0ef5e502d6dcf38e21
74834 F20110217_AACZZW finn_k_Page_120.jpg
02f459a45bbc25f33ab50665f42d24d3
5815a32ab837d521d524c5b4c6f997344b865402
F20110217_AADACH finn_k_Page_060.tif
cd4de62139fca2583501c2c2f582c690
bc02000fd80d7d1eab8068150690403367cc9bb8
F20110217_AADABS finn_k_Page_040.tif
94614673191c851a816eeefd03e4fae5
f614adad4bf7906e9b2f3fb17b5beeed9dd2d9e6
1677 F20110217_AACZZX finn_k_Page_106.txt
98ec490c7980704ad975558305d7487c
d375cae9b78c575f716deaf3bc1bf32290cf4aac
F20110217_AADACI finn_k_Page_061.tif
003ab35a87c410bba81a0b2af59caf8c
58802aeed120c99af91c7ffbdcf6c76efe79c3b3
F20110217_AADABT finn_k_Page_041.tif
348f6ab241d62154aa28bac924d7c0e7
16fe9a95a5de5a376f6f3825fedd0ff5ddda74d1
F20110217_AACZZY finn_k_Page_003.tif
24d8cc29952c9560e519785276c82010
20a56468daf447236ba4169697d6b63b262ac7ca
F20110217_AADACJ finn_k_Page_062.tif
1641d65edbde4ba5498564a89422abaa
c833f89c7768615a21ecffb477d836d8c9d50ede
F20110217_AADABU finn_k_Page_043.tif
0b77ac048ba94efdcb0293a98a2e597e
c750faefdd684ba05a27a7f1f8f29e7de48a10f7
989070 F20110217_AACZZZ finn_k_Page_060.jp2
61a46b1c2cfef5b1fd82a435664ad11a
dd0646a8609236835c5370473e0ae1352e4619b9
F20110217_AADACK finn_k_Page_063.tif
709c6d8f6ef3b1905826fe7ff1d5752a
bc18a55a976f84db3f15cae65b808ab3bd0f22e7
F20110217_AADABV finn_k_Page_044.tif
6a21d1d731d89af41b5ed5956654e67a
b0e4ed187037b3b864539b683b8adc3313e8ddd9
F20110217_AADACL finn_k_Page_066.tif
15b87038662af443d223a59a1f880d5a
331d124924ada7684622df609a84d55116357f4b
F20110217_AADABW finn_k_Page_046.tif
0b7d010ba055c62dbd8c4bcfc25e40d7
193b1e7fe555e588516ef173027a08cea27fae82
F20110217_AADACM finn_k_Page_068.tif
88fe77ea93afb60507e6e0db93c56a2c
15c0aecf19aed0cf6ddeaad563472a0b9078654f
F20110217_AADABX finn_k_Page_047.tif
6962824892ece92c400e2bb4fed29248
6f004981f2afec22d4dd7e001870234c95d9c312
F20110217_AADADA finn_k_Page_090.tif
844bff86af42f76c54c56069046e9190
88e7683fb729b68e964ac31af21f43101dae0f5b
F20110217_AADACN finn_k_Page_070.tif
502d9e08cdcf68988202fd6f08abc904
72c4c2615e07f79b65b8011bd1b4a1228b50db04
F20110217_AADABY finn_k_Page_048.tif
25a90a7d73ad523f4d581a32f6ca6b12
4f13fbec9832f084fa6a285bbb636715c5013fab
F20110217_AADADB finn_k_Page_093.tif
b5b70233019093c821b58d76621eb3f5
f107be5a2ac2d15fe6451039382a5ec07b42d2fb
F20110217_AADACO finn_k_Page_072.tif
045624bed52f3f85c56ea6f6e06f6e3c
8d1e4a4fda29b2ecc3042c799fbd2e3d1866eb48
F20110217_AADABZ finn_k_Page_049.tif
d9d2156caa1955a66dc570f23edd8591
31430f4236fbee806a05a63f4f1da4df4e8b4ed1
F20110217_AADADC finn_k_Page_094.tif
f4cf2d971b1aeac6380c2a922315860c
c00c6cfad0b367c4c08f95aaad7d3a8e96ccdbd2
F20110217_AADACP finn_k_Page_073.tif
99b3d63f016cf992ebbc7684f1eb318f
7b08220013cf0497218e8b4845faa8de12fe4089
F20110217_AADADD finn_k_Page_095.tif
5894e31b983b45fc4e40a6bd0d6a3759
d4b2aad6436c61c5ac787029a50055239a4048a3
F20110217_AADACQ finn_k_Page_074.tif
c5304d48e0188e6d9485a521cffa6131
1e78158312733e2f7a1c163b85deab98b322450e
F20110217_AADADE finn_k_Page_096.tif
f12991277ba1f8fd524776938f3d613c
bdc72229a148816ef1a2dfac2229f8cae48a0013
F20110217_AADACR finn_k_Page_076.tif
c8892d50200343f77e235eb7ec27abd0
96f457522fbf47baaf08018e4054a76c5c112bd9
F20110217_AADADF finn_k_Page_097.tif
d8918cec9ae989fc15a36070f9630d33
38c4df36061b3b895d777921541bd1549246e40f
F20110217_AADADG finn_k_Page_099.tif
abba601f08eafcc171158dfd9c9f9eee
6a662ad588fee6901054ba7ce6095ad76d52a812
F20110217_AADACS finn_k_Page_079.tif
00edc00e0bafc040cf1c77362b19ea61
29f49c5f897ec07451b600223e1c5e15e0946729
F20110217_AADADH finn_k_Page_100.tif
7a9bfb6d4f6864a7c815e7aaa024f170
c4baf065405cd5bf882fa97c9b61381a73f7f09e
F20110217_AADACT finn_k_Page_080.tif
243342df59d3004d0c49c52600e0ee2f
baab9e62dd4d39b5cdd67c14eee6236952749ae5
F20110217_AADADI finn_k_Page_102.tif
3ae6878d2b4085fe2de849043ad2408a
6593afbc185c56468e26d410878b5e3c7f5585c0
F20110217_AADACU finn_k_Page_082.tif
c5673edba633df16ad034b9aaecfeb90
a106b59e051d25451172e301f6c3745f784eca09
F20110217_AADADJ finn_k_Page_103.tif
4d6e3adb871d2a7e3c440138268c2fc8
bc4cbef3b6aa4b56cdb38dbc57991bf99150725a
F20110217_AADACV finn_k_Page_084.tif
429fc4a93ea5c78a82b8a039ef03f6da
eb00ac3776b9a843a63e80f2f626c4223311c89d
F20110217_AADADK finn_k_Page_105.tif
02a81129c406e8d5c80912b5dd4ea8b8
45f311d3c71a75f210b99246b2dfc438d04f844f
F20110217_AADACW finn_k_Page_085.tif
2f1a9ba8e77ef4ab0de39bf21157855c
acd92dc80486f470f5cf0b3e2c0c502d75248cc9
F20110217_AADADL finn_k_Page_108.tif
76c0959e9ea8852ea80dc5ba740796bc
e0d8f49e09ec54d9853b9e740d8a29621c345587
F20110217_AADACX finn_k_Page_086.tif
b7735c1bb6f29cff6dea7000a41b7545
3cac934fe64e4ad6243926929994027d60b6138f
1713 F20110217_AADAEA finn_k_Page_004.txt
24cb771a4226c27d2bd1dfd94b756dd0
d82abf91a20f24ebc576ce026f98dc6031322ad2
F20110217_AADADM finn_k_Page_109.tif
a9c973c8950de5cbe6147e0ed3425b9e
18dc3d8cf517650bdc554a4ad1d6bfbff2921475
F20110217_AADACY finn_k_Page_087.tif
e14067b6dbbc7f0b7a9763b7ddcc5994
31c9587a67725465e983bdd65f52d5a130f1df86
2368 F20110217_AADAEB finn_k_Page_009.txt
7bce2fce6de67ee4147b62e6e8e8da8b
bcb5688da9e052a553f1f10c36cad20ff0fd2079
F20110217_AADADN finn_k_Page_111.tif
05de617a77f921f20cb0b74e9c2e5d94
d45c03032de1049dedb41503a3621680c59b075a
F20110217_AADACZ finn_k_Page_088.tif
a723492b9247e55c7dca9ba56d6d6fa0
2f251500cb9b6b37bd189419d6bd2dfde4b84a0f
2285 F20110217_AADAEC finn_k_Page_010.txt
b520447e1cb0ca4ea594a6776fa1b636
753641292c2a52374e47b4865774ea36a07cff10
F20110217_AADADO finn_k_Page_112.tif
6eddbdea5d4c7a18693cd9c081aea279
c447689d47bfa2ed8e7639f2cbb07bb7d97cc6a6
426 F20110217_AADAED finn_k_Page_011.txt
70529cce60c70b910b345bba8700889d
0773fbf107b9a2371185e9bdd53cd856b279af8c
F20110217_AADADP finn_k_Page_115.tif
491e93148e73f2adca951ddf1ec3bf35
d532f232f0b49abc7fe33895e6952948e6075b73
1714 F20110217_AADAEE finn_k_Page_012.txt
d729befaa89f60792404a1fa4c4ab19a
e5e9a659fae5a1e87cd4406db23694b2d059f4be
F20110217_AADADQ finn_k_Page_116.tif
846eac4b26ebaebb3611b03c565f304e
3ddd823520cc02f77d8e310c4f8432a9a1375ab5
1404 F20110217_AADAEF finn_k_Page_013.txt
44ba3cd47b91f48da06f09b65064d009
906bd74bff8b56e6c0e16ebd0fd3edadef71b5c2
F20110217_AADADR finn_k_Page_117.tif
be2029be89559bdca1ecdc17daafc154
502b10016959c78f8de594e41b583f70b075d921
1698 F20110217_AADAEG finn_k_Page_014.txt
16684d611270c5518e7136210e09c94a
0d2cc8d8df1364dbe35b10889109672d9dbc4cec
F20110217_AADADS finn_k_Page_118.tif
4d2859b4cace333c2272e6afff6444cb
c27ec39ee88881218a1510f668d7c645654ad17e
1903 F20110217_AADAEH finn_k_Page_015.txt
88f4eb269bbd68f0fe4e5b8b4c1ae166
1f2b9f8cf622f3a595a623555892c03b8c1b22c0
F20110217_AADAEI finn_k_Page_016.txt
6101c540465ef9d3d74ad0daa8d51da2
83298aba5135db661a8ce8d525308223920eff0e
F20110217_AADADT finn_k_Page_122.tif
31f47fd1ee0c6ecf9104bf0050ec7d35
4bbe952b4e0b41ab98e3d424a9d95d6b463cb94c
1999 F20110217_AADAEJ finn_k_Page_017.txt
8ec906166c954e6bc9edefc5857f0a23
77a6f3d9add85382c9e735fa47a06d93ca504241
F20110217_AADADU finn_k_Page_123.tif
a959b8b6eaf496ef1a8445391937259c
7d57d0bd5cbaf73a3686e8f60a6c485e40a2b339
2017 F20110217_AADAEK finn_k_Page_018.txt
21144588bc9559156f63e492a91f3fed
563983810c8a9358928d57338c76188dada0e8e8
F20110217_AADADV finn_k_Page_124.tif
17ad80dab94d5f6147b7ef633bd73fa3
f156abac700234a64258a4f7b4e057815ce829fb
2130 F20110217_AADAEL finn_k_Page_019.txt
6a5523d92aa98aa3ad38f3cb3a06d92f
12d4aba912a73ff780bf5ee535a64a64f4ddfa14
F20110217_AADADW finn_k_Page_125.tif
7311060fb2964caa445fea67efb0b75c
0ea0ef983871f8ba163655d0901ac256ecadc9dd
2048 F20110217_AADAFA finn_k_Page_037.txt
00e755ad22e915f71ee4221c41eedcdd
3bf8efa37d5248094f27113f32f249d7590071d3
1927 F20110217_AADAEM finn_k_Page_020.txt
a94e254ea2b19099b5557bc08c720cea
a80d53e754a6f439d8cc367cf6de10dbe819bdeb
F20110217_AADADX finn_k_Page_127.tif
ae270ce572289da2f07db2172aa68441
6eb0c93ab9681d52c9a0e89756887d82c24305ba
265 F20110217_AADAFB finn_k_Page_039.txt
e0c392f3b04671977a9235b9346b4e2d
e05e0d94645387b58357a7d6be33f22e0f460302
1250 F20110217_AADAEN finn_k_Page_021.txt
01620679b0646587f96631921bd1728a
3edbda94af6a14e701e6707ac4cdb611bf82e1d2
F20110217_AADADY finn_k_Page_128.tif
ad71e8058eb7d57473759193da188c18
17a1eb1eb1591a4ff38a417c54cc199009ba7263
1640 F20110217_AADAFC finn_k_Page_040.txt
2c0ac3f5ed51302b838d8a9ebf45c629
e7f007d06009588478a712ea245139c5dae03a55
1671 F20110217_AADAEO finn_k_Page_022.txt
3d3b4928aee581096d67627e12d60f1e
971d441b9ff08e3f2f14698f9d73a9b5c7c09bc7
F20110217_AADADZ finn_k_Page_129.tif
4c05e3ad758e856043c8fc5dd0542519
5ba73536b67eda718db02bf32f2dd5a6ca9852e9
1984 F20110217_AADAFD finn_k_Page_041.txt
fe2a5bc5976e28b1307d27ab7b14db13
537a8aef9b39dced1d4bc5736a04d6e70f7b5dc8
F20110217_AADAEP finn_k_Page_023.txt
702ea756f887e3ae05412ffe103f082e
cc9d80eee83fd0412a08480bca46d1191888d961
1935 F20110217_AADAFE finn_k_Page_043.txt
fe32b12d8f08977cd49a0fb24643b2e0
5ff6fe7637b8344624a48c3ea6464df9e651d4d4
1871 F20110217_AADAEQ finn_k_Page_025.txt
4328cd3848454f7fe8a37529af0abf82
5c111566dfe93ea422ca6921a3625760a17825c6
2083 F20110217_AADAFF finn_k_Page_045.txt
bd340032567f040286d68f515e1479a2
90f51caa47b9bb4b7956b4bdaf4058b426535636
1672 F20110217_AADAER finn_k_Page_026.txt
573ce11e36973efc358997be5487503a
3bdcee379384b88e475e8df457ea72f0b3744446
1386 F20110217_AADAFG finn_k_Page_046.txt
9a3724b9e43ec7502373f81d6123581a
8471a166182cc4e16f3c2d0dec28a63a85b140d0
1678 F20110217_AADAES finn_k_Page_027.txt
e48c8242203f2ac4a3377f0d96353da6
0a838cbb4fbb33dfd318f4fbf6a58dce2d044afe
1643 F20110217_AADAFH finn_k_Page_047.txt
cb361fa2d04b459a95cef7233a930063
439b9ec6fddd025cf84a29c45446db182b4cc05d
2171 F20110217_AADAET finn_k_Page_029.txt
dff5b08f537837dbe5f93e1ab0a09f70
39fd0f38d318b5c92bd78a610ff78913f178aee9
2078 F20110217_AADAFI finn_k_Page_049.txt
17a3d485f4a02290159150fd35bff127
07d05f9321affaa0e70f531bae0e3c9e62979340
2004 F20110217_AADAFJ finn_k_Page_050.txt
ed51470b62364a744a41a8ac653dcb7e
98a1d9e85952d592fb3547f42ea58ae09a5fbc2a
2001 F20110217_AADAEU finn_k_Page_030.txt
ddb25ce8e9c571097527f6f70b86a558
f0fdc0b0b682783ccc7f5ed3f3648d113f395378
1814 F20110217_AADAFK finn_k_Page_052.txt
90659139df20f61f5220ecabf656aa42
f3f99c366ab3972036e6bceb28060da740045b65
2022 F20110217_AADAEV finn_k_Page_031.txt
cc088ed0c061e27b0f3ad55d5b47b9ee
93efa3a2583a1f07f68871d5567a733393685fd3
1993 F20110217_AADAFL finn_k_Page_053.txt
a846e5ae9e1badf785d8d557213bc354
167d1cb49a418aa922e6b825bf6cca97c7c9258c
2228 F20110217_AADAEW finn_k_Page_032.txt
40b7ce8779eed3de19829d3a2daf4de9
9fb750bb8c40e13a2a7bdd1d5fbcab01625f103e
F20110217_AADAFM finn_k_Page_057.txt
3193992912cf9da1ec8b28f1b6a0dde3
f0cf0836beb0a74ff33b7ad8de03f64dc26f6171
2019 F20110217_AADAEX finn_k_Page_033.txt
44fd795ac491598167b09fa7a536e161
b11433cc233661caa525a42fea9e9f3409a75240
1473 F20110217_AADAGA finn_k_Page_076.txt
25b7f1557189a05892d4d330571daff0
b0ae0df0648e035ee093592ee2ef823c6f77bd30
1682 F20110217_AADAFN finn_k_Page_058.txt
69b0981e129910fcc957e3d0e507b43b
988567fd59b89ffab5a07a3f9b79b73965894927
1930 F20110217_AADAEY finn_k_Page_035.txt
addbad4f402f6c33076d9784172b21e5
d6a33b517a9b235eefc53be465a44c3191148ac6
1697 F20110217_AADAGB finn_k_Page_077.txt
50a3978a9fc9a2eb7b61f847dc904dc5
667635ad2a0298c966f7a158fc93dd4f847abc29
1961 F20110217_AADAFO finn_k_Page_059.txt
2cd395a7dce2d60e1671c414463e6493
96ead4873119b5ce2e68f449e7885f7b778c47cc
2038 F20110217_AADAEZ finn_k_Page_036.txt
e8970ccdde3806eec18847305bbf03fc
4592ec8a0b06c0947b99100ce8fd349f8746cb8f
373 F20110217_AADAGC finn_k_Page_078.txt
476ad76117c378830efa070c023ad4ab
a22ef55eb3664dbcc5b3bae2c351fe044c4bb5c0
1771 F20110217_AADAFP finn_k_Page_060.txt
0f0891d264618fe0c343d91b60087f0b
30f3ad76adc1960ea5f74a6e0265c2c18e362a09
1751 F20110217_AADAGD finn_k_Page_080.txt
8099a3ac2c6b6b5849224e23d49328a5
a54e9d7ce01bde37a0326810399c00782b2288de
1934 F20110217_AADAFQ finn_k_Page_061.txt
080daad963f7ee5ad28cd275ab8b86ec
a1f56f35187eb4555347ea77e728e069c33a24c2
1851 F20110217_AADAGE finn_k_Page_081.txt
cfda36a0ed128770b4c92118df1f6133
1e4b48dc694f42d4c048f5dec5f8f740811b6356
2076 F20110217_AADAGF finn_k_Page_083.txt
61600b5581cf07fb45269c30ad266419
681d3c60310b12b581a84d1cdba67598b97512cd
1861 F20110217_AADAFR finn_k_Page_063.txt
f38fbce7260fdec6c5357aa16a5db484
20b842aa5cf4ee03230c38d69968019e19756d95
2067 F20110217_AADAGG finn_k_Page_084.txt
66ca8e85377498444d8a5f0a47bcdff8
5a69cab19ce5daf31018aeec8ab1ce6d498e627c
1977 F20110217_AADAFS finn_k_Page_066.txt
03a0cc58d112ef56bca2388d38c1c969
20a7a54611db5e11c69add09036c9cd35aafc191
2060 F20110217_AADAGH finn_k_Page_085.txt
709f9cf2ea34fa929ccd08c78dcde021
267f8146a9992085cfed3cb5fa761bf20dbbf4a1
1941 F20110217_AADAFT finn_k_Page_068.txt
3388579a13a784d5b4bb98fa61f91c76
a2667fddf91e59dcf68af28b7f4a3a78b687b98f
2005 F20110217_AADAGI finn_k_Page_088.txt
4832561d0c1d30a2112cefeeb6ce47a6
3c0a2476f91dddef041a2dd51e823bc5c98bf8ae
1975 F20110217_AADAFU finn_k_Page_069.txt
a19c5c9a48e4590384eeb9f4fd6e3ba8
9f0fd8857c520ad11d7ca238856e38696a92e682
2080 F20110217_AADAGJ finn_k_Page_089.txt
cfbe81666e42578c15a953f09e30ff93
d186d0e9dc69fa3e05595abd363005417a00f321
2044 F20110217_AADAGK finn_k_Page_091.txt
e368cd181d37003eba4e48e3a637b430
59571c5e246356cb4a0ca4e4ed500337dad7b792
1623 F20110217_AADAFV finn_k_Page_071.txt
f796e35b3b160d0197f1a3ec59c5b1c7
e197dd685d763219e7e505f83a00abf5e5495758
1798 F20110217_AADAGL finn_k_Page_093.txt
16096d58de38b42644eb56e207d04cf7
0cf0f79dfd02d1ca9a1699026ee6e0a4a6b53bdc
1488 F20110217_AADAFW finn_k_Page_072.txt
51fa47b46044b654f4d57b39f085f0a7
f0b324772c9ed608cc639bcf6aa690d590487bfd
2288 F20110217_AADAHA finn_k_Page_116.txt
b84ca43c11c34a6441fa9a05057f56a0
aa451cf8a0a6e802bf8dc7855aadca1f7c1a79ed
1727 F20110217_AADAGM finn_k_Page_095.txt
b9c1fa05b7d1d8bd311a4fda4f5f0fbf
771d6b07c9fb90b3a680008e590484227158ff69
1611 F20110217_AADAFX finn_k_Page_073.txt
c8a1ed4506f596f1b0c66a77c7a59e42
49e6be5eb9b77dbe99ae0894020a3df117aa94be
2396 F20110217_AADAHB finn_k_Page_117.txt
09c482ee3d0930b664b08dc7beaa6d02
d009266d568696b079f7abbef9f01d0c4630a762
1817 F20110217_AADAGN finn_k_Page_096.txt
944b6cea8a2f43c39bae715ad4b6c89e
490c4833f645d713549254c047556a04a6f37324
1435 F20110217_AADAFY finn_k_Page_074.txt
5233cf4e80ecd4f0837e19bb828204d8
b8eb0f42022b8671f12ac4be592d6e5363c9bf25
1436 F20110217_AADAHC finn_k_Page_118.txt
b9aab822d130a997131a055a5873c2db
bf455f127633c5572465b3aac8662bc912dacb47
1925 F20110217_AADAGO finn_k_Page_097.txt
c7db82621d2e33cf4c46065494d3fa4f
c86c53ec8cda3c0855d10aa936253413ba374646
1311 F20110217_AADAFZ finn_k_Page_075.txt
0b4b5bb3ca13dd1386198715ec41a487
3a740075170ae75e0b49b9303d1651963132a9e3
1626 F20110217_AADAHD finn_k_Page_119.txt
d241d30bf77dfd43758befbdd9a41c22
59369de58c7f282c59d4817b943c3adb239876d7
2081 F20110217_AADAGP finn_k_Page_098.txt
f7af9b52481420a3c58b416f728bd7ec
25aaff35ea1e1c5f1c7240f69defa70bc6cb6a4b
1665 F20110217_AADAHE finn_k_Page_120.txt
9c76f4dedfb568d125e373fb7585be15
56d65d4e0c3ea6790279c6270b85b6062f3454d9
F20110217_AADAGQ finn_k_Page_100.txt
0eda2a92eb1dfce22e31a90a9c73c626
4a5eacadce9678a2d482b68f00d72162f3bc90fd
1813 F20110217_AADAHF finn_k_Page_121.txt
d2fe01092b6d08623b2db5874dcfb249
afb83084a66e8bbbacf175dd4a0f72297a2fca1d
2135 F20110217_AADAGR finn_k_Page_103.txt
98ea46df011c223a2c16db96100818d7
7dc0e187375ce3e775d7f2e2cffdcf9e8c873db5
1203 F20110217_AADAHG finn_k_Page_122.txt
9318ae4a7209f7224a88e37b6a81707c
b6b8427bc3ec185ea066933498e537090e7bb8dd
685 F20110217_AADAGS finn_k_Page_104.txt
93f729d2ca69128803a7ed049f2b96c0
84344604aeabdf78697ee7635c54f681fd28a113
1444 F20110217_AADAHH finn_k_Page_123.txt
1b536774055189517a516232946e6800
878d5a9f2f18b455879b1571502dd8b26514726a
1217 F20110217_AADAGT finn_k_Page_105.txt
6f615bfa757165408ff37c51af002890
fe87fec85774ff32adf65b2f55debbc3ee9e473e
1143 F20110217_AADAHI finn_k_Page_124.txt
8ff6e1968f7e4e9cf87b340fdf2667a9
1a681cd02fc130135a2fe01a4ba1d30a3b35a458
1981 F20110217_AADAGU finn_k_Page_107.txt
956f277cd60425872c3af331a509ab18
d99df97105be77826c29a19c83816645fd662cc3
1452 F20110217_AADAHJ finn_k_Page_125.txt
5b7d27d4b0551bf9e8b27daf168af219
1b1af5415170eb264fdc0894f08b9d658c4ba5a7
1471 F20110217_AADAGV finn_k_Page_108.txt
edc4f03a949b1291225e55713e172d3d
f0bbe772c2a851f5959021f20398b3289f2da2f6
2016 F20110217_AADAHK finn_k_Page_126.txt
367c140c0f9c777ef72bc6cbbb58dcf0
5331bcc504e893234a7802aa56599d7861cab890
2640 F20110217_AADAHL finn_k_Page_127.txt
696d4b7e95cdcba4d11cb491b2d4a131
6eef209ec68d41f9e55c6e2629b609aac91df287
938 F20110217_AADAGW finn_k_Page_110.txt
8dc0d69a2eeced1e1a6048b29e381938
b27fe0f4bfd1a107233ca71fe2b7fe2bbdfb7d2e
2371 F20110217_AADAHM finn_k_Page_128.txt
3cad3e3920beeb2c6c4485ec59829dbb
0d19bb771cbb7453543fdb5c58e08e99fd1f6aaf
2023 F20110217_AADAGX finn_k_Page_112.txt
5791efb65f85715cafc852404cdacd57
34f174e4e8957b4236de5ccd7a138a9c6c0f6f40
50882 F20110217_AADAIA finn_k_Page_017.pro
0b4b4322760dc5a06f376e200f8c9919
7d6a230c7a0c200a9a24d2232ffa311a7f490e5c
631 F20110217_AADAHN finn_k_Page_130.txt
5362cfcb67838e2409c2c01dd0d4080a
eee7cfa1f7c688039bf887534046963f81a9690b
914 F20110217_AADAGY finn_k_Page_114.txt
64f198af6c8425470203b1a1a9ad6c77
f38058632df79c290acb2af7cbb96cbb67f194ae
50301 F20110217_AADAIB finn_k_Page_018.pro
a8112abffc2760e22b663048c24d7090
6903da18e9d4d31f94308c8675df795434c17ce6
7542 F20110217_AADAHO finn_k_Page_001.pro
3a4c5cee0e14399c8cbd42437e433a9d
5fdd2fee46f24238b6abfba6abd12153d5cdbb00
1105 F20110217_AADAGZ finn_k_Page_115.txt
d107fa879e0e60695c1a873cdff7088a
c633df36e6d09d2efd5e79c846e73060e8e0be6b
39644 F20110217_AADAIC finn_k_Page_022.pro
ac2d3b530c7796c6b9fdbdb58f6c6131
a7bd23cae42bd03cf0d8851d59464471c1fe50a4
1144 F20110217_AADAHP finn_k_Page_002.pro
e767689ccf4eb9a9a28a6d650a908301
69b1b072b1bc889abd99a7b2c85b7b734bbc0ca1
47484 F20110217_AADAID finn_k_Page_025.pro
6c0fc60e7fec34ad1bd158ddeece1c73
3e83530aa997f555790c93a2e505a5fd7163e6e6
61510 F20110217_AADAHQ finn_k_Page_006.pro
416649c360c232a542e71b556b009a12
0aea39a78ebb65b65b452ee2a0d579835447c55a
45457 F20110217_AADAIE finn_k_Page_028.pro
cea7ab942dff7018bcf39d434c6ba0c6
9b523758f776f526a363550e79a3e657b9c26090
79484 F20110217_AADAHR finn_k_Page_007.pro
0f7d87933d0cecb41f99574c8cd20489
7679b3de3354e115e203dcc754c0223447ff70a4
49731 F20110217_AADAIF finn_k_Page_030.pro
6b2cad15703c311af6238aa7e3a28eed
a64778c8cb7744d7981dc5a3f1df96f79b43daa8
9788 F20110217_AADAHS finn_k_Page_008.pro
1e7ff3c40314191b0720e2002cc76cdc
f7962bd624e24414f1d370684c032b18c9f5948d
48880 F20110217_AADAIG finn_k_Page_035.pro
ac2e2ed9154f39749680c395a3b0d7e5
a739cd63ada67e8b835f16afe196ec7e02224768
54842 F20110217_AADAHT finn_k_Page_009.pro
468b5b1f6ee0c54375d5d76c78189af6
ead593ffc4fe5314b91d107628848e539556f0ec
51924 F20110217_AADAIH finn_k_Page_036.pro
7b50c1517525f33ca7da856ba9392e3a
c7a3923992ec305aeb391d1a9b682223bb4004aa
55352 F20110217_AADAHU finn_k_Page_010.pro
f8907478adfd58d89ecd0fbdcec0686c
37937b7b90f228060bef78376868f597d34cf426
52199 F20110217_AADAII finn_k_Page_037.pro
bca89d5680666c2e8b3a219cf59f1cf1
2ce7f990ba1072cc0b69b042cc757fe4e5c86e6f
8837 F20110217_AADAHV finn_k_Page_011.pro
ff8d387f375735b7aa9e4511fd9330a6
9af96e83fd8d20cec5a5875e62012d15faa008b0
51898 F20110217_AADAIJ finn_k_Page_038.pro
d661134682bc2ce060df922fb91133e3
1e71e20bc7684b6ea11e005ab050d6e800eaa29c
37966 F20110217_AADAHW finn_k_Page_012.pro
5bba55267a0105ca0a009194da293e0a
7e32a77cb5f55133d293ea384023d5c3b6f0c5bf
6603 F20110217_AADAIK finn_k_Page_039.pro
40a3d56a0b5cf63c6fe54e0bc42dbfc0
6ef81c9b1753a4325e86b4719521535334180077
38453 F20110217_AADAIL finn_k_Page_040.pro
2d99dc0d9a16bc1110c9aeb9981480a6
49f25604336dd498b541cda28df0ef0404a0c5b0
40973 F20110217_AADAHX finn_k_Page_014.pro
9f124c865ddb4e30e42e67f0ead55b38
9646eb29902c1873581074a720c4c21780eacbe5
48147 F20110217_AADAJA finn_k_Page_061.pro
f57a573d1afe74ab387b3f6e694da50b
290d65a6f86a7279a9ef281eeeeb280ab0180ab1
48963 F20110217_AADAIM finn_k_Page_043.pro
81ca829a19ac922a11424cf339b82a6e
508601419ebd743fd778ceae3b7dd28233472dd7
47534 F20110217_AADAHY finn_k_Page_015.pro
151a920426bd442bf0e9956eca7251aa
c425dfbe599083c209ce55b8043e8adb04b2768b
43664 F20110217_AADAJB finn_k_Page_063.pro
bda4953921094b3facf1fa8f9f6b58f6
e99dadcc2d8b21ea93f91e7d03b9ca54814f85b8
52047 F20110217_AADAIN finn_k_Page_044.pro
d52ede0c9df23f08183b32e4b949820b
3d6c6a45e6cfeaefea3dc91022ad7806006cbe39
52762 F20110217_AADAHZ finn_k_Page_016.pro
a4efe6cc21f2188f8b3cdcf4b3c3d7e0
46ae901efdf0fda4917ac695bd2f52ac22fb54f1
45628 F20110217_AADAJC finn_k_Page_065.pro
7e6a490c1bc0b085a5bad23bd2a68d7a
e19f60cfb269fd2b6ec6217eafd458dce5091d33
38696 F20110217_AADAIO finn_k_Page_047.pro
978dde71df36ef2d85514dd2034b0ba0
7ae8ec8ea052f2c4244648a4927e8a7d467f344f
46907 F20110217_AADAJD finn_k_Page_066.pro
c0b6ec9ad3d0b7391ba846cc36163e2f
36845ae4402e0fa30a1c57ed287de8af40f493b6
46843 F20110217_AADAIP finn_k_Page_048.pro
5b3e21737181d4428b2eba9e5ef72811
0a80dda2b170e61d6a1b3c30ea76d18dfbcf214f
44071 F20110217_AADAJE finn_k_Page_068.pro
e50389fe621dd07ba3a8070e380dbe3e
3c2d3c813015f446c7acb225d8e6e14ae884dd3a
47279 F20110217_AADAIQ finn_k_Page_049.pro
64777480c0ca447d5ef120b3fb6a17fb
a72a5709ec0c0647c509b0247bfb67d1f5e49031
46437 F20110217_AADAJF finn_k_Page_069.pro
d045cbb616fa4803a7927aea272413e3
3fd185996487611f8547584d3e6b4bea93f11d4f
50846 F20110217_AADAIR finn_k_Page_050.pro
b708245a47be9128c1c482874fce4776
6dde1d7d1a851e4c0fcb2544a6db4e2216c3d666
37578 F20110217_AADAJG finn_k_Page_071.pro
ed9c1ab4aeea90bc0b3c2662e71d4439
8f07988cbc43d20c7754e223388e8f9da76b5786
31021 F20110217_AADAIS finn_k_Page_051.pro
4c4c556499a5ad1f6c33c56226fcb4ce
bff1888144a044d4404a5ecafa0edbf5ccd25e45
37137 F20110217_AADAJH finn_k_Page_072.pro
4f9ad0b28989d3bed48056fea938870b
9b49c39a545196f9598b51cc996484b6c56fda14
50784 F20110217_AADAIT finn_k_Page_053.pro
fe744bd710a9b883b5e91bfcf171fb68
1645cd694584c6659dade6f5215cabec8bf13c61
33879 F20110217_AADAJI finn_k_Page_074.pro
4b31b5816a28bd20f13fae25949fc2be
88f247537c09a96e71d51d3ec6aee334151f8be0
36745 F20110217_AADAIU finn_k_Page_055.pro
5c034c93603f76418684d4cf7be1a84e
0794921abfe4488e6d30de9308668c55207d44f5
36453 F20110217_AADAJJ finn_k_Page_076.pro
c79456d2320d8c29d24b0bfee2d15a02
7f2b11d057d3213f2f6d0801387bb4bc11b3f032
47591 F20110217_AADAIV finn_k_Page_056.pro
d7fbb324a1a44bb819465d2fd6d97aaa
950f581d0b14871a97b891f1570d500631caa341
40608 F20110217_AADAJK finn_k_Page_077.pro
9aafc97e532e76613c145be6e249f341
b90e75413ed205eb788ab998fad733ff78eb7934
46736 F20110217_AADAIW finn_k_Page_057.pro
29375ebbe8d635852f77fcd1d795621f
7941b5261050ddffdddec49fa98ace768857ede7
9284 F20110217_AADAJL finn_k_Page_078.pro
8e3cb3eb5b8abb11e6ade4a5598020e6
f1f44e72306b9c61c2ea83768979a2d0238c98d5
40668 F20110217_AADAIX finn_k_Page_058.pro
910772cde685960442608fb3dceef191
b6ed49cd5c94ef0d1f7f32d070bd901e064428f6
53584 F20110217_AADAKA finn_k_Page_099.pro
2ffe8d5b420f661642506324106fe492
5164cc99047b1528336b792fbf8e0d61b17cf8ce
42459 F20110217_AADAJM finn_k_Page_080.pro
bd5a7017fbc4ef1593534a156430fad4
c72c418ec8601ef2453b4fd278b88eb646617f18
50770 F20110217_AADAKB finn_k_Page_100.pro
879bf7013facd239adf3f75c1d3e05eb
57fd8cdd303fb539888af06930757b4fffd210ea
42689 F20110217_AADAJN finn_k_Page_081.pro
6184be799036159d041918ea2a9e3c74
52cc4d4e15afe493494f6e3bc07b01a7413a8905
49752 F20110217_AADAIY finn_k_Page_059.pro
32be69c937d5fe05d3339016ad80327d
22beebc63141da520aa31731536a9c9bda61ed62
45732 F20110217_AADAKC finn_k_Page_102.pro
b95c10e4a8b93436c97af767cdec6f59
4dee4572c821a45ae3cc001f4f39f0beb04a5f42
49523 F20110217_AADAJO finn_k_Page_082.pro
f77285354a2a93d2b45d33acca8e9ee6
71cdc6639272d12f944bac15b2e76707e6958c5e
43857 F20110217_AADAIZ finn_k_Page_060.pro
bc5bdce0c8b7ad668d8ee31efa4fd74c
74f190d9c6bad5dd68f15618919dc11ef9a46a91
50828 F20110217_AADAKD finn_k_Page_103.pro
4f781101356dc1fd33a8a8feb74730a1
70acbd24eeb42959c696bbc90473386adca4d981
52987 F20110217_AADAJP finn_k_Page_083.pro
267b1a494c827b528f9097d8246edd33
9d03e538823ec5b757b8e69c6904429ad04a3b6e
15691 F20110217_AADAKE finn_k_Page_104.pro
d5474226af990a22f6efc53d61dc06d7
6c85964ac2b820b8b76b720612a49619dfc46a4e
52314 F20110217_AADAJQ finn_k_Page_084.pro
38daba814f5e81de5fddb8e72d897384
2b071fe3e397e11cd7d04f5649220d805b98bc2a
28369 F20110217_AADAKF finn_k_Page_105.pro
05a8aeab2824b497fde54c0be58b439c
db6a4ad801d52a201b33d3f2ddb7a15c4481eb87
50534 F20110217_AADAJR finn_k_Page_085.pro
be062f8289e04c5cf7a555e27c730116
14ad59ba7bcc66e9d00b5793daa63077a96aa29d
32503 F20110217_AADAKG finn_k_Page_106.pro
5004705f6443321993333bad205c0743
9798ad949505279a3b4f0acc248c4cc8fa51fa92
46246 F20110217_AADAJS finn_k_Page_086.pro
cb82072ad136ff5bd24edac5b0cbcc7c
f7b30722f82ea74811fe7547c91ff51c8d6cd6d0
38438 F20110217_AADAKH finn_k_Page_107.pro
704a33f16ac9c2726d82ee326625ca78
e0ef37b268128a022faad5e3ab974db994067d6e
50937 F20110217_AADAJT finn_k_Page_088.pro
4af068c5811a74d384e811f9bf2a637b
73682a920f743987ed69162a668e0af63206f40a
23736 F20110217_AADAKI finn_k_Page_109.pro
da9e4bafd24c0bafa5b067c8eed26654
1bfcfc1cdbf7fd8aa0331ca459e840e787b7ca55
52907 F20110217_AADAJU finn_k_Page_089.pro
945edea088763c4cad10318fb4facb89
97140ffe9b26115ce765665b4ec6b8518923488e
47447 F20110217_AADAKJ finn_k_Page_112.pro
98fc1105769973af40a296913c63388a
0a2dc3702e0e35bb601a96da7cd271f9c6c72eb4
28351 F20110217_AADAJV finn_k_Page_090.pro
0a97b33d8ec3cf5fe556c0ec07d913f7
7694e04c7da6df7e1a64ea7122abff346ff1e385
57113 F20110217_AADAKK finn_k_Page_113.pro
71a208a4396af9a965ee6b357089382b
11a8f6eeeed61c745695a28bb0674cb47ae47d41
51850 F20110217_AADAJW finn_k_Page_091.pro
4292f69eebb10f31f0bf130ba9925c22
c9e3caea62bbd9a65de8f95a9def6d2fcdd17cd1
19715 F20110217_AADAKL finn_k_Page_114.pro
1ad44a604f05b0e227aa9da5d755bed3
b2c7b279acbe60201539eb134b296478c5219261
50489 F20110217_AADAJX finn_k_Page_092.pro
861b3801750cf34c8b43bdb932dc6786
65ae82c3abf08ce0cb9c05907e0ebe8f8c18e6a6
24260 F20110217_AADAKM finn_k_Page_115.pro
af288dff0908c261105fe8c6b9858e07
5c82dfe1d792a8f67f08fa171ff86320c123e42c
43554 F20110217_AADAJY finn_k_Page_095.pro
6c9504a03195e937b7a3ce26bba6b94f
603f6e76e4b62ecfe3c44304c02f16e84ac4a244
89195 F20110217_AADALA finn_k_Page_005.jpg
6d7f5c657a70c5d308fc86ef15771dd3
fcffc0f2e3882a4e758125a676f4a8cee7a584b3
40231 F20110217_AADAKN finn_k_Page_116.pro
8a5e418c934be975d6fdbc560a0374bf
8a426b3d2941a48e38b36036435db473ef1b08fb
102677 F20110217_AADALB finn_k_Page_007.jpg
07ba58b26c3ad5b7e67908f89ab15403
fc58f3512c0772af690f0dfb8a510a9537d0acf1
52414 F20110217_AADAJZ finn_k_Page_098.pro
5de27e5584cc4d30735c0499ff7caa2b
f11a9405d204d1992c43807f1ebcbf69136bf2a9
20202 F20110217_AADALC finn_k_Page_008.jpg
1fb34bfea3962c0e5eb7be10995988e5
839c1ba605b9c90f473d404229e0d552bc8e548d
43841 F20110217_AADAKO finn_k_Page_117.pro
3e50d06146c98c3090ac86ada54016e0
ccfd3438e5567db1d4328e04e0192af4facbb889
86202 F20110217_AADALD finn_k_Page_009.jpg
d553e16c22a49058592d1460255680f6
56a829dbcc54e72902f43f947f9b725b8f2236f0
25821 F20110217_AADAKP finn_k_Page_118.pro
163ee62c675156553a564372216795e2
6721412122a85e6b4ee7ddc8103756e80eda74e9
85621 F20110217_AADALE finn_k_Page_010.jpg
848b4715b583ca884849a28af0ad7556
98e8df24723009e2a74232adc7f822972abd649a
35469 F20110217_AADAKQ finn_k_Page_120.pro
851840d24bd2fd2ffe87ccafff6dda64
28825d07f51647361964b7d8788570feac79604f
17040 F20110217_AADALF finn_k_Page_011.jpg
bdf6bbb8d15c2147f915b905c02f1a9c
9b0c21f8f8bfe4337648b5124e2cd7c9535661e1
30303 F20110217_AADAKR finn_k_Page_123.pro
58cbd8cafcc01f8805d0c59be940de6b
44e1f16a31d8178ebbab8d1d29c07c19628d46ee
72544 F20110217_AADALG finn_k_Page_013.jpg
61e7e9c09d93802a4d36147f17d919ed
06b933aa8bbc3f1bc40d39bc7a774f8ad78896ac
24583 F20110217_AADAKS finn_k_Page_124.pro
8c0c1dac934b2e07ce83e42d8b5248e9
f3dec9511fde26c163b25c9c4c1cc90060646441
98396 F20110217_AADALH finn_k_Page_015.jpg
bfe04738b45399e0788980ff10eac874
1d239e7d2809b16a9897d4d5b9d3d44a86138610
33236 F20110217_AADAKT finn_k_Page_125.pro
19d5ce1a32629f0172d3837eebf5bc85
abeb5328ba3dd32fa92664b96f4d13c82a7acdd5
109252 F20110217_AADALI finn_k_Page_016.jpg
9be928d0e2565852c2fe06e11ef46f2d
5492175fcb27024535696ba978742836c5ed8a16
65101 F20110217_AADAKU finn_k_Page_127.pro
84d75fa837d9ab0c3c244920b2c404c6
a1564197741455e82b427b72200bdc674b9480a3
106239 F20110217_AADALJ finn_k_Page_017.jpg
ef965b12b40490fa7ee4037051f0646e
815e05569461688a836341df5616060c54efa5fd
55999 F20110217_AADAKV finn_k_Page_129.pro
d4f98ee48cbe6947b74e7b25bad31db7
a8ad1c8f11726eb8532bf66b081363c85a44e869
101612 F20110217_AADALK finn_k_Page_018.jpg
3160a210c8c9f5d9a0828d6ae3b4921c
eec141e84854fb7ec86bc6944f615a431a07d20f
23274 F20110217_AADAKW finn_k_Page_001.jpg
113476820d61b1a657fdce46b6280b21
a1b55e349a3c1bf72d097baff9a23b450c77c524
105951 F20110217_AADALL finn_k_Page_019.jpg
30d14546ffab74d9e7c5c418c4c274f8
916e4e26779266d2c0ca9c0a04156e0c44359118
4501 F20110217_AADAKX finn_k_Page_002.jpg
aed697abb78495d3f858d74fd1bd64f0
0958350bfd095caed9692f9f1cfc6a0362a631e4
106215 F20110217_AADAMA finn_k_Page_045.jpg
7dca96b2882acbe4dea0cee116dd504c
8abd759ca267e8844b6dedeff59855c17f15ed70
64546 F20110217_AADALM finn_k_Page_021.jpg
64f447e4379f5e4543e7fe3dd153a93c
549fc6c11430aedd824c0286592abd63952fbc8d
2951 F20110217_AADAKY finn_k_Page_003.jpg
a269548e312b1c497883b395cf94c1e3
606ca62129958832fe5711f7f3f38246a2c8ad8b
80797 F20110217_AADAMB finn_k_Page_047.jpg
64be740f2e2c7e55689a04918e52bcaf
7819c66c8f9c16f2083ba358fc0ecdca7f8101f5
83704 F20110217_AADALN finn_k_Page_022.jpg
ec681428a7f803cf8b50660dde9b337d
21938bd9a1c573ee7b77a3d91b52a94d59b1eb92
87843 F20110217_AADAKZ finn_k_Page_004.jpg
5b5febfdf7107f58328b737f7987f16b
d5a7746621040a14a33ea96591d38e2a2365d130
100044 F20110217_AADAMC finn_k_Page_048.jpg
2a8a3cb7bd346cc5375260516d57bcb2
37758f41934665438bedc00e6efd17c4fe91b4ec
101856 F20110217_AADALO finn_k_Page_023.jpg
a2e858bc8e8767b5f1d37e19f241f12e
54b8f62a4406ec7b19031581f9eb8d4ec0f5dd5f
103811 F20110217_AADAMD finn_k_Page_049.jpg
4633f2a030b07cea12c0bc19405b188b
c7036815474eadb23bbfc2e498c510435b88c74b
93355 F20110217_AADALP finn_k_Page_025.jpg
0f77a799e1756a45599a825e8af7ee47
3562167ed0a552abe4d5cb60baf1749307137bc5
103768 F20110217_AADAME finn_k_Page_050.jpg
f48c0ceab0cdb1caf9197ae7a3952cdd
49e6a70028a73f9a5070398313aa27068c3b37fa
85064 F20110217_AADALQ finn_k_Page_027.jpg
2cd1d1176f0ffa075dc19ed1a10f62aa
aa296d34c29f2ed6b061c90cae6c9911e7697d5c
69400 F20110217_AADAMF finn_k_Page_051.jpg
0ea9d243edef2578432e59f15d59515f
b15d6b87060c733d8dce085bb0c1a03c93c635a9
101024 F20110217_AADALR finn_k_Page_030.jpg
d65193d0bf0f097b42efa54afcee0c6a
bee18a1b94601daf47fedc41db26f069354fbdb5
104644 F20110217_AADAMG finn_k_Page_053.jpg
740609db287a015046921761729ac44a
33b6b0cfe6b27cf8c84ac5b44ae92cc888869d99
108068 F20110217_AADALS finn_k_Page_032.jpg
2a15a308c02594e50752e6ab485d5e76
97fd84e70a32fb2ee3e7e3c9abd7f117607fc6c7
79352 F20110217_AADAMH finn_k_Page_055.jpg
77427df6142c693cad76a4c456178712
50a36e4b3a75479b5fcd61544c503b597c351bf9
104790 F20110217_AADALT finn_k_Page_036.jpg
aa305d73d2e1273478c2dc8d603c5f85
732caffa275f6dd37a85d7a750aca1bacd4151d7
101811 F20110217_AADAMI finn_k_Page_057.jpg
c63763559417ec320988089a47128c79
b7b79f07b94c4732b5472a51c5576ba8b3041444
105733 F20110217_AADALU finn_k_Page_037.jpg
ae22fb9e990870f3528ba04ac3da5550
f98dd59af191158236158c1116253f2ff6b9000a
93082 F20110217_AADAMJ finn_k_Page_060.jpg
9282833faf68a66944be20cee201cacb
ae01d72391b8f6768d4d011da1b7a60ce925de76
105236 F20110217_AADALV finn_k_Page_038.jpg
f9c3eaafc75926c8e9b9a67d36ebca80
bb2a9d647d717406ed9f15ada7603d7d6712ce70
96109 F20110217_AADAMK finn_k_Page_063.jpg
55ef1a6e043276fe0ff02ed4c4474f94
72e13ae1ec6d2463d61e8040d5269fef981d05cb
16025 F20110217_AADALW finn_k_Page_039.jpg
e077e9104fc38e036092acf76fc55102
a9accd61ea6defc0007354b6c3f1ada43f85127a
107397 F20110217_AADAML finn_k_Page_064.jpg
f37c6928738fb99b00d694e50e49d79a
ea11806609065307571ec486b987e5abba0ed5a6
102417 F20110217_AADALX finn_k_Page_041.jpg
44803aaf5cb7cc95be4c1e116eb81ec5
0cc69d1c75df84c579fc2a9cc617bdfacda698dc
96251 F20110217_AADAMM finn_k_Page_065.jpg
de498838a7ea632941471c1fe9d861c9
f72a7a416d9f5550a7888a579bd0038492fb10a5
98811 F20110217_AADALY finn_k_Page_043.jpg
2e745735a430bdd8a0ee8a443a5b5c33
966487f5629219cbaf8d29f6105589afa76f82dc
102522 F20110217_AADANA finn_k_Page_085.jpg
351518c1707ad0d5bfd15b165f2e4277
af57f98c071d5078d655c2969dc516e2f749c7d2
97849 F20110217_AADAMN finn_k_Page_066.jpg
3014ab1a3eb3872c10da8b61975f6201
cef3e3a55eaba75f61bc54d6a3251b2a2be301d0
105970 F20110217_AADALZ finn_k_Page_044.jpg
984bd488aafa7f1365b7a5b68bdac4b1
6d5d8ee4bda29f0fb4c54b9568bc973617ae1e23
95235 F20110217_AADANB finn_k_Page_086.jpg
efcd806ceb82ade7d34689533e3d2e85
570829b5b2c849eb9a1d67c83882c04daa2a57d9
78871 F20110217_AADAMO finn_k_Page_071.jpg
17b18fced5e783e3d23ccca975e40dd4
b6c636f952c5b584c5d4b97b838c96b6f681ac35
103574 F20110217_AADANC finn_k_Page_087.jpg
4eddab6069f945c1059cf72b96dee170
f59c8505649c42159f16bf8e4e6e9767591300d7
80389 F20110217_AADAMP finn_k_Page_072.jpg
1671f6fb2d9253690479c6be0c515b09
4349a8e0e87849bb524b094d613578b8512d4983
108289 F20110217_AADAND finn_k_Page_089.jpg
7585d71201c64d9fd6193379b4499802
78f1aa298bd40709a1421cbf42f9e1414dfdf457
84552 F20110217_AADAMQ finn_k_Page_073.jpg
42036aedf26c6ede5dec2e1b6f04e8b5
f0fc3daa34673a300756d6741ac32805ba53d252
106334 F20110217_AADANE finn_k_Page_091.jpg
e3616ec42913d2f76a355fcb9d77e3ae
32544732da8aa49f5d306d73f82c4c093aae5866
74530 F20110217_AADAMR finn_k_Page_074.jpg
e4b31b6b31ddc25e5f1510c5db2679df
bfcdb38d9cf7bc5d73c21d6838eea7813dcadf43
92267 F20110217_AADANF finn_k_Page_093.jpg
3c972dddb4af708225131a39e2c3c09d
662f97321d094d903f6ec92196d8cbaebf5a3f4e
68989 F20110217_AADAMS finn_k_Page_075.jpg
51cf398853c9ccd62f8b62340d0ddfb5
86073f16e265efaa7f10c95cae4d311d9ed3ddd4
94846 F20110217_AADANG finn_k_Page_094.jpg
162a1a0287f7c85d01e696f783a03e19
bac09759dfc954f7e9c3ba752637a8d1ac8d9720
86689 F20110217_AADAMT finn_k_Page_077.jpg
3a8652ed2a4ed2dba75356685be92f3f
f80bfb63e8b5cd01bfb2b7f7ef41db5d291f682d
88426 F20110217_AADANH finn_k_Page_095.jpg
44c3767d3c582b6cd387995e39e4dc03
1e20f3d7f5a35bc0aac68eceaa54f1454fdc254e
23633 F20110217_AADAMU finn_k_Page_078.jpg
e1695dcccaf04604fc964274dbb51014
5a494a7b0a6e5182ba1892241bce2fa4771926ce
89744 F20110217_AADANI finn_k_Page_096.jpg
829045e6ef83a592a4d0cf76f9a88cfe
0daf07d05faff2e27e613b8b31b8820fd78f40eb
57861 F20110217_AADAMV finn_k_Page_079.jpg
bea71632bee112e9860d7c527080dc7b
27dbf122921463f94c58d3e84674954e995f3092
106103 F20110217_AADANJ finn_k_Page_099.jpg
bdbd5f4258e854849f90e7d0dbf01872
797df66a46e8efa2a63875ec3b96eaf2ab6fabb9
87423 F20110217_AADAMW finn_k_Page_080.jpg
336bccef198fa932883f6cbfdbfb2980
5fe78daa5095530900c67d826ef557ca1f6da0ef
101574 F20110217_AADANK finn_k_Page_100.jpg
dd81a4316ea05672dd8006935463eab3
14c1384fb82199e4b2371fed1bd818a43a4d17ac
86983 F20110217_AADAMX finn_k_Page_081.jpg
2c7476ef57ad2361424750080380ed34
feaaa318c9f011bd263ff64a18281f3da4d8ebe7
95476 F20110217_AADANL finn_k_Page_101.jpg
b32089320218884ba7a116e99c7bee2a
a15d8ea43e9d28d51cc54a88e37cf0da2d7901ce
98982 F20110217_AADAMY finn_k_Page_082.jpg
2ec9cc15cfeef0d5e2e8d1cb2a5c6d23
33753cc363c3ad5d908dd57359708811422a8aab
56813 F20110217_AADAOA finn_k_Page_122.jpg
e0d9de43e05b6f1ec72edfa3e8fb7953
738204a33d64db9cfff880829bc117dd2ec44831
92523 F20110217_AADANM finn_k_Page_102.jpg
70ae98723193529b580697bb667569cd
0df511ebed8baf8b775b5875f6c2e546c705658a
105462 F20110217_AADAMZ finn_k_Page_083.jpg
52fa6d10f3a8a530268ccdfb8c379b0b
c3cdc743b5b81b2906f48e76bb54ec1300c455e3
61658 F20110217_AADAOB finn_k_Page_123.jpg
61f7ae6ff214a183073a1a37e80531f1
69f787d76137787991a25465e21cd99d8472dd95
40783 F20110217_AADANN finn_k_Page_104.jpg
44b3f0c448881f0bf602d09bb3d237d5
a049004f3a14d1ad5dce8edb9cfa52ffd68fa718
76871 F20110217_AADAOC finn_k_Page_125.jpg
340632bfe376c5d276547089d8d9fe4e
8fc0bb72c2961c02f815b4043738fa0bf868e7a4
59614 F20110217_AADANO finn_k_Page_105.jpg
abd6296dc4980f3c6bf9589cd39c3364
5ebea057e9b6c5c03251bcb0874614f73ac8be69
122073 F20110217_AADAOD finn_k_Page_128.jpg
4ce78c983deb4d33be4fe6a9e3a2ee8a
8cb70103e9e620b73ac2c4791958e44feead19e7
76645 F20110217_AADANP finn_k_Page_107.jpg
81ca8656183efc0182463c69fc9edf4c
21238b92279d644d2ab9e92e3c6a59631fae2eda
111546 F20110217_AADAOE finn_k_Page_129.jpg
b9fe342a37507b7ea01c00f148885e80
003806e5366e69dc20ce9825272fd22f2313cdb6
46644 F20110217_AADANQ finn_k_Page_110.jpg
eb70049525143394810712a086af6646
90340d4e6a25c3e1a957967abed33ca125fa3423
33895 F20110217_AADAOF finn_k_Page_130.jpg
c18ec63a3571978979fb012ef06951d5
a96800de6dd66a8e3abb22639a429e13c830ac87
98790 F20110217_AADANR finn_k_Page_112.jpg
b95b932d5f596f3f5f9669f002ed798f
496688c2300839eda4814331fce60ccf44a019d4
26070 F20110217_AADAOG finn_k_Page_002.jp2
e8af7f53320b66056bfbfc032abcf888
2f26eafeb7fd16e32d08fc376dfe7b4caa0fb8f9
114239 F20110217_AADANS finn_k_Page_113.jpg
513356c7af08bf45e45d932c53e22609
c692a06de87581c7dfa0a127ce79c8c9d0f2d86d
11061 F20110217_AADAOH finn_k_Page_003.jp2
65b253da938d8cf3db78a759b6a2b67f
d6ba4b9483f2760de87cec1aef6f92f15abd1f42
42923 F20110217_AADANT finn_k_Page_114.jpg
428f6d2da6a35f36220074cbb27ddbe1
3d230739c509aac97f02f14dcb0c976a6700e895
945847 F20110217_AADAOI finn_k_Page_004.jp2
883275c0618f2b7d6f6729d53031c282
3060e96378079893e05a673fe1ba37b9884fcdfb
51621 F20110217_AADANU finn_k_Page_115.jpg
3bb005ed0f7e925c77ebb1fe7e11d343
12c910db0e0049f7ec200b84a48bc5ef2a89ab7e
939127 F20110217_AADAOJ finn_k_Page_010.jp2
0e11c025567492998868374719933722
5d4e3687b15919e437995195e01416b87a57b629
79848 F20110217_AADANV finn_k_Page_116.jpg
47f1eaed4aa78ea17b665de5039b6cb5
8ea57b0d9eab5e50d2ce655824cf528e449116f5
162592 F20110217_AADAOK finn_k_Page_011.jp2
16f5cd63eb7d598619c4793f72a8070f
4640e92bca38d4b6ce67f655565802ce86cfef42
88590 F20110217_AADANW finn_k_Page_117.jpg
e7803bfae4b4720a66aad25bca588197
a712ff6c9634ab65e54be79df9634de6251c7a7b
869294 F20110217_AADAOL finn_k_Page_012.jp2
b58517247aae003c9e74862ad87dac22
2fc497f71ec7b97a55fc2214e7e2158099f65b3a
59146 F20110217_AADANX finn_k_Page_118.jpg
11b1ff1ddb0360213374b0faadaa013f
e4b8cd39e767ce57b74784c78a910c8ba0df788a
1051984 F20110217_AADAPA finn_k_Page_030.jp2
a298eb3ad3d60998b90665130cc7c8ea
ede13987792e62596226bc09b590d33255228b64
791953 F20110217_AADAOM finn_k_Page_013.jp2
5b1ea2df36ab1ed641dd76b68991e386
2bdc9d47fda1a68a900ee83bd56f812ca3baea9e
71498 F20110217_AADANY finn_k_Page_119.jpg
b6318dbdb73432e26ac5b9473f69995e
d81ed648b26fde9197569f9aa7452db4ec39b755
1051904 F20110217_AADAPB finn_k_Page_031.jp2
4238b5f981ca77f15f097c67f2ec1e41
216371ef023365e931f3546e1d78e50413fa5d04
919669 F20110217_AADAON finn_k_Page_014.jp2
2cbfab6564b79b476fc7bd5b3d92da2a
37c3a9edc56cd72226ae6861b173f560932c46f7
85864 F20110217_AADANZ finn_k_Page_121.jpg
4d3b23df9c7a679c435fdcae0b423237
11196ef13bb338f2e362c0640ac6b7bd374239c8
1051983 F20110217_AADAPC finn_k_Page_032.jp2
022e8cc3c3d9c9f574bda61bedb2c30a
28fb05f95fc1493432787d5f699852d52f0c72b1
1051974 F20110217_AADAOO finn_k_Page_015.jp2
5b4a6526e58c3ffa76cc1991e1f4c921
aef186a0f72efa49f0a61cb9fcd201141b5bc1a9
490 F20110217_AACZQA finn_k_Page_111.txt
cb36f2570c964aabe4b12b399317641c
68c2bb15f42be08c7364c86bf75ad95501dd969d
1051939 F20110217_AADAPD finn_k_Page_033.jp2
202b66367323137403df1b932303d8e6
f6819b7cecc46cc7c05a8011f0ac90bfb51370a6
1051978 F20110217_AADAOP finn_k_Page_017.jp2
66de87625c74a4b7b09eec13aa01c5f5
fc861d4121ce5719f7d3c0618c04be8615d6e052
F20110217_AACZQB finn_k_Page_042.tif
5022fb0382c4790274cd083b391aae87
2f81ba3569cfbfc6f3ac235ce509ef02ead03182
1051979 F20110217_AADAPE finn_k_Page_034.jp2
cf538d82ad03d71531874aad624c39a4
08aab482e8305e9ce4e1f5c8457ea845d5129cc7
1051960 F20110217_AADAOQ finn_k_Page_018.jp2
dc908959afc4bc5942384dd00a40629d
73c2ceeee49c7336509210b578a8aa04b77e9935
111 F20110217_AACZQC finn_k_Page_002.txt
20f94eea4f8f012bfed129c1c2fe93ea
a113dc1ae454ab14ab279a87b26bf6ffc016243f
F20110217_AADAPF finn_k_Page_037.jp2
bae40ad6f150b360cdbfa017e27ea11b
4a85bbc522ec8cb35dd266e8b7aab6de2c724d50
1051977 F20110217_AADAOR finn_k_Page_019.jp2
4fb91b3a78cd17f8810a8396f30d824a
876cf99cee532e8997a71b4ce019ed9e36c57290
954417 F20110217_AACZQD finn_k_Page_005.jp2
181fdadfdcad96731ac3d660e0b69edf
b0e43aecf567b1e73e22c16a604fde35181c43d7
147896 F20110217_AADAPG finn_k_Page_039.jp2
a90d4601cf8586caae38a1c16b297725
4d234cab81b987fcce02571707761ca81999d0b5
F20110217_AADAOS finn_k_Page_020.jp2
fa60bcd75edc1ad648c965ce9bd146ac
09bad7f624311a45198f16444a11cb2ba4bd45f5
30946 F20110217_AACZQE finn_k_Page_129.QC.jpg
7bb8c59b6caeae65adfc24826d8affd3
dd800fa25f16d1277d07fd819a2dba06a543f539
877058 F20110217_AADAPH finn_k_Page_040.jp2
d2918c3a19b3ca6dc8157aff695e637a
f384172cd0ddc8a7ee60b5cfeddd1719b36fa31a
697143 F20110217_AADAOT finn_k_Page_021.jp2
0b54ab4c10cdb03320a684ee8efce389
87338d54e512a215093d41b990bd92e3c69b0176
42336 F20110217_AACZQF finn_k_Page_027.pro
66606ef5cbc753eeddae00c9bf75c398
de58bc00fd2d45233c77988cf4fef570407bb87b
F20110217_AADAPI finn_k_Page_041.jp2
1cdbb799024c0dab42ab928aab49186d
ab5cf580053872f513f65f08ef5632b73ffbc4ae
899282 F20110217_AADAOU finn_k_Page_022.jp2
a1ec8c758e72de8b9d06c2ce0d9df2c1
4a7aa801cb117f25c23c68cdde50f8790989b02e
98462 F20110217_AACZPS finn_k_Page_126.jpg
3fde9528bc611e41826101cd03db3420
ed6054e7425fec93b95fd4ea0136add9965fa14f
1051928 F20110217_AADAPJ finn_k_Page_042.jp2
817de10ed8d0be2cec75572c943cf717
a91f2c725f287fffdff931f7a8129a197a931e67
1051972 F20110217_AADAOV finn_k_Page_023.jp2
3d2a045aa1fc851bab01ca0fe2d6206c
05fcc95460c162c57cd6a996a4f56c3ee70b72ac
F20110217_AACZQG finn_k_Page_026.tif
cbba812b5da1d6c7511db1bfc86f1d53
bb96bb4b5a063954d278896e009a9657d1750770
108444 F20110217_AACZPT finn_k_Page_024.jpg
688aa327bd5367559433aaa74ce4a604
e5d67f195627813bb7c790857b086e5b9e29e22c
1051969 F20110217_AADAPK finn_k_Page_044.jp2
84929e3eabaf71c347924fe7af1208af
9e6ec18fd7b9dbc35ff8e2828fbc2e337f7bfe98
1051976 F20110217_AADAOW finn_k_Page_024.jp2
8da9776a09cddaf76631ca04d24c9af3
55a89f105213c4ad7a34adfa81047f46292437a4
105976 F20110217_AACZQH finn_k_Page_098.jpg
bbe0a5b79c7e271ff03c2d26b3bba4d7
a8886bdbb57ecae4cb8b249ac79addf9742bfeb0
930219 F20110217_AADAOX finn_k_Page_026.jp2
7438321f85ce98512048eebd8dbe18de
04fecd379fefca1cba81fe84f699353db2c675cb
31067 F20110217_AACZQI finn_k_Page_069.QC.jpg
dd3bde8a374f2fd7616e9d8ec0dfd13b
04995add13aa572dce7f9c16372af5d6fe13c781
842118 F20110217_AACZPU finn_k_Page_055.jp2
f8307bce80c2c7994f0534350b9f6cb8
f91460bc2183bd3a2481fd7e1d866a3eccee7101
1051971 F20110217_AADAPL finn_k_Page_045.jp2
a02ecbf23127c9c7e07fe487b158a8a8
6e03c573f5b7f0b41954a06c0029dda175686253
926211 F20110217_AADAOY finn_k_Page_027.jp2
d277cadcf7f7f08d56c9c7bb55866e6f
269bec77e30bade0bd4f772d61a6871565b0a375
F20110217_AACZQJ finn_k_Page_021.tif
b0bccf96de2f26703b3dad6d58409e71
dfb0b22311122297e6e094abc693835993e24dcd
1051985 F20110217_AADAQA finn_k_Page_064.jp2
9633f7288d4fd6ef2df58824ee625a28
0910cf19844fb5501ca1d11edd613b307a4af1e5
79193 F20110217_AACZPV finn_k_Page_012.jpg
d426a5d02290b176b92c1534d0b3fc38
781ea9b39fe9bd55a53178bc822e49c02c4100d3
768939 F20110217_AADAPM finn_k_Page_046.jp2
d3a0c2029a03743d0bc0741f884a83bf
bb26a84f086eaa142edfef163f8a642f49c93685
1051956 F20110217_AADAOZ finn_k_Page_029.jp2
cf203fe435473fb660b92fc5d6fb0ada
bcb3420b5ee5184ac1adf0266bde1725893256dd
2054 F20110217_AACZQK finn_k_Page_064.txt
7b0042b9a7aa50b96b94fe22ef732103
6bb6f6d142a71e2034dfa8f6ce2f179fff8ab333
1051966 F20110217_AADAQB finn_k_Page_065.jp2
a89003b7065b22cb525e0b7e41dbfb8c
4ce0098fd8ba41b8e2229a6d72b2657aa2b80536
66 F20110217_AACZPW finn_k_Page_003.txt
ef70f1a4f94959bd0871de15dd7a46dd
2dca1819b809bec40bc54a4b66e74c0e5d829e56
885493 F20110217_AADAPN finn_k_Page_047.jp2
9f9274c8c1fc0434b3880f92a7a80c49
6df8e66f080fd92d7fd6027f997a580549e8e35a
31322 F20110217_AACZRA finn_k_Page_020.QC.jpg
e418c3e6a7fc182eac415a2c1634796b
27b97d2053b335b495d6f3fa985932e1f2c34553
97664 F20110217_AACZQL finn_k_Page_069.jpg
21fee4bad1f8473f8fa555359fb09d52
dbdcf761c86fd3865cfd770d002699a244175c69
1051927 F20110217_AADAQC finn_k_Page_067.jp2
c275ae26613b9e4493827ad73ccb93ba
3569961ae5aae149f70678649750774dd15241c8
1051982 F20110217_AACZPX finn_k_Page_066.jp2
ace1422bbe13a9145a8f5452cc6d16d5
c3592e5780fe9eb8228dc5836560cab1666144d0
1051963 F20110217_AADAPO finn_k_Page_048.jp2
7ea0868327b9a1de821e0d6e930d9029
eb1c0869fe2dc1344d596eeb6dc42881f57fbfa2
219572 F20110217_AACZRB finn_k_Page_001.jp2
27c2c318c912147ffb570fbd701c838b
80c668374e786b7684278aa080725ab9a26fea35
F20110217_AACZQM finn_k_Page_050.jp2
774c698b50995469796ee0e83f9e7ddf
95ba85b0e91b8dd0517c6738820b9d62116e2939
1024277 F20110217_AADAQD finn_k_Page_068.jp2
5f20ab8414c4bb0b9a45e107fd7b8a10
c519f947ec0d26673589b5781ab121d1fdf0e157
35022 F20110217_AACZPY finn_k_Page_098.QC.jpg
0aa089b0fef74fb05705a7451213daf9
f4e79d77db389920221c099e3e698b4eea6dd366
1051936 F20110217_AADAPP finn_k_Page_049.jp2
141ce9dfb8032a0a097eeae44ea2a71c
3df5553d917e9095036d953cc979139116e2b1d3
33364 F20110217_AACZRC finn_k_Page_033.QC.jpg
2420ac0f90be715dab0c2ccbeb1985a1
cb8c3ad2464007c864c5a95efcf70cf8310aadc8
6455 F20110217_AACZQN finn_k_Page_121thm.jpg
56e106e36ec43cc7cb1c31c305effe1d
0fbd8cc064174d70ad10429886cdd01946a7be7f
1051947 F20110217_AADAQE finn_k_Page_069.jp2
c56f93f595dfef2534653f4b446d2fb1
614e5e4400386733e5862782e1f878fe7d9bfcaf
49610 F20110217_AACZPZ finn_k_Page_064.pro
ee8e14ff4272ed11be0531ef09dd059d
94a8c93de0cd4fe2d599adbf83d3f4dcedff1da8
725775 F20110217_AADAPQ finn_k_Page_051.jp2
a6915ad55defc81d9a88d5b6f71cf996
648e3a9d1b88f55d93d506202f5477d1cfbe2266
F20110217_AACZRD finn_k_Page_038.txt
bf1f845c4de66337f6b3599316d994c1
5b74552608566cd70d49d041e7eb2e207ff00689
49233 F20110217_AACZQO finn_k_Page_126.pro
e250979c21a0f168f2e067818a95a680
b99c78ad43dad523d573df55493b156c0cd3922c
853794 F20110217_AADAQF finn_k_Page_071.jp2
5fb6c3903b3d2d2c3b02702726a2c2c5
e601257941209d5521ad5975d0e37db3e0ffdab1
775306 F20110217_AADAPR finn_k_Page_052.jp2
f2eb5c955a13b34faeeb1af232c1e861
c80dc1e8a8d0e17bb5e989dbaf966b1accd91599
F20110217_AACZRE finn_k_Page_012.tif
6256d5a0f0e4f0a91100317cc8633423
f71ec41fdf26613c432e38621c81e1a2685cd221
1051965 F20110217_AACZQP finn_k_Page_016.jp2
07b8aac4453277c2258893b0526d53d0
54658ceaceda56863fe1ab9079d4cb7cb0655b23
725000 F20110217_AADAQG finn_k_Page_075.jp2
d33a15ad8ffed521dad6e2166392eef9
6c126e10ab46103f63c61eacadd16e27b181cec8
1051952 F20110217_AADAPS finn_k_Page_053.jp2
20e38493337431de922b4ec2d2d8a5f4
8f5f3d0212e2a1e4b74f2b21a619b245edadc3da
F20110217_AACZRF finn_k_Page_084.jp2
cd78b1f0f022f73fd32fbc40c6d5f656
91c20e8d5139359986c3841e808a7326737ac7bd
104046 F20110217_AACZQQ finn_k_Page_084.jpg
0b2f6140ffa06723edb6e375d363d140
953335d94fc6d934aa6fd021305b593e5473f131
855517 F20110217_AADAQH finn_k_Page_076.jp2
c0dfb87bdd636065a6293d1cc6ae3dba
1d8b667da9a4ffbb922f9b4a3fe06aa7660a4b84
1051915 F20110217_AADAPT finn_k_Page_054.jp2
cbc5fe23ad82b8053c97fd7cb6f1fa60
8cc5064cc0de5d6b9a770d32d58dfdc1c51e05bb
F20110217_AACZRG finn_k_Page_104.tif
3e36475d2ec614279ce97b106aa54aef
b833fa20a3bd7ffb3c6d82380c54baca1d817a18
F20110217_AACZQR finn_k_Page_083.tif
6d41903c6324c4a8153aa82512b20b2a
e6f74bd0a08d7cc52a61b5641aa6f83ed50d9d33
234645 F20110217_AADAQI finn_k_Page_078.jp2
9ff36c684f12897c9d8c068c23c70834
ea552a8a66fab41addcb5b2a88f2a764de038dc8
F20110217_AADAPU finn_k_Page_056.jp2
4df9a2bea7586c8415753e4fd1a54469
7ac0cbfef05374a899ab9fa50585d0734039da19
1300 F20110217_AACZQS finn_k_Page_051.txt
8792a4cad687be4607f8334686fbc0cf
51c781ea2a0fda9f9f4e29e64809643b86160511
600745 F20110217_AADAQJ finn_k_Page_079.jp2
39f3e874c02e83a7da28e0dff28c0d96
0e715bb6b4d9232f384cba64bb1e544c253e11c2
F20110217_AADAPV finn_k_Page_057.jp2
28a54b78b6b77169face8f84580a50ef
fdd5f22afee730bc9bc801a109483410b73d345c
F20110217_AACZRH finn_k_Page_028.tif
d25c11991977144541fe6260a224ec86
927ed1528090d1ce2a561aa9f2dd8ec715fd4793
34380 F20110217_AACZQT finn_k_Page_091.QC.jpg
c2a4fa5378cbcc0804a2bf60450b1e16
382a0e28a23d6868a36e24321ef3ab719ce93d00
957679 F20110217_AADAQK finn_k_Page_080.jp2
66b08430baf5ca25b314cea33487cd00
1e28b1c553b0e27806cdf6c1d43eae195609c0d3
952725 F20110217_AADAPW finn_k_Page_058.jp2
bc471dc5a26c06d9459342d4152e0acd
24b171f8c1e824ef8050eee3d93d4ffba941e943
363 F20110217_AACZRI finn_k_Page_003thm.jpg
8d8decd3571146fa1be557c8452a08ba
2ce42bb99e0f7ed6976309f84343ef2f5494f015
1009449 F20110217_AADARA finn_k_Page_102.jp2
1b213914ceaf72af4fdee12d4c1479d8
ab51f677a9318cc35f1da3ceb8b0403ff780c5c0
F20110217_AACZQU finn_k_Page_064.tif
e55fd235dc83de9ae0a23e39df120326
306e0116802b33073f020afb74e3f1e23d56d605
945845 F20110217_AADAQL finn_k_Page_081.jp2
fc72264b95714786f5c80f3deb678115
14a82e4f455763bacfb9a3a9e98e784bdb3dff8c
F20110217_AADAPX finn_k_Page_061.jp2
4e215c9bdec56beb1058d57f974cf88b
1d89dd08a642587f4b5da8f2df5a2ebf1bbbc2d1
83865 F20110217_AACZRJ finn_k_Page_014.jpg
b63920c63f75e5f4245712bdbcd30450
5120eb63307604b94e20744a06043dfc70320b71
44344 F20110217_AACZQV finn_k_Page_093.pro
fbd9e9f8272d5684cd6c518b86c61f1e
0b3bf023034f373808ea88c04e865103fc0e4375
1051964 F20110217_AADAQM finn_k_Page_082.jp2
bc850fbbd20b6bfa1d59cf75c1178f24
ab7697877feb227593467afbc918b6c04fbc9ce8
522064 F20110217_AADAPY finn_k_Page_062.jp2
81041c0c5377923b7bedc1f6c2b519fd
7bc8a0ebd34349c8a74cc6dacf4eddfb4eb7aeaf
F20110217_AACZRK finn_k_Page_130.tif
263fc2dc70222336e452e070fc8a1b3d
0ebbf650e63bd4c66a02895066c7027dd048919a
391429 F20110217_AADARB finn_k_Page_104.jp2
bf8d0d9a86515c11c3a81f8cd51096a1
ebafd9f5df3354ca124fe83ad023b29201ce80b5
54635 F20110217_AACZQW finn_k_Page_029.pro
09641e5157395cde051091ee632933f7
37cf6486ba2f8b7f72deb41c8c2c5e6b677e9435
1047576 F20110217_AADAQN finn_k_Page_086.jp2
cc8fa551ea3737cabe0467535638c3e7
dc08adae6cfde57022deb2eb99adb5384cec3b6f
1015002 F20110217_AADAPZ finn_k_Page_063.jp2
c2c4ce099865038d7629153fa38b1254
a82262c908646e0659b68747fba17d836383f28a
53272 F20110217_AACZRL finn_k_Page_045.pro
4e83c6f11e17dfd703e62cddfbb64155
2fd6420111a3455d91ca2db618197d568921bca1
763164 F20110217_AADARC finn_k_Page_106.jp2
c45cd9d32b317f439d06c040a956f9a6
f301d3002579136621bc8db0ac0e54da86ae146e
1969 F20110217_AACZQX finn_k_Page_082.txt
7211e88f81539eec531e6a375a7dd7b5
64f14de7c8346c84535ea2701e0b638e73047460
1051962 F20110217_AADAQO finn_k_Page_088.jp2
5a346fbcf3d9da81be4a4fa076e4081d
2c63b18b4c5269f953f56de91025cf2583f174a5
49562 F20110217_AACZSA finn_k_Page_041.pro
e0dc89ca6289ce20fd4aa64ac17154ba
030181ff45c5fe1d6cdd9f8ce684f330259cc21b
927933 F20110217_AACZRM finn_k_Page_077.jp2
b18304ea9f1d9d3b43378dc5597b50f9
81960f681441bf2843efd51c7d9080ef8c263ff2
496641 F20110217_AADARD finn_k_Page_108.jp2
8c0b45fb0d80e5a38c5e662cb533da43
c6a2103d18d938dc2ccbddea78a8e89e76cf756d
48701 F20110217_AACZQY finn_k_Page_097.pro
8e9f2fdf3a6924082c348763fb59d2e3
1ce3d3804d72d3e4f18b73d27185a31f643a12fd
F20110217_AADAQP finn_k_Page_089.jp2
3d3d5433bc442939bb6db3180ca3cf8a
a1a70a6fe411a8da4d4bbdd91801d69258b66590
7183 F20110217_AACZSB finn_k_Page_126thm.jpg
8f77f12130099450ba2156aaf2f620f0
a6e7449cbebfc1f656ce6ee3312cfb8fc790e707
F20110217_AACZRN finn_k_Page_091.tif
b8bf18b8a021eb2f850631e124681971
b09fb560620d6c3373ec2d111cdd1ee72f9445a3
488076 F20110217_AADARE finn_k_Page_110.jp2
2593397fe24d9bb9d8c600a9fe511da1
bb3182f777a0dd07f2e6722d40de12690f76d72d
17526 F20110217_AACZQZ finn_k_Page_079.QC.jpg
1f0743549aeb38995ec319421c879c60
e908fc10e421b69415e9adec2d5f619f16d4f4a8
650808 F20110217_AADAQQ finn_k_Page_090.jp2
3e200db4a6307c1e1965559d5297355f
bbbf766c51bf95009e780e5d6c6e1327f2c0c8a9
991502 F20110217_AACZSC finn_k_Page_028.jp2
a5c8cbf7d1df717f8e84cf613ab6c5a1
7f8398406cb3928b95c82c903b3dd28f2fd43699
24239 F20110217_AACZRO finn_k_Page_013.QC.jpg
f0ef55102d7e501699134323b1a9a3ed
34808f32660515ddd7543a6fddfd4f397b1292c7
264812 F20110217_AADARF finn_k_Page_111.jp2
f74907d7300387c6d213074642142d3a
640db88debcbe190cfbb9ef61af48cf831e51b82
1051934 F20110217_AADAQR finn_k_Page_091.jp2
2619cac6c406bc33da009a1713d9bedf
82659c3f1d66f217c9f4e47b64a051bbe10d2d8b
F20110217_AACZSD finn_k_Page_067.tif
da4a8339e87c35bdcab82f22a2be7ce4
40317c4d74834148ba61717e7b1070dd841aefe3
91926 F20110217_AACZRP finn_k_Page_028.jpg
3843601b19179088c26b7c04e9688188
f317c6c46c013f5f0918fbc7860bf5b63a5648c5
1051924 F20110217_AADARG finn_k_Page_112.jp2
1e5399a7885ecabe7be801fc299020e7
d109e5f74534d103888d14a3b8616f59657d6966
1051932 F20110217_AADAQS finn_k_Page_092.jp2
35a4ed7acac9acfc8712525332c4fd48
9ea335d11606ede2161547c0014e5658c8c1609b
22473 F20110217_AACZSE finn_k_Page_062.pro
b943beafaa5da5bca89f789dcd6a6559
4e250ea26fdcfad480258222b3b69b9d929ceea2
20357 F20110217_AACZRQ finn_k_Page_124.QC.jpg
fb0af38534df13a899c8f6eca3d8fe3b
df173ffbebc00de87cd756f8838efd518a28df21
1051941 F20110217_AADARH finn_k_Page_113.jp2
89a06a2386e055ae08525e74602d40b3
d7968604c44c19898e6520ebfc09c6f1200619ad
1036136 F20110217_AADAQT finn_k_Page_094.jp2
e1d35a2120268a8a4fe75eda72678a4e
59733375b4952264aac6d56cb13308eaa513d631
50315 F20110217_AACZSF finn_k_Page_034.pro
f47fd9ad6de6f3e8ae0c7cd7bd263817
aae05beac92bdc0516837cbe981c76759f02c5e2
7913 F20110217_AACZRR finn_k_Page_028thm.jpg
c2fc9c457312e2a44383b93ab0c3a751
2089829181b3651a76e074abf70e9835070493c2
442881 F20110217_AADARI finn_k_Page_114.jp2
9260e9491f298dccb375437302f30dee
9f86ab5409ba4247b71bbb7804ce9dbb29a469a7
983788 F20110217_AADAQU finn_k_Page_096.jp2
b75e0b8930efbfb62582242f567fa4a1
d9e5e5a1c28f599fe3df6cca9ff4900f12dd55d4
F20110217_AACZSG finn_k_Page_121.tif
3ea1da53e9a8b8705fbe7eff0ab9ae65
73ad2d3e05ded59f7fb6128e7c94f5e2665cd7d9
14153 F20110217_AACZRS finn_k_Page_114.QC.jpg
021cee7ff2bbc097319fc26c7ba10095
763933f5faff4f4d3e16cb09229cf88917ed5baa
551393 F20110217_AADARJ finn_k_Page_115.jp2
b35883f8765dce21f6f9609ebfec5698
83d73da2c02f6b5ff1659da5f0e183d327eb1ae8
F20110217_AADAQV finn_k_Page_097.jp2
b14a950a76ef4c8663b5878b1c3646af
87a0d41985e87c4eea630239186ece7743e133b4
48577 F20110217_AACZSH finn_k_Page_108.jpg
860fcd15bd434266851dc440a50f2ffd
5201e4b4ebf3f1e7c6e0f39b518972601fc68a6e
F20110217_AACZRT finn_k_Page_035.tif
6753d99a86a80bacf17af55df3a10640
818370057a3669273f0b83e8818a2b35a011136b
872367 F20110217_AADARK finn_k_Page_116.jp2
1235cb594dfcdea57d72e378fe622f09
3a0d7a9c65533bea71a437f144474d0c907c1046
1051893 F20110217_AADAQW finn_k_Page_098.jp2
90ec9b5edd3489674cc9ea1b4eab3039
23198312fc4aad5010d0ea00837251a8a0484a02
40267 F20110217_AACZRU finn_k_Page_073.pro
fbe66c7212779c9ce3d877eb65023acf
feab2ab0aa5c3116888ca85622097b13f11c42c4
760193 F20110217_AADARL finn_k_Page_119.jp2
2a31d30b55186ee2a593dd2029d863e9
6d95abcd80ddba755e0709b345f79342b608ac11
1051961 F20110217_AADAQX finn_k_Page_099.jp2
71bd6ca3f0c5d63d46dddd554cf01938
022924b8128a06a678477eb1515f399121a28137
1938 F20110217_AACZSI finn_k_Page_067.txt
c9bd647e02f0ef546cbb98223724c1f4
e5a86b646446ecd36e51f78387d6e9d0ef6e6b1f
34602 F20110217_AADASA finn_k_Page_045.QC.jpg
612aa418bbb79a429a88f94a0766da8a
0f3f07294ab50b9fb932565cb946a176b8f4a4f1
79517 F20110217_AACZRV finn_k_Page_052.jpg
78727758dc1f38767a18757f34efa37a
9ae105b828a5a340374909d6dbfd50a9a58aeb5a
819385 F20110217_AADARM finn_k_Page_120.jp2
1259096740c93c85a7f3ebb520b3926a
1f32e029124e211ceaf1a464ed45856b91738d0a
1051878 F20110217_AADAQY finn_k_Page_100.jp2
eb800da4a5e981748fc8ffbd4504040d
5577eebb111d88b5a35fa1d7eec7e076895d7f7f
364 F20110217_AACZSJ finn_k_Page_001.txt
43a6db121618d2e51932fd347b96101f
64d45c01e3c3dc593c868f9616a520ec816a3769
8434 F20110217_AADASB finn_k_Page_100thm.jpg
ff657a722e66d0648e2f84ec89815ca5
1926327adecf8c0f8f5cd4f773dc4c922f7cedc0
130961 F20110217_AACZRW finn_k_Page_127.jpg
43e953444e957d179214bd04a7899556
312338713565955b9b168ca7ecec4a9ad369f279
937932 F20110217_AADARN finn_k_Page_121.jp2
58c968f9f044763527ec75f747f458f3
07a66044db27deff480b0ea51e8578ce2eb1bf7e
1051967 F20110217_AADAQZ finn_k_Page_101.jp2
955b6a23f32ef0c42c33661c1557aba9
2a189fcc14045e9e146a90c70423b6fb50665363
F20110217_AACZSK finn_k_Page_107.tif
468d631e475b2ea5fd42b2641ee39b5e
30985bbf29e43b5b7369cd2cf2af89e05a32a247
1051954 F20110217_AACZRX finn_k_Page_129.jp2
b7f144f71e761c14aa0069a6635ae3c8
9c575fc345de0b8bea68354aad1a2f86d3c2e057
572930 F20110217_AADARO finn_k_Page_122.jp2
faf118db558167389472cd08f201eede
4a8d96de1939ae4a76d703926e0313cb317ebde7
F20110217_AACZTA finn_k_Page_114.tif
ab7b540b6dd360d8e9a20d03a18fc2c9
94f5762bbc17266d73a85dc31ae079f1e8359281
6825 F20110217_AACZSL finn_k_Page_047thm.jpg
45b3a6d2554b1845fa8e3cb2dec79249
6969dccf42016fc6d10fc46d4e9619f3eec85fc9
8296 F20110217_AADASC finn_k_Page_029thm.jpg
1cabb820c92603f71892b9f4af2e0c59
c9bf6bc61fbc6fc5af24e5a3419435f45a702527
617655 F20110217_AACZRY finn_k_Page_105.jp2
af0456bf59e5f66defd7e3605907c360
5d6cc8e6018649f5e869184f9dcb183c1c0b68aa
672132 F20110217_AADARP finn_k_Page_123.jp2
b4e2ef553b2a4b607846b5297e74f2f9
3631f47e8fc5cfe306c925a295a0696934e76c4e
100818 F20110217_AACZTB finn_k_Page_054.jpg
a29719afacbbf2ebd3c87b2e9282f2dd
40b987db1899ea023a1a217d3ca2027cbe9c8a37
F20110217_AACZSM finn_k_Page_113.tif
5ad68662d89d5fc486f845fa636b7af4
4e177fb6682b90f98340fe750d04d2d9ed2c1a3b
8139 F20110217_AADASD finn_k_Page_056thm.jpg
fbfc16a5e298c98fdd168121d0262cad
fe8aa3522d6ba6f5e538afc9e8217dca09308c0d
88270 F20110217_AACZRZ finn_k_Page_058.jpg
bc48829b2e97c0e864475fd89379725d
c8b15f79a8aa839296a5a1e0c4bc47f8f60535dc
597208 F20110217_AADARQ finn_k_Page_124.jp2
5cb4a38aaa3e520a275c1e86fcbcb190
b007a9e560d5fcbda6c4e28dcfbe741ef18e18c7
F20110217_AACZTC finn_k_Page_089.tif
a8e27347b0cebccfc323d4c99d29db91
9bade0fa8ee52b6aee08ded50f396d7de57d7db2
80015 F20110217_AACZSN finn_k_Page_076.jpg
bc6bc66b0ccb00b43a1e70fac580716d
88cde6c78bdf1fe897170bb2d7e06f11faceb474
7195 F20110217_AADASE finn_k_Page_096thm.jpg
5d00d477e0c6a9b0df535dbcba4df300
9a6ac1ea6378b2ee824d108275ae0f541b077364
772464 F20110217_AADARR finn_k_Page_125.jp2
62dbc27a701f8af51c214928eb3cbc86
80ebefb902f03cac34f8e2b30d4d72a5c7449ca9
26051 F20110217_AACZTD finn_k_Page_047.QC.jpg
d2b43f968ad911646e2d1b8857f6fa05
717f35128bd387045d2d08dd03d67f17b517e592
541682 F20110217_AACZSO finn_k_Page_109.jp2
3277f0eceed778b92768d1bffe265653
05a04fbe842ad5b0840ae5132cb49a6cc1ad6260
32345 F20110217_AADASF finn_k_Page_048.QC.jpg
030add72ceb4b5689e5a348834480e25
918bd1a627937dc70d8dbebd0e91d21734852e9e
F20110217_AADARS finn_k_Page_126.jp2
49799e23d6de8cc9e6289efe76d545a3
ac30a04b9974da407d25e827202bffc8a4b6dc68
F20110217_AACZTE finn_k_Page_035.jp2
c8dd3bc47c12f7637a7025e102f2aae6
b2e7e3bb37ee10c99621b34ad6d30f0f5555f5fa
1546 F20110217_AACZSP finn_k_Page_002.QC.jpg
41378cf4062cd20d13d659ad8c0fe5a6
8cc04c19df8559b652bfbfaab50cda8f983240a7
8418 F20110217_AADASG finn_k_Page_036thm.jpg
8f723a5464bc69050c35af5908495485
1cc80f69ee34882aa09adaaf1a5c4d5bdb918420
F20110217_AADART finn_k_Page_127.jp2
ce545ae4101af72d516a5b3b6974b15b
0fda7027ab0a6ebbf74434f859897909a561e038
24788 F20110217_AACZTF finn_k_Page_079.pro
d434db48fb412ee66bd0e0c9c49f1a4f
8689cb819ba216ef5bb19ac9f8bb0dd4dfa05991
F20110217_AACZSQ finn_k_Page_045.tif
d78f28515e29b5795c6b9f24beb1f545
07080a5c89b63f61340827e7127078ebc2f27f92
7871 F20110217_AADASH finn_k_Page_057thm.jpg
77f3b386f4389388a7ebeeda934fc6ce
56f37c72369676b77fa9972ccda9a26c793a19b2
F20110217_AADARU finn_k_Page_128.jp2
4d444a8afb65145a99e70f0886bf8992
99bf6a5d8305f16d57237ae1713f47d9e06e22ae
F20110217_AACZTG finn_k_Page_044.txt
512346ae4bfcd4358178b227a1e33eea
8a692991e1358fd996a9ee7da0f01c9c5590ddad
29705 F20110217_AACZSR finn_k_Page_111.jpg
c62df630fea6b8909b5540f2218e1530
db07b6b288a905eaacb07b335bb80f6e41130371
5707 F20110217_AADASI finn_k_Page_039.QC.jpg
f3800f75236bfa09b70e4591eec0f4a3
3364bce0247c7de50e4d077b2cc86259fcd58fb6
343275 F20110217_AADARV finn_k_Page_130.jp2
b55579428f90b2985eefe9070cfa1aa7
76614bdf984cd92d55a4391ce9d358e4edebeafa
34172 F20110217_AACZTH finn_k_Page_017.QC.jpg
8545c79a69447178b430390a0b9533ff
e53e8d40bd868bbdd8a54d103727e2804d459cab
F20110217_AACZSS finn_k_Page_098.tif
b5a2dc855fe75649bbfbb6a575743c9a
8ec44b07c9af038065700e658527ed33665f60ca
31069 F20110217_AADASJ finn_k_Page_063.QC.jpg
be5ee0e5280fff7550a75de5b9d82168
d5c4eac4b8391d9543ed95ec1908113734712094
434876 F20110217_AADARW finn_k.pdf
fac9e823b68127df527dcd7d5e463167
78fe2244203baf529f0e0c39fa3c0522b59bf2e6
54570 F20110217_AACZTI finn_k_Page_032.pro
63d2b7dd15b2bdf59d16a965a361be1a
1f5a88f249706e5bd6dbd01b2f77d8b8d2f5024f
34680 F20110217_AACZST finn_k_Page_089.QC.jpg
8de54fe6459fb7048e65260327bbcccb
f9b5ca192772abd4c0dd1f410582e175350d1fe7
8149 F20110217_AADASK finn_k_Page_043thm.jpg
6f4a7ba2a3cc1d7d20f3f99778f075b2
439cec25c61593f94d6404952bcf1d7a03c7706d
31217 F20110217_AADARX finn_k_Page_061.QC.jpg
18a41f81883d61424b8b3f0c241a95c0
9efff13c061a1237e33741b3a6644dece5f7da2a
34524 F20110217_AADATA finn_k_Page_083.QC.jpg
4023cb1105a8827b06187d073da364c4
15920f6cda35191023e629eccd427c186c5b882f
82087 F20110217_AACZSU finn_k_Page_070.jpg
e17156b91303a10698365bfa2336d422
eb773954a027ebd1fd738bfac6ac83d5baf22d85
22723 F20110217_AADASL finn_k_Page_106.QC.jpg
fdb11fc01dd20af20d6986b2d6f98600
85463636a2124cae755963f402210294c593d646
6809 F20110217_AADARY finn_k_Page_040thm.jpg
651e6fec1c3386a6dbd64fb6b52cbf24
866f1a3ada7690d525bf4a9d4f5ddc1926f68edc
3431 F20110217_AACZTJ finn_k_Page_007.txt
6e1c23c608dec754211c500dba3a4682
86015b6fec7f76e06a114625f5f27e9108135b30
32610 F20110217_AADATB finn_k_Page_059.QC.jpg
727e72d4d0b53c64059942385e40333d
37a36795cee5df69fa7e78b972316ea08d2dce07
8563 F20110217_AACZSV finn_k_Page_099thm.jpg
b57ce74052bbfee2b20341e81c511ba3
2d268e11a90536125c9d4a5d0af0bd7ba1a6bf3e
6418 F20110217_AADASM finn_k_Page_072thm.jpg
b7ab74884ce815e304188e75aa73e66f
446f49aa4dcc56c494a7d32efc021eab21094daf
7007 F20110217_AADARZ finn_k_Page_095thm.jpg
ff88835402197b210210b718b05b1923
2dca3e4338cdf9af14fc45732da2c2e8d8325714
2660 F20110217_AACZTK finn_k_Page_006.txt
7d33edcfaa576c615f1129ed0e055606
8e570d69290ee8f30f5286bb50e7c3205508ab44
8394 F20110217_AADATC finn_k_Page_089thm.jpg
1b0e45250568135c5e77ca6d827d83c0
f4fe4d0cd60e0da94518c533fdbc7817a61bbf94
8478 F20110217_AACZSW finn_k_Page_087thm.jpg
735ddc406a5e526ebeee8bf6811cdd1b
bc26f755b984e4b42a924112aa019f51ac764366
34864 F20110217_AADASN finn_k_Page_128.QC.jpg
da44a7bc271f3eef93c8deb82a5d1c3c
772a06ba258da6da2832c3fc7b2195c4977fc5cb
F20110217_AACZUA finn_k_Page_054.txt
44d7bedf7d64018a7618dbc679ba4fe6
28ad3a31f6d3e1f2e58232d6453089f12c74aff0
30660 F20110217_AACZTL finn_k_Page_075.pro
debf6a0ccae0929fa127f6115ee19ff2
f7c3f1b8d46273ecc6f176a69d57355012289a6f
F20110217_AACZSX finn_k_Page_024.tif
81b621ab0b5e891542b5af26b3a1d10d
2a83aed1f9f00d8d075b771612fd7b6b784169d6
6015 F20110217_AADASO finn_k_Page_010thm.jpg
582ccf13dbb1bb8ae40c21a3c8a250ff
65e118b74dc7bd396de330857836fa5eaaadbbea
42054 F20110217_AACZUB finn_k_Page_004.pro
8873953880c1cd0ac56f2e2820dc2331
14b40d875324601aecbec22b90804896fab5de87
40986 F20110217_AACZTM finn_k_Page_121.pro
010cd56b54ff5d38a981e528e352c90a
294d5498389bf3951c48f38fcecd00db7cada80b
22175 F20110217_AADATD finn_k_Page_120.QC.jpg
5140d3fbac09cb5ea7fd619c7fd7ed78
d111d34b3882c81efe36dab9332cc607d8bffc3d
23851 F20110217_AACZSY finn_k_Page_046.QC.jpg
79559a05ce3ad60bd6a60a258b08fd77
a740021f39ba1082b853612d9ed3b27792eb1453
7833 F20110217_AADASP finn_k_Page_101thm.jpg
404de3bc095673ec683719c690c81f86
662b11257b184daa42d839c7ff30aee710aac484
F20110217_AACZUC finn_k_Page_126.tif
d7acd5fc515c82ce41b7cb8b306d7649
c025d32d0e468addab72cc374439129944b22840
47653 F20110217_AACZTN finn_k_Page_101.pro
d0038dbf0747e0b7f79e7654bab547e5
397ff21cf04459162e9845f5ca737596dbe90b7b
2070 F20110217_AADATE finn_k_Page_001thm.jpg
d008ce51a74168dd656fc0d7371cc175
4a549b18d926b07d3c582efdb173ebc8f1ec0bdd
2007 F20110217_AACZSZ finn_k_Page_042.txt
ca25be7d1d57ba5615555d637617aa4a
adff4a969bec3e98c98466dface84bcfa7d6325a
31514 F20110217_AADASQ finn_k_Page_015.QC.jpg
236f0aca58adefd212a8de38bd34f3e7
67584c0b8d5068b544862287afd27d4e42a022ff
F20110217_AACZUD finn_k_Page_069.tif
ae000be5d2eedeb5b7e526051e0692ae
ca935e9694346b193c9f23488a4d8c3c89af63b7
99210 F20110217_AACZTO finn_k_Page_097.jpg
5f6ef7a5949f6b53deb08183a0f7aebc
2c4b7f3ca70cd77d31d033dcfa1e7bcbbe14cd23
29481 F20110217_AADATF finn_k_Page_093.QC.jpg
72c7974a477fb4e2cea6538af3ed4ae2
4a338cb101e945cb61fdee1e53eeb6189a809cc1
7944 F20110217_AADASR finn_k_Page_059thm.jpg
97a379edace806e47b0afe2a64e961a4
b8062944abfd06f627ae3a854f9b5ecfe1393a43
31366 F20110217_AACZUE finn_k_Page_021.pro
9ad0568d85647d30ffae14cd5a89e6d6
a3d9230a6eedcc632dbc7f2b894e8c58440cd605
5182 F20110217_AACZTP finn_k_Page_021thm.jpg
0d9cba60162d0d1059b42025c81d5c28
25cb003cab3a735b0e0051e4fa74009c6d341b8e
7904 F20110217_AADATG finn_k_Page_048thm.jpg
f1b59384a8779880923f48a387146973
51da379b56f94f0b844c909f6eea3c85a222e87b
8449 F20110217_AADASS finn_k_Page_128thm.jpg
dc48e75d90df52a5736208346aa21323
79d4756392076795f7d8724f749e37d72e134ea5
18594 F20110217_AACZUF finn_k_Page_062.QC.jpg
c8d74247c85ffc4c54f6a7d9df9c1615
4d13cf960df715d08bbec4b47e02cb2de9179f75
46869 F20110217_AACZTQ finn_k_Page_020.pro
76c9fbd38e96dc18f033356ec3425941
8408e248962fa3f0bcda1257f31e6cb34de6d2cf
25428 F20110217_AADATH finn_k_Page_070.QC.jpg
924a913d42bc3ff99cdb75780bddd6eb
586dc9f721e3a7b9d1291e541fa904d1b4905c13
24850 F20110217_AADAST finn_k_Page_072.QC.jpg
2a52adb8f56e9d8c218e2ea8af5e91e4
0715ea39d554add31802dfc50c534db853b311c4
31647 F20110217_AACZUG finn_k_Page_043.QC.jpg
bb71a3af57ea2bb3412cc078d62e570f
874952dfd9ca4b0d4c07b4f7f1fa3f3a34fcb408
F20110217_AACZTR finn_k_Page_087.txt
5a2559d69935f2026922dd2c8084b799
026a028dc0b910121e12ac8f11977333d78f9839
28622 F20110217_AADATI finn_k_Page_095.QC.jpg
4eec3021637788e930b854308a420b1e
0a173465d27ee5fd9544a6d8cfc111395dc3564b
20057 F20110217_AADASU finn_k_Page_123.QC.jpg
dfd8bed7a9957ef1b9664c9e45b78be8
95de8ee511dce19e955ae0e81a22b97886a1b19a
46974 F20110217_AACZUH finn_k_Page_067.pro
7e17d6c233a5bcde924567d9cbf154cf
10bd69d03ec6c3fb253afd47d4f40bd40cc738bf
F20110217_AACZTS finn_k_Page_085.jp2
3b84b351718fc580ac3c852c8fd8c747
c6f328b65f9468dfb586578c420f583f30f353c9
7472 F20110217_AADATJ finn_k_Page_093thm.jpg
f39891f31756fa31d21f2ac0a5bab4d7
7f7e9e2b358ef9ee0615dc7df4cd55e11f1b6c5f
18476 F20110217_AADASV finn_k_Page_006.QC.jpg
db54cb1c258a8595f44b282a94e13a0a
6f71e40f6adc6e1db4cd99b4ff14cc1449e4a836
29063 F20110217_AACZUI finn_k_Page_060.QC.jpg
fbdccb47ca452e8b69f7a7fd26085c51
f491829a2e5005c5aad13bfe34efa224edc71496
1882 F20110217_AACZTT finn_k_Page_086.txt
4d5596e3b5143ba8aca6f39e26c1b46f
13027e96405cdc19ab832b18a759d49300e88fd4
5385 F20110217_AADATK finn_k_Page_119thm.jpg
0a08be64727d432eec2ed1286bd21fc0
6a6b1bcd2d5ee840681a2356baaef6128d6d4673
17225 F20110217_AADASW finn_k_Page_108.QC.jpg
b17bc1d552597c3492f2388595e8a933
6925868c5ddebd705eac19f0a817ed5fe7d26fd8
7954 F20110217_AADAUA finn_k_Page_015thm.jpg
acdf86726bf8e0fd5a4c7faf24d356d3
ec67e2814b7d1f939d1a3d8ee0fd0a6ccb9fb3d9
6152 F20110217_AACZUJ finn_k_Page_046thm.jpg
99f2f2dab30b2032d8c567bf5e78ffd9
09b99e4d05b3c91d0a4fbb6b98e058b1f2f6d628
1005285 F20110217_AACZTU finn_k_Page_093.jp2
15f7d48140bdbd4433e53c9db13e42ac
ae664e04f3dd637db40774f259399e6d0f4b567d
8255 F20110217_AADATL finn_k_Page_088thm.jpg
b24e451ae26d54d0f2356f704655a015
5ee5f86d8c46f84048085370d9dfd3049ff144f3
33026 F20110217_AADASX finn_k_Page_018.QC.jpg
e11e31f6676ee320d62ca4031a8f4858
87ee3107bc4450a2f1eb000cb0ea9d1c2dd9bd09
33584 F20110217_AADAUB finn_k_Page_064.QC.jpg
eb2356f9953f27da452670bf3561056c
1706075d6648359b100f8b2c31721bb9d87cb002
34132 F20110217_AACZTV finn_k_Page_037.QC.jpg
3ee7a8682b80a9a8180990ef4d358147
ba73b46fc36a7150ffa81226e3b87d93fae7273f
22726 F20110217_AADATM finn_k_Page_051.QC.jpg
6fa5c176dbbf7d3fc2d80210e7cc5cfe
0a44647ece5ef71c508260c3bde2e18164649900
24848 F20110217_AADASY finn_k_Page_071.QC.jpg
a6ec90d83794a41a7813a20631b181af
2d9b57e89342ca4d72cc3287d36c5736b41b959d
20778 F20110217_AADAUC finn_k_Page_090.QC.jpg
9790798c203be42ddcf60ef17e148991
5eea01acb725ebbfe1d3f91418f07ddc41020b71
F20110217_AACZUK finn_k_Page_065.tif
564e440f4d8338213f34d06f23f9519a
0b5b0cdbee758f713227f390433b22ba542ae04b
103043 F20110217_AACZTW finn_k_Page_088.jpg
5b4a474471ca14cbb3b7e6df6914441c
7f93ea3140c53bfe04e975b7d682ba18fee22dc1
36334 F20110217_AADATN finn_k_Page_127.QC.jpg
5c66cc6d3bda87c629dd916085c491fc
1edef2a1dc19fe9fecbe8c8b58abfa4c534592b1
33451 F20110217_AADASZ finn_k_Page_031.QC.jpg
a985a2b97ca99b66d899832cfdaa240f
cb42f2a4970c5f8aadac0e638a9ea7e5e69c7950
8457 F20110217_AADAUD finn_k_Page_067thm.jpg
4ba5349177fefcb54f09b23b49b9f6f9
f44145cad2c616e220a5f6b00ae22a147aca4565
1821 F20110217_AACZUL finn_k_Page_102.txt
79f433291f0a06980c45d82aa773e93a
6070281a1f4bdc95d64972641dbfc3970fb63254
101359 F20110217_AACZTX finn_k_Page_092.jpg
7f0a8ede785e49be2744a8e11c2f0f58
ed03c373fa6d1612254ad7bb216467f3294a4f2c
33172 F20110217_AADATO finn_k_Page_023.QC.jpg
5973d274fea99b973c41b77d05fd4d9e
6ed9523563d0a585409e29043cdd129b44b9dcec
33773 F20110217_AACZVA finn_k_Page_046.pro
c719c650b5e880e017ad707d36534f58
4a725a2f127ba884b8134cdfca6d47ca09d792fe
2302 F20110217_AACZUM finn_k_Page_129.txt
a6a5f3dd63c9e0c14b8712242af2f9b3
33e53cc6bb0986ad8341cce7aaedfca7f9212052
100312 F20110217_AACZTY finn_k_Page_059.jpg
640c1d9071962f2b4be400a6476bf314
5212eccc9f58177e49438e60b519b339a31199fd
8439 F20110217_AADATP finn_k_Page_084thm.jpg
a23b658194d468aaddc8c8106c9dcb97
2050b78966ab941645300aca6e20a96e537dabf7
F20110217_AACZVB finn_k_Page_005.txt
8e3d359a4347b70a5071af04e43e9158
ea9d5a78c2ea0065133f1b5b414383628760ca36
30906 F20110217_AADAUE finn_k_Page_065.QC.jpg
1b716fa0ce71ed3e19d4b199f4fdf060
38a850d2893c1d1d19ee15a0a3ba34da3814485e
568 F20110217_AACZUN finn_k_Page_003.pro
ed1b2029274abf9246e09f6c5c95a310
bccbc4ddc675cc462e04254f1c894ae1c66f0a3c
7246 F20110217_AACZTZ finn_k_Page_001.QC.jpg
0d6ce2b8e01d442f3dfc49936dddcf1a
b20efbc1a7aa6f0b3d68299d8cc424d3c95629d0
5618 F20110217_AADATQ finn_k_Page_008.QC.jpg
9a1c2538f6ae7b6163b1662ec863ef28
44a146b6ec941ce3ad9dfc63ff92e562fe3c8548
F20110217_AACZVC finn_k_Page_043.jp2
9b9fd1e6294c494a882ac2b06bc6f48a
031c92af2307c23933591d089fe4c4d9e6b2bf7e
627 F20110217_AADAUF finn_k_Page_002thm.jpg
95cb8f095377b33c29ff1a58d99249e1
557dea28a40a2642054f3f0bf8b3cd99d8d951a5
8420 F20110217_AACZUO finn_k_Page_017thm.jpg
251df08469c630501f6eaf82aad4a946
cb6341ad260af1b843de9df0035a0b21ea1d76fa
4494 F20110217_AADATR finn_k_Page_115thm.jpg
e4a0b68cab9fa9110013783d0e1f687a
5f259121c4706939e2c5b55ffa32ce96b9d7ab27
863608 F20110217_AACZVD finn_k_Page_072.jp2
b3db3a8785962d6e098af653cd68bbee
85d2dd1245681fba24bf2954243775aa52b3751b
5805 F20110217_AADAUG finn_k_Page_125thm.jpg
f0a73ebd2dde6648c4bafbe412307469
4b95a4d06a53cf4ad6628eefeb98a5eca1b19c7b
107569 F20110217_AACZUP finn_k_Page_029.jpg
8ec36ba6f26cf93c17e71889fb4e68b2
bb7b5d8a8f911697de3e7a148af0af77a0a737c5
8341 F20110217_AADATS finn_k_Page_018thm.jpg
0aee1adb0a599c2f8e9ec1861658726b
e7100c176d228e84770ca798cf02cb78370235b1
2851 F20110217_AACZVE finn_k_Page_111thm.jpg
f5b5c50e420ee13131a63d5b3f29ff19
bf65eddb36c67a84589a3f7f00326fc389f633f5
15622 F20110217_AADAUH finn_k_Page_115.QC.jpg
5d89c0c22fad5c54e8782d7aeea7de68
1f902f30986896bef99b5da4b7e5587ba9e0f8d7
41610 F20110217_AACZUQ finn_k_Page_026.pro
c3a698527d0e03de22f2f02c582c4586
46b9fdd01cc28663ff16b291fa1305a0f2ba41d0
31074 F20110217_AADATT finn_k_Page_025.QC.jpg
9627cd3fc7257b50e11cf312a597e0d1
f6e530d56c00fae1d67a605018cd81e518c87cfc
51057 F20110217_AACZVF finn_k_Page_109.jpg
b417f76902b73983300a7a745c0ad4c7
d36e0ec5d473ba07014cef23b9da9407d4e36ab4
2921 F20110217_AADAUI finn_k_Page_130thm.jpg
ef17e82d81baeb83a0ad33dedf314c52
f46df7bf5e7c5f7705514d1b202ee7d8986988b1
7414 F20110217_AADATU finn_k_Page_026thm.jpg
dc9e0cc5ffd8b3bd53fe30f4ddc9eecb
2acc37e62e13bc7c55c87adfeea059b213c4a6df
71627 F20110217_AACZVG finn_k_Page_046.jpg
af2555af36c98e327543242ddcdaea0f
d679f6cfb0a3a28300272e15017fab474a8d7eec
189201 F20110217_AACZUR finn_k_Page_008.jp2
f1db26cc1bb2cddc7769c8d3bb9830bb
6a634b23e9a909963105894fa39ec5bc55a9fe99
29939 F20110217_AADAUJ finn_k_Page_102.QC.jpg
92010773b374388f8c5f28126a9935c8
3197b0ee4ea600d93b9712399546a35b65ed0f22
7507 F20110217_AADATV finn_k_Page_005thm.jpg
473f89b4a9706d5572310fa16c6f00b4
2da1add5bd030a1e685de4dd712455fae22a33f3
F20110217_AACZVH finn_k_Page_034.txt
2b2b4beace8bb0ad44bf9568d81e417f
1a19d22c0944a25158740dee5a6b496812863c53
23749 F20110217_AACZUS finn_k_Page_108.pro
a9ecfa46b0cb9470bb1aa1ea9e777aeb
ca4f90c3a71b105855b74046cb58c78167f1eba4
33271 F20110217_AADAUK finn_k_Page_049.QC.jpg
40df191bbb8b7c2126d8e7b268b0e231
9ca6d3bb48bf3d9623df0ca34eff88acf717577b
6123 F20110217_AADATW finn_k_Page_120thm.jpg
ceede8e54b3f269c5fd666f31580ccd3
848f2fa46322b03772c47c4ed4f5b0a2527415ca
82666 F20110217_AACZVI finn_k_Page_040.jpg
4d83596b7511a5a3a95dac164cfc90a3
b8c1dd035ec01fb178b62cefb86822748b7f8c73
927448 F20110217_AACZUT finn_k_Page_073.jp2
c61f9de4238639d1974307979429844c
7df000c153055b0e4fc4b18fbf7c5221558b9d16
20990 F20110217_AADAVA finn_k_Page_021.QC.jpg
36ae3fa527995befffd275457170bb14
115becc5242f093a2554c14d6805d7d110a45ef2
8131 F20110217_AADAUL finn_k_Page_085thm.jpg
e9be035dcae76a843cab8db6606c2082
0ec0cbb3974306946b15f2003af8066b799d1fd5
13074 F20110217_AADATX finn_k_Page_104.QC.jpg
4d8241b40004bb0beaf05bbd8a915126
8ec42b7b1c7f9ccf19263ce253e286d8b989060f
8299 F20110217_AACZVJ finn_k_Page_092thm.jpg
f9e3ea9519ca526704e9a1c3b1150053
f2188a100c220919a4d289bf9b1c79709ae19123
8346 F20110217_AACZUU finn_k_Page_041thm.jpg
ceefaa2744e270496018d7b1eb1ac212
77e28841f4d0d9c016dc4db7d9bf3865dc1bee35
24826 F20110217_AADAVB finn_k_Page_074.QC.jpg
bb6f65bfca6fc4c08d2f98085ef4b6bf
5db53b2649e88387f5a08909ccfd28101b41ac4d
32565 F20110217_AADAUM finn_k_Page_100.QC.jpg
5b9100f09c0f7e76215812c271f9cfb6
027837a67bdc6664d5a7ef26fbf85f02796a75e8
8601 F20110217_AADATY finn_k_Page_045thm.jpg
b6db3a4642c4594a463375b953e32e23
bb835f146bc1a7e34fc6dea9e3df624a5abb4052
33399 F20110217_AACZVK finn_k_Page_029.QC.jpg
bab18af3dedbabdf8d43ec895921963e
e1343154f68d744684a499105c04075d03a9a42f
17880 F20110217_AACZUV finn_k_Page_105.QC.jpg
5d764415ebb5ac2f55957cb712279ccc
91756abb828cce3efd7de5653237f56f5ed7d907
34402 F20110217_AADAVC finn_k_Page_087.QC.jpg
a86947c738a86b8e7ca56e15e6fb8b03
98dc97165da6109ce377d62573f058b1b58a70e6
6375 F20110217_AADAUN finn_k_Page_113thm.jpg
ee8c32255208fd87754d4e9e186d56ba
461a95be9f1189ee3e3015cf874b510bdbc06ef9
34216 F20110217_AADATZ finn_k_Page_042.QC.jpg
71d9685f01ffa6ae8cfc18efb12f897c
ab38938346fd5dcebfb7bf732dbd20979b5e4359
F20110217_AACZUW finn_k_Page_119.tif
24dd59776b39a8ba9a82aec42c4945ac
deedc0a3b0d539a71dd4bf07378543e32dd9a1ce
6715 F20110217_AADAVD finn_k_Page_076thm.jpg
3eb3a25262349e60d5c923258098a97e
dee38c7900c72bf161bcef1480671842d798b0fa
6753 F20110217_AADAUO finn_k_Page_022thm.jpg
bc63896867df1892a42e4a28329ef634
79d60b11b353de92c820be279c57e1d4916f3071
7895 F20110217_AACZWA finn_k_Page_069thm.jpg
89dd609aa90fab9abc40a1fae4caf2fe
225ef645aac9ec32d42322b252512d4e1ef4858f
51176 F20110217_AACZVL finn_k_Page_042.pro
c9a2834c5765d9744c4e065dbebfab71
b7fdf9197188e5d95aad283841d7955a715aadc1
20911 F20110217_AACZUX finn_k_Page_107.QC.jpg
943991838b7924dd6b19d1970c887e19
8c6669c4719e05e1700d02dfe04bbbcdb499760c
31621 F20110217_AADAVE finn_k_Page_066.QC.jpg
1f79854c491396da10e11eb4262bdfbc
b0fbeb90d04fd2de485c0159339f79448bbb009f
27607 F20110217_AADAUP finn_k_Page_073.QC.jpg
15d50ab1ca46944a9f3bb97180155759
92f7f7b3a4a82e0bc42da25333ebe5d33c5bc78a
35879 F20110217_AACZWB finn_k_Page_019.QC.jpg
74a0cca91bb614d88710fc5fcc0ffd18
ac0efe0c934b2e0a7ae733ce51b0019a9115175f
32572 F20110217_AACZVM finn_k_Page_092.QC.jpg
f09f89a379a1d81c8c7df43b6e8dd011
da2706eb8ecb511d9444697c2878a29aea0baa88
103604 F20110217_AACZUY finn_k_Page_067.jpg
a9000ab8ce834b8d0354f59268f1863f
dcd28c6d0ac62825c52a1205c336206dee6ec51b
8726 F20110217_AADAUQ finn_k_Page_127thm.jpg
3ea94843b2cd192bfd3e6ea7dbaff912
ece6f7834d4ed3af7fddb9d2d56e123e9dab5f51
22289 F20110217_AACZWC finn_k_Page_075.QC.jpg
33f38625ac379eac998a70f52317de0c
007ccb16a908b231147a2cfd9a164c6657ddc2da
22968 F20110217_AACZVN finn_k_Page_007.QC.jpg
e7e08ebe723a0d390e43fb15bb05f314
ac5ca51b6e44ecc7aea8050c253253b3d64e9f94
28442 F20110217_AACZUZ finn_k_Page_004.QC.jpg
e801f2590ad7b00b92265bf7ae59731b
ffd2977163ba1aed83a961ff81532365ed41fdbc
7460 F20110217_AADAVF finn_k_Page_060thm.jpg
0cbf3e2f1d9cf303c67732f48be55738
121ecb93ef3c21c3aaa13d3ec6a4edc188bf805f
5125 F20110217_AADAUR finn_k_Page_062thm.jpg
33882a13663cc13fefde4bfd05902213
e4b913ca5aa9e976e1677ae713290d3ffc0910d3
F20110217_AACZWD finn_k_Page_077.tif
58694da09b8bf5cb77412f56a463e9c5
de84349bcd45646e0bb8fb1fff605f27d9f085f5
32456 F20110217_AACZVO finn_k_Page_056.QC.jpg
82e83444934aa3bbfaaf94b0b6fbd47f
c1e8260916e8fb903087a264d6a09fdd431b5e37
8136 F20110217_AADAVG finn_k_Page_034thm.jpg
4198dbecbf35f0fea80776bdc9757171
dd683478b6329602db9e314c3b85d1d840a10adb
5097 F20110217_AADAUS finn_k_Page_011.QC.jpg
69b2035b0e65e604fef086f1a22196de
0088f40c9befbaee92dd5d9b2a72a89ff58a28c3
822049 F20110217_AACZWE finn_k_Page_006.jp2
7ed3d79beb42db0bd223f1bdfa127945
acf1e51c47fa8da38c15e610205f2b6c885cc48e
F20110217_AACZVP finn_k_Page_051.tif
be8a20aa5c6228c4e3975c35ace6ed91
2e96084016fdba3483a5b3848d89628894cc236c
8506 F20110217_AADAVH finn_k_Page_016thm.jpg
a527a1e8c354073a5f53123b9b017483
203623d29b77335cb9fbe5c948a43a3abb3095e8
31528 F20110217_AADAUT finn_k_Page_057.QC.jpg
b0f947bf5749440b81ddbd9000b1ffd6
b22b073172e5f61bddbed55c08aa6859554642c7
831842 F20110217_AACZWF finn_k_Page_107.jp2
268733a5c0b1e7eb2e0cd9a5222341a2
664340565c5dd7ac76e2ba64d78d1b046c2932b1
37509 F20110217_AACZVQ finn_k_Page_070.pro
6583d185f8298ada880239a6f9fc6070
fc5a78f75dd730dbab0445ce0b059a2cb0afcc6b
7297 F20110217_AADAVI finn_k_Page_004thm.jpg
9b9283f28238a5202e3cca7453ab2ba8
d0b8301b4b3ee6826bbc0ea1aaae557f97657f47
33894 F20110217_AADAUU finn_k_Page_053.QC.jpg
5c0ff98c912c572be4c86b0fb15bdcf6
3ecf472e5773904e9c7f4571e6714f9f48010561
1248 F20110217_AACZWG finn_k_Page_090.txt
eb2d177917e80b2c5991857a05658282
391f89ab15a01c200dcb64e16ed02f0c4e584e7d
F20110217_AACZVR finn_k_Page_092.tif
674f6c802e7048544e9f46def6fa30f4
6bb66581635239f01728d9413206f947770dc6ca
30874 F20110217_AADAVJ finn_k_Page_094.QC.jpg
13a96a07000dc6b6b1fa81c98ad6f74f
6938218fc1b15a814018a4da0bc45d8f8ab92684
5642 F20110217_AADAUV finn_k_Page_124thm.jpg
f616bc9dd06be5b013257a693b4081fb
babadc8ee89dd3ae247f18262e635554fe5d0666
F20110217_AACZWH finn_k_Page_106.tif
4c1bf9b0eea8d97699d5de68cb32a92c
7a13655b1d34d215374ab04fecae222dc8d7abbf
33072 F20110217_AACZVS finn_k_Page_119.pro
a3eae5d85d5ba1daac15c1537f6c3fed
2a6f310172911994f9927e9957e43ef207f62bee
8388 F20110217_AADAVK finn_k_Page_019thm.jpg
ace58bddef8c7a2ba53d20aa34aa8dc7
530c173403572807b002ca43ecf99b8ef44be1df
32338 F20110217_AADAUW finn_k_Page_054.QC.jpg
60e7f0150713347a6fa8dbe92732e56c
780e97f14d81bd18a670cc00309c814d96611418
102642 F20110217_AACZWI finn_k_Page_042.jpg
19af84f15c1409e8abd114f03a7037f2
dc7e4f3b8410402910370a09bf2fed75b8fe10bb
95406 F20110217_AACZVT finn_k_Page_020.jpg
e1586eb3c387e346dfda8f1975a855aa
2bf7a3a1a577b0c7c293c8d8dae5ca89339ac507
7606 F20110217_AADAWA finn_k_Page_129thm.jpg
e801cb4b2929b259db262164feaf85ad
d24ad8312d71989b2fc18dab3fdd2ec192de2916
6580 F20110217_AADAVL finn_k_Page_070thm.jpg
7fc1c6095000dc0fc588bea9f47399bc
c928300d87bf518c04c6bcbf4497336172d8a127
8544 F20110217_AADAUX finn_k_Page_054thm.jpg
a5720eb779cc1af869fd8d4f5f5ce683
8a0255dcb12f4a1290b4c25bd95dfe62165479e3
103432 F20110217_AACZWJ finn_k_Page_033.jpg
03cf74d5eb0c73c8c0bf9d38f3f7ccc8
303318d68f0f267ac76f130a7f0f69231f400013
5852 F20110217_AACZVU finn_k_Page_051thm.jpg
257a04c4600fe995abb086d7036de628
e82a4361210694caba4691a34e534af9a0355713
34529 F20110217_AADAWB finn_k_Page_038.QC.jpg
95c2fbbc6c6ff982467e4ce6e8637949
fd37b5b160c498c9f5c5b2a126d3bc869ec7ecca
30628 F20110217_AADAVM finn_k_Page_086.QC.jpg
0c9463883c12e85ded726b0c47bdf36f
aadd6c767fbc81d4e4cce8f029451c729194ecf5
8156 F20110217_AADAUY finn_k_Page_030thm.jpg
e174bc6053254f0c1a6caf665403344f
2bd81b93e2772bcce0831258ca3d2e3c0304a075
F20110217_AACZWK finn_k_Page_007.jp2
f8bfbc9c8166b1e9bd9a4f23a3c38c8a
ce308eb71eff92c7a7cdd8ddc806d65a53228950
F20110217_AACZVV finn_k_Page_028.txt
4f555fd660ff4fd10fd3250263971002
32c8ffab659a3a18b9c8bdefd05e756a8d292074
29236 F20110217_AADAWC finn_k_Page_005.QC.jpg
dae165cd18ac7223dc5cd333935dcb0a
04a32776a49ed00efc99dbfeed1dc0e1068cb759
24117 F20110217_AADAVN finn_k_Page_125.QC.jpg
662be12ed06a9d5bf88d04a2ab97f1bc
72e1daaa712471bd6e86e4d392ec605921cf160c
5605 F20110217_AADAUZ finn_k_Page_075thm.jpg
9a6d482e16619030be9f58352fd60f57
2c308bed96c413ee3c92c8697d390df8f8b81da8
62316 F20110217_AACZWL finn_k_Page_090.jpg
b3dbda7bcfac6529be33dd763dfc9cb5
ca12fb5b2a744aa97cdec349d1486c9d741aa2e8
8654 F20110217_AACZVW finn_k_Page_037thm.jpg
ac77ab41efa0158683c60f21833a8c06
ea2efcd06929d19d6456f0a642da681dfdd31ba2
7807 F20110217_AADAWD finn_k_Page_086thm.jpg
685b400c05a9fd6675ad86cd26ab38c0
2277bfce2bec7579ab4f56a389a893d35668908d
20793 F20110217_AADAVO finn_k_Page_119.QC.jpg
98fe0de0c4ee81f7f1058d381fbee611
105ad8b687b1b523d03cf4d8558d4a73b5db98ef
72962 F20110217_AACZVX finn_k_Page_106.jpg
95e107bc43ecd0529e525e99dc83ce8d
52c3c464cf9208333688910bdcfbe6955ee1e66e
35663 F20110217_AACZXA finn_k_Page_024.QC.jpg
aa0e9432427a8272acc1be96e7bf85f5
3d22e20c2a912a4f704c230857889af8aba45700
5333 F20110217_AADAWE finn_k_Page_090thm.jpg
d804144444184f4089b7f899bca3c5f4
04fc305b13eba447823e18e1f4317e79c8deb374
6260 F20110217_AADAVP finn_k_Page_055thm.jpg
b9c5b4407e3f5535b1d60e3dbc9604c7
1fbc53f012601b487de9125a1f99f9b0a452b612
408 F20110217_AACZWM finn_k_Page_008.txt
889306bf371d0a11102703e35fcd0436
9d2f07d0e5dfd3e44d7002cf3c94ebf804c145f1
955243 F20110217_AACZVY finn_k_Page_095.jp2
18784848270ac9a0fd0df85a798764d0
d7317d1d0450a819a303217d625429d12c3a5951
84276 F20110217_AACZXB finn_k_Page_026.jpg
3d9a6be72797e968f5d32494548be258
5db6c36f488d097ec652f569c7fee18af0778d5a
8463 F20110217_AADAWF finn_k_Page_024thm.jpg
47dfa044215977c52e06c9eee0db07db
66833e8df12e7f9bd1811518bfe29e0538a66cb6
33826 F20110217_AADAVQ finn_k_Page_032.QC.jpg
163012e9431992d50def307905dc2f33
8922dd3140a9d57fbef0317c61e8163702699250
25980 F20110217_AACZWN finn_k_Page_076.QC.jpg
9dd4af8b697d3aac5deb56b4d55d8f14
74d4b1803f1dcba6f20319a440abb7ec75da0d1c
7999 F20110217_AACZVZ finn_k_Page_065thm.jpg
ad19b11aa4fe25cf9e47a5f4d88f160d
6e4d976d2eec715d6101c8decf117f480c13903b
28787 F20110217_AACZXC finn_k_Page_027.QC.jpg
1a47c195eb1188e57d030732f774e8d0
2e4e16037b3a6b47d2d3f2522abfc3a0b2141ecb
9265 F20110217_AADAVR finn_k_Page_111.QC.jpg
92833c4393334f435395e6cd051847f3
446254127a9f497ed2e0bc9708ff9e736c77dbba
35062 F20110217_AACZWO finn_k_Page_016.QC.jpg
2a39e9414bb955bc16e14ebb9b771bff
e431db4dc53087a17ac0991b2ea14a1ef2189c98
1219 F20110217_AACZXD finn_k_Page_079.txt
1e3d78a08a312e3e589aaf59a093042e
08f6ce1a821adae2e92e7ffa0b58092984248f44
32290 F20110217_AADAWG finn_k_Page_035.QC.jpg
5cd812e6c65f7d79d94890649549903e
aaaf5e74597f141cbb1fe9e270499f7cf2a39e7c
5306 F20110217_AADAVS finn_k_Page_107thm.jpg
592d6c2f393ae6fd02c1b5679c3c7cd4
c241a2527f08add795322c8d4cfbd97cc7cb7fdb
8361 F20110217_AACZWP finn_k_Page_064thm.jpg
da4dbbd96712989307d4d05f3505f103
62c12764c4020bf7a8a3a75588a1281097499cda
79248 F20110217_AACZXE finn_k_Page_006.jpg
454378829c624347a4b7c068fe314e2d
772e82c3b08154e9bedc9e63e7083a4d5a7e90c1
8408 F20110217_AADAWH finn_k_Page_023thm.jpg
4d10acfbf379784760ee8d16dcd73d27
77fac3fc3da75d56b98021048a5e771843c5e2ad
27342 F20110217_AADAVT finn_k_Page_058.QC.jpg
d74bcc39a5b6ea9588097d47bf551ea0
caf0b505cb963d7a259e1b797e5456d6fda93343
62521 F20110217_AACZWQ finn_k_Page_124.jpg
53be5f231e3450b3774c3d495296f824
b5f86e158226406c5e47213767b81c8f17104a1c
55172 F20110217_AACZXF finn_k_Page_062.jpg
1933be0d419f123073b6c2de1ec6eeb4
77b0fd537de6ab981c9edce25a79ad7a6e77e0ea
4590 F20110217_AADAWI finn_k_Page_006thm.jpg
4c4005ee387a240ffc2d313a6e0c3bff
9527ae860d35a115f4e8efdf3c4bd35fb21fef97
8471 F20110217_AADAVU finn_k_Page_083thm.jpg
0c7f29967a3c6f22654a0b424ce738bc
c200fce25c0d2754d80bc27c5761d9aa2c17b7ee
51404 F20110217_AACZWR finn_k_Page_033.pro
6606dcc2d507286ecfec34f65a2ce36f
94bfdf983b6af9e23a642a845d54c7ccf1d6d0fe
27476 F20110217_AACZXG finn_k_Page_014.QC.jpg
a16e63083ee4670c952ed627d1585e10
9e224e5219f6b819469235c7594d58b04298ae96
6252 F20110217_AADAWJ finn_k_Page_117thm.jpg
d913184aa563ca97d2afd42afdc93078
629ca7e77891ea6f21825be4a9ac2178c220676b
5651 F20110217_AADAVV finn_k_Page_116thm.jpg
ddb6a64d70d358c093753b62ed714ca2
8dc15e5c5f4c7243f137dcc796b79c4d5b122c65
610812 F20110217_AACZWS finn_k_Page_118.jp2
e58d22b8a4785f54fd6af356d07eb550
e4482c85a48fba51d865637cdab30315306513ce
51320 F20110217_AACZXH finn_k_Page_031.pro
5cf282c09f91cfcc96a84ce6ef9ba35a
e6b31e69497cdeedb12444e51a777fc19325dfb1
4559 F20110217_AADAWK finn_k_Page_079thm.jpg
1b70d60d8d66ca4dad473032dc4e14f1
a49fe97fe6acbf5f5b194540c2797eae077266eb
23735 F20110217_AADAVW finn_k_Page_009.QC.jpg
45ea2feb0c07c888364d0f86c52baaea
fd1f1ecf53b089b0312d97af0a3dede3ebe68a85
23676 F20110217_AACZWT finn_k_Page_121.QC.jpg
c2c03b7fb8b1e459334896ca6b00aac9
32d84e60b29f3cb5727a15de6e1cd9b713530cf1
28604 F20110217_AACZXI finn_k_Page_026.QC.jpg
dac9515d7c1926d60dc042e89823628a
dfe98c65ba9d9a049e48cbfa5545e1dc500175c5
F20110217_AADAXA finn_k_Page_091thm.jpg
a478a9f49371990288f7b02fa34cc20f
0f9962cf7056514432aa2bf83ef02c6c9f1672e5
1556 F20110217_AADAWL finn_k_Page_039thm.jpg
986e1327e51faa1fae987865fdb2119c
04f6fecc9c318aa6ad750a4785610cf731042ead
24821 F20110217_AADAVX finn_k_Page_117.QC.jpg
582a3f2fee4eb45ce261889de837a62f
6d9033762123b65a8f20b678a4cd1bde7802c35d
F20110217_AACZWU finn_k_Page_120.tif
468034dbe0e8e24fda8e3428f6932047
78c7010a1bd22ecea1ad518b1c0cea6d5e8a4c8b
4107 F20110217_AACZXJ finn_k_Page_104thm.jpg
4f2a5379dfb0d86728d7a270bd297e8b
194262109507098bcce8e57b2f54a7380ab4c46b
5181 F20110217_AADAXB finn_k_Page_108thm.jpg
889110be6c205e2d62b682b6c1a94219
7c7415b644c2aada759b76a555dd092d8a5854ee
8389 F20110217_AADAWM finn_k_Page_035thm.jpg
e58b17c32b8770789431b61511da6375
2b3552e115f7260e8b9aec9770d733cb62b453a0
8100 F20110217_AADAVY finn_k_Page_042thm.jpg
1575b33bf91c0475f6c767a19aa8932e
c3d73c2241f735e97e15bc6784982858f17c2ccf
7091 F20110217_AACZWV finn_k_Page_058thm.jpg
80a9d1867b53af866fa369121c38aeb3
bbceae60a1c0930d443d24799030a52d5566cefc
906630 F20110217_AACZXK finn_k_Page_009.jp2
7a0d0fbe99d5527e35078f6effec197b
5a815a42cee7ded0e94324962011451edec21fde
1732 F20110217_AADAXC finn_k_Page_008thm.jpg
51321f252e80cbfad0343124454fa6cd
e562957683664ff93b7ca6f5303dfdcc2cad67ba
7584 F20110217_AADAWN finn_k_Page_027thm.jpg
e1fc91ed426c87900ea64aba51f262b8
a5ff16d14a2a43375b643db7a64e16847a573cc1
4483 F20110217_AADAVZ finn_k_Page_118thm.jpg
e402c54068872ab443d474223b5737a4
f3a0ab439d78bee7866c5c981603720faa426aa8
33724 F20110217_AACZWW finn_k_Page_052.pro
3f299150bbde798b4078e19e0c2eac5c
e643c88c745f0d95c48e05434282f04dced55040
F20110217_AACZXL finn_k_Page_056.tif
a8856514cdd6973e88110d5069eabdcb
f2d99cd4099ecfc9b49580ff9269fc982b96c2b8
4917 F20110217_AADAXD finn_k_Page_122thm.jpg
c5c8934c3ec683d0b51034e34b692161
d8853dcba0131aaebbd1f3c8d0828868b4e48876
7277 F20110217_AADAWO finn_k_Page_080thm.jpg
4b36980f935a3e12a5cde7672f4e8b4e
cccb58c380df1c8ccd3aaa9131abe885a6e8bc4a
8525 F20110217_AACZWX finn_k_Page_031thm.jpg
7539321ba5823b5300169a7cd4a535da
281a7ac7173f8e3ae6c1959123cdd04e0e4c69f2
25639 F20110217_AACZYA finn_k_Page_122.pro
b2cbaf289566b194d6c8e22abf8e7bae
1e595e5affc1c10f35e16be03e31293ff8fc387f
F20110217_AACZXM finn_k_Page_036.jp2
8f8b3c5822dc3ef56dcb80aab1063f70
6705541c5fed4c4c5b3879ed2bc6389793a5ec02
28248 F20110217_AADAXE finn_k_Page_081.QC.jpg
c709abe4b854a19c5bac3766ed0c623e
661d575a0796b407ede8ceea987fca951c000961
33660 F20110217_AADAWP finn_k_Page_067.QC.jpg
e5495d68d44d92014346c8cde1fae984
a78d8f4e9297ab0a633fcabdfe607b646f90d0e8
1051780 F20110217_AACZWY finn_k_Page_103.jp2
2d483e2ff687fd7caac6c47aabf3a4cd
a3548e4d52f89765ce4c1701715f84027dc1ea03
1945 F20110217_AACZYB finn_k_Page_065.txt
60cc198acd3fb200216a5d1a57172ab9
59e0937475ecf740e80dbdbd660778d9e2a4f901
14900 F20110217_AADAXF finn_k_Page_110.QC.jpg
9b9af6baeb05f41b7798ad31da1ff671
2dd91b902270e20eaf246967e541bcf27b1b1cb1
17804 F20110217_AADAWQ finn_k_Page_122.QC.jpg
b8f1a87370ac7a46039f06b8aba0a6ab
b3905e29e1149149299f5c3dda8d2341b9690762
53510 F20110217_AACZWZ finn_k_Page_019.pro
2c56795ed602b5bbf13ed448e38256d3
d8470539bb2e104eb4750ba00e2c2ff2fb270dd2
981859 F20110217_AACZYC finn_k_Page_117.jp2
370718e874d39c91c218568b7ff5c3d6
593a29ad5710d4e667b2be2a43d4e828a47b95dc
11302 F20110217_AACZXN finn_k_Page_130.QC.jpg
f01a77ca4386c03521f26cf8319b512b
08e7eea925c44f5307c74f7fd24f5ea00877edea
26631 F20110217_AADAXG finn_k_Page_112.QC.jpg
f4c700d2c3f07b6ec2ad864b9149ffa7
eef773387b5fee54888d2e5853cb56a7218a07d6
33682 F20110217_AADAWR finn_k_Page_084.QC.jpg
fe3e06af68b86101f1bb18603f56aa44
ea752facf2d0e453706fecacca787e6f56bf3217
F20110217_AACZYD finn_k_Page_008.tif
edfa72e77ca32c9988c7ac7587254855
84af456af1a4d7a0a4ff7af1f800f5c04bcdaaf1
1997 F20110217_AACZXO finn_k_Page_092.txt
f760fa764bb9ec9be15f997921a2bcf1
3f4d8ed22e02444f5dfbb3410c4c71d57dc4343d
8523 F20110217_AADAWS finn_k_Page_053thm.jpg
ac68f7c10ca88bde82b1ebef20bc2169
05098b7e8c1c822a286a0cd754807b8170f8d01a
1020682 F20110217_AACZYE finn_k_Page_025.jp2
ea8de37333ad1166c7f98a409c2f3837
e1f3a03dbb56aed97a0ff9b438f8caef39066bef
11175 F20110217_AACZXP finn_k_Page_111.pro
171d00c557eae7c7af8100ddab5acbde
dd5d380dc0b2a7130c6c42f36fd9cb5aab227e41
27453 F20110217_AADAXH finn_k_Page_022.QC.jpg
7dc6c65780a5e998c4a1fb72c55b2037
ab62087a786af75888787a14ffa334ee7e3f9858
28211 F20110217_AADAWT finn_k_Page_096.QC.jpg
67fb68ea253cc348f63a43e2d7031b0a
9314275523901a898dbe0ce506e30953438573e7
58296 F20110217_AADAAA finn_k_Page_128.pro
a09b4d123e397cda65cf97963cf057b2
7fa3c9d3a322c8a79af29a0754c12055c404c004
1490 F20110217_AACZYF finn_k_Page_055.txt
50d73d51423609152bcbfd4274c3a185
050a059dbbb47f4f5164fa8549bdd88c2f2c3684
F20110217_AACZXQ finn_k_Page_071.tif
44644c23de31b66fd6293d3b36042aca
3d2efd3e4ec07000efccd4d5df4e512e39bb76c7
28045 F20110217_AADAXI finn_k_Page_080.QC.jpg
e4684d11c800c987ecea65c05e49db46
b5979308c11213f4a3f2086bafa16eadc8200aea
34019 F20110217_AADAWU finn_k_Page_050.QC.jpg
7bd41f0bae4f43455a8175b58cb16b6b
0a85d10fc9e3fc000f7f011d93f676aeb41209d0
21862 F20110217_AADAAB finn_k_Page_110.pro
5bb84608b0f85e79d9af0e9f4c69bceb
087f0d4cefdebd6c4c8ace2639987862d40bdb05
1596 F20110217_AACZYG finn_k_Page_070.txt
ceeb87d9171fc071fbf2944cb1ecb821
d9e6c7e139d54697127a32f215e40f284cd4b68b
7610 F20110217_AACZXR finn_k_Page_102thm.jpg
980e577ba4a5a7ee27c9ecc33a3a2379
66feb920c848311fb9c2d3a86e0f13ee02b2d9cb
8045 F20110217_AADAXJ finn_k_Page_025thm.jpg
f86db82820f0452fc5ff218343eca1c1
38042e7aa5a79c3ec8598e2e8148f5e334b39f58
24557 F20110217_AADAWV finn_k_Page_010.QC.jpg
98e0e9802337a78425b05d07f8d51615
a56e72c3620eb620c80f83c3ce06524371524004
5261 F20110217_AADAAC finn_k_Page_123thm.jpg
a94f5fdcadc024c8c16e20dfc71afdbe
7bd420949510cc0e1227aa337e9ab5d2a55b082a
33390 F20110217_AACZYH finn_k_Page_088.QC.jpg
19431e10717f381f28f37a7398ca1b74
f91d40bb85cd666f26c24d7fe2d93c32b6de35ff
F20110217_AACZXS finn_k_Page_059.jp2
10a23a68eb9d3c58dc3ed07ce8f0accc
2a9a8b18f1a3b882a6bf7de29a9dc4bfdd4842de
29260 F20110217_AADAXK finn_k_Page_113.QC.jpg
c0595ed1734616b809f21c1f64fba42d
61d2083e06bcc0be62eb172fb9076231ddd79921
5352 F20110217_AADAWW finn_k_Page_007thm.jpg
7164cc52f4e6331de69fa41310204bc4
06fc312fdf99170bcf1fdb77795cd2c8936618c1
34972 F20110217_AADAAD finn_k_Page_013.pro
9e6377228fa23468f132e7925e2559e1
8781284458983f8d8272d9c46fd3a9795e3823df
42686 F20110217_AACZYI finn_k_Page_005.pro
a8a4f88aa0e097ff09c8540cab88aa32
a067ae52657775aa4157b1810e4a95929c2a94af
25655 F20110217_AACZXT finn_k_Page_040.QC.jpg
071bc954f2a81cc2159bc4b413df4cb0
8db178f10ccfdd5f501d7ee1691a042f8d982271
22222 F20110217_AADAYA finn_k_Page_116.QC.jpg
43c32c54a301be7d161abfaa00149725
5f3f93dd4cdf0eff9c5f1ff88c8fb8d33ef718e1
7224 F20110217_AADAXL finn_k_Page_077thm.jpg
6e64fe7ba4dee9a7570894971145759d
121e92f673f177deea0ba40a27089b179745cf6c
7729 F20110217_AADAWX finn_k_Page_063thm.jpg
41460d8e219007d3dd6260f4d78f741b
36bab5849f78d432fd05d5ecb50503d33c9a9a46
8260 F20110217_AADAAE finn_k_Page_033thm.jpg
590e21d917657896df9065e39bf4200f
7e21f7bd4874c7646419bf9710fc2c32b17fa5f1
103218 F20110217_AACZYJ finn_k_Page_031.jpg
f180cc22c8ae36865e863ac1facae9df
98925fcd0bee7533945d6ca0ecba465f517b5454
33064 F20110217_AACZXU finn_k_Page_034.QC.jpg
c4db65d2afe22db92a87371c3e9c0979
0457dd44808be563956154b46673fd282b2633c4
6065 F20110217_AADAYB finn_k_Page_009thm.jpg
43792a5e6c43745a252763dbf3c9d79d
0258fc0ab274b9c0729147e7eab6c3b293437296
1572 F20110217_AADAXM finn_k_Page_011thm.jpg
631481fec7dc6b64c041ff2da1cc9cba
94f586470c22c5aaaa91c9f899f0028973138d16
2026 F20110217_AADAWY finn_k_Page_078thm.jpg
fcb7c256dd7ec3d26fc38f8b81a1da16
b7d8dfc9835c181725c02cf8c272e90b3d758dea
104835 F20110217_AADAAF finn_k_Page_103.jpg
58b0f43a5ebffe2b64d77dceb8264673
0641c4a2301deac538b9503666257f538b793943
F20110217_AACZYK finn_k_Page_059.tif
17aaf9259d2111214b3c1e2224700128
610440e694831b44b017609b4e7da52bdcb38fbe
F20110217_AACZXV finn_k_Page_056.txt
724eb1227828cea2fc666b6cff2e6111
c434f665b783ec03948e9bb2134fa8dfd3a7ef54
6006 F20110217_AADAYC finn_k_Page_013thm.jpg
06434312140366b1eced3b6a2a91707e
54a3b1d924c5499a0dd02d4e50340691fd0baefa
208186 F20110217_AADAXN UFE0014641_00001.xml FULL
b1432cfe2ba526ac573f7d14639d3bcb
eb3a224a7f229ee8b73f98ef8868451c72009d9f
15762 F20110217_AADAWZ finn_k_Page_109.QC.jpg
70f98d39f664ef9b4f0e6e673646122b
f68c9532c77dbe6537985217b311c434eb4c1285
F20110217_AADAAG finn_k_Page_078.tif
f36a4cac6bf387e892495303fe87d4fc
233d9f86452289e1cf5de1a721fbbb83f9dc397e
4748 F20110217_AACZYL finn_k_Page_105thm.jpg
3f4e52b3409c27f9cf80971fa7a1a891
da680e3ac72bbcdcdc0d4e57368c913d972ef86d
1867 F20110217_AACZXW finn_k_Page_094.txt
b99ba9abd0ce0a48a89c5b7d4ee3022f
e05f4bc9ae5ce8a75ddafad7b4a63dcd742fb6db
6939 F20110217_AADAYD finn_k_Page_014thm.jpg
21009a6fa4146514d3d97975610b5750
e35131b35179cdda02c8db2858859dbc967f15a2
931 F20110217_AADAXO finn_k_Page_003.QC.jpg
986c2ee0f870a0dc9934691e7db27053
535231c355f9e4ec26c1ab667748487e1459abd5
F20110217_AADAAH finn_k_Page_048.txt
e74f7f5650dca94f540768c23389c0d6
626fd1e556ac0a3970bea74678d9012754aa48a7
1017 F20110217_AACZZA finn_k_Page_109.txt
9897f24793fb83719095c1032bfd9c88
5eb3ccf2ea9089ace37d5802cab56625d5dbf917
54479 F20110217_AACZYM finn_k_Page_024.pro
668c5ff04fcb37ce444b4049291cc0c3
f5a1c5399575a7c9e5794de1d0a80604abc33947
F20110217_AACZXX finn_k_Page_075.tif
1369020af8c1e9353436585e2a8f7b1e
4c698eabb0330a383fb0027514555233c5375729
7853 F20110217_AADAYE finn_k_Page_020thm.jpg
46ec3de1bcc5a2226c182bdbf47e4097
e599400fc8d798803f21c1df89e6bff467fa4e05
25022 F20110217_AADAXP finn_k_Page_012.QC.jpg
bacb1a3aa288d84ad01e466c45bdf8b9
08324b870b6d9405a305d378d1105e91b77e72be
6438 F20110217_AADAAI finn_k_Page_071thm.jpg
886efb69dc2e39cb4adf4c04d58a2545
2c4f11d647263a230a796eb733bd61c59729d416
47133 F20110217_AACZZB finn_k_Page_094.pro
c989f5aeb741bb493580125e89f28471
7b603057e826a23fb6ae2d9eae4abc326d4fcad1
51106 F20110217_AACZYN finn_k_Page_023.pro
9c28a78b922452bbfb620b8315db7a58
fab6d9874a4a8e9218b0787dc1dbb8539fbd4882
F20110217_AACZXY finn_k_Page_038.jp2
35f10c56a6b6873fb747534a4fdd7d86
cc941cd9418490b55b98b37b49ccc0ad7458a78e
8321 F20110217_AADAYF finn_k_Page_032thm.jpg
e6b31a9fc803aaa19577d8089366fc67
5781d16a60d5b0028d61c529b3e7f19764445468
32991 F20110217_AADAXQ finn_k_Page_030.QC.jpg
562277b5b77b8c371d19ce240c36525a
c152fad7e13d82416c8307ac93e0e29ef70644cc
46007 F20110217_AADAAJ finn_k_Page_054.pro
09b7a83d7bc0b649a723558558df39c4
4e109128e75272c028a3bad67e6e1cb9a8d97807
F20110217_AACZZC finn_k_Page_110.tif
ab482628c36ec0e847a9b865d9c3650c
f274c18622a26d783ae195b1bdfb1f0e9e961d74
14583 F20110217_AACZXZ finn_k_Page_130.pro
03a9ae6b869afd6e6414385ee85c1d6f
0bf302dcc7d643d1e17c77cdc016ac73529060d3
8531 F20110217_AADAYG finn_k_Page_038thm.jpg
586e2714015658069f39ac526248402b
d460b40e896202a887ffd2c9f8c362827d66df66
26352 F20110217_AADAXR finn_k_Page_052.QC.jpg
3007714358a0bb22c046e990de9703a2
719f1000b0eb525d6eca2ca1631e71c2259aaaad
34050 F20110217_AADAAK finn_k_Page_041.QC.jpg
e0e531e90919a74a3df98fcc5a8271e7
826ea9c096e49ae91da12424499d5fa2ab7958ad
51284 F20110217_AACZZD finn_k_Page_087.pro
77c3156549cf922110db2eda919b933d
59e1c7a47ec5d80b158d1e231dcd9e6feed08b95
95397 F20110217_AACZYO finn_k_Page_068.jpg
ce35d96b131f54b5ab721efdf4989946
f5e144b4126cc2536dff9a4c91ab65888fa6cc1c
F20110217_AADAYH finn_k_Page_044thm.jpg
b04e1ffe97267ed77bbec0c403df3d1f
126bde03bd55118e192149e1358309b7647b4dc7
25411 F20110217_AADAXS finn_k_Page_055.QC.jpg
42d2ac0c1a2f8c23bd9bc9dedc569169
08891e870ffc4a7cb6c478b9e1cac85b0c0a4fa8
2344 F20110217_AADAAL finn_k_Page_113.txt
e281be7fbdc5f165036d5ce79790f847
db89f5cdc74a64644b19bfbfe1994268e3d56aea
2152 F20110217_AACZZE finn_k_Page_024.txt
4ecadf95907f8e13f12046386944f6eb
16d1e70dbd1ef5b0603adae41c645c0d7b8c758e
6413 F20110217_AACZYP finn_k_Page_012thm.jpg
644d663be9892afe79b8f62e02eb13ac
f9f7ed343fbf6bad60943376cbdcaaa95fa8302e
30857 F20110217_AADAXT finn_k_Page_068.QC.jpg
020edd88bb946244f47001840ef5d1d2
60cdd84eb711bce344b1a2712d06db3d7f5e7e84
F20110217_AADAAM finn_k_Page_023.tif
64c8e9e87aaaf92f0e00849639ef16c6
16cf82db331bb9762e114831ad55cdd6916ff064
43439 F20110217_AACZZF finn_k_Page_096.pro
d1c9d7a32fdcc74db1eaf12e74212e87
a8e587aedd37ea39ffe1b8c4fbf5fdfe5b0c0edc
793351 F20110217_AACZYQ finn_k_Page_074.jp2
767d57b8c9ea0814fd898c57bb65395c
272c3cde7786fae6bca1c127cd44185d241043aa
F20110217_AADABA finn_k_Page_015.tif
32d8873bfd5a3ad6637d8d382ef91fc4
ff9aedd7ab11ef8ad32d7d9863ebb6934f0bb008
8475 F20110217_AADAYI finn_k_Page_049thm.jpg
cb3baba474ecbd2eeb90652610da98d3
290eded235fece9e6aff8d8ced0f5076f3cbf1b2
27662 F20110217_AADAXU finn_k_Page_077.QC.jpg
e83215329106b49e3e2df7945e1ff78b
23c8a7ab6f7c00e24c3cc9a45e01ed6fac42cd34
101677 F20110217_AADAAN finn_k_Page_034.jpg
adb4400e19708bb2188f109a34289a45
710344c5a1718ca8cbda484d50d3077c7fd82958
F20110217_AACZZG finn_k_Page_032.tif
cd31650c5c82a59d0c8f4624adc35060
d85103b587625ee6a2caf7fb45fdae5bfcc50550
4048 F20110217_AACZYR finn_k_Page_109thm.jpg
4bac6029c932a5a00e4559aac49b6d37
a7a4ccada82751ae8351a416c904bc55a296a9a7
F20110217_AADABB finn_k_Page_016.tif
eda560ed4aeff803d48f89ff28c900bb
a5a6d802653c7db2bbf18aedf04862bb1a4a959d
8618 F20110217_AADAYJ finn_k_Page_050thm.jpg
c54bc092ad7e99a920b2f1b21d4e1397
b6fe6cc33b269fec3921b52854dce196f108fa44
7589 F20110217_AADAXV finn_k_Page_078.QC.jpg
4b0b3bcaf5ab7a875b7d8e01b29d3083
5473e3b22f5ea1bf7dc74fbad0d51f2174d19fe1
152081 F20110217_AADAAO UFE0014641_00001.mets
4f8b4c79963f67bd4f62578e9594a9b2
4d74c6a279839f46afe331b4a2e1a9ad7a42efad
18611 F20110217_AACZZH finn_k_Page_118.QC.jpg
5a33a53d0a1161e6444383714f5e05c6
176dd98aa966fc9c80e4a185d07e69bf2842bff0
100475 F20110217_AACZYS finn_k_Page_061.jpg
df135aa02e6ba8a674638d202a36c40a
822debefde1450247c165e4788f7b3233d06a617
F20110217_AADABC finn_k_Page_017.tif
d73b8fc0319acecc1b56adf2feb354e9
74cde3fa894ce57f317361709fba7260a6b82ea3
7459 F20110217_AADAYK finn_k_Page_052thm.jpg
c0dc97a84f56e7fdc5975cd641bc5a65
0a329d64ad86c30133dc136d27455aa7abdbc147
32481 F20110217_AADAXW finn_k_Page_085.QC.jpg
75fc3f106f825bb8913f9535fc240a41
5e02a9f1020c286ec3300a510f81ca64eb351d98
4085 F20110217_AACZZI finn_k_Page_110thm.jpg
782d5e1f04b880de3be5f51495cd9a58
79693685ef24833745cff4d5d518881d31326470
F20110217_AACZYT finn_k_Page_081.tif
9326d8fe701e5998f2f9552a86e64174
24a974d0ceda1ccb60e23e938acace3be23e35af
F20110217_AADABD finn_k_Page_018.tif
f84c3baf2400f8c354e0be50cf47c952
7eb6acf80a357b6b045b3636fbc9b7a1869cab77
7922 F20110217_AADAYL finn_k_Page_066thm.jpg
f997a44e2f9ee912c3e68b68f9650bd3
ed8ba84e5d5c3002d978d5132168ffc50bdfeb2e
32136 F20110217_AADAXX finn_k_Page_097.QC.jpg
b351497e7e5422c700fcdb5be1ac9702
e36e82ae9cc8fe9a01c271dcafce88711014939b
7997 F20110217_AACZZJ finn_k_Page_061thm.jpg
e621ecb8496d1d081721d1b6f1f81fa6
4563ab773091747153b7b773397c0e9adcaa1ac6
35028 F20110217_AACZYU finn_k_Page_044.QC.jpg
14a79d1efa453fd964f9662107b93788
d6276815521e402dd3e816f5c6d52a57208fb816
F20110217_AADABE finn_k_Page_019.tif
2e0805aaa09f18452b288ef1986fac95
b78ccf15c0e72ff975fe7739fdf4a637851ae2c6
7761 F20110217_AADAYM finn_k_Page_068thm.jpg
c4bc4b2e4059c385711689d384ef5d55
571f177a651e3184c5cb1e7f734f80871a428ada
31016 F20110217_AADAXY finn_k_Page_101.QC.jpg
83430757961ab8d37d8aa5ba0aa07020
47f8ccf4938beafb84ee15af32d0c9fec7168f06
854655 F20110217_AACZZK finn_k_Page_070.jp2
bb7bf2fde81937722c6d814a2bdb2e1c
4626b4fa49a73cb0155a16012960ee26c8414c19
30363 F20110217_AACZYV finn_k_Page_028.QC.jpg
55b779d765065a07ec0b6fca6e43a9fa
5b169cb76d6bc26d5b99ac6e748db5eb8b0b9f01
F20110217_AADABF finn_k_Page_020.tif
d051e60e653fb9c3b824d034fcc9870f
bf1328c3c21d82e937bd6259ac628818d85c304a
6749 F20110217_AADAYN finn_k_Page_073thm.jpg
8fe78f46e489475151be6141e57a7bdf
3e963e02c49dda668c3abb746e29c66100008496
27599 F20110217_AADAXZ finn_k_Page_103.QC.jpg
8244832be50e64a8031e008de79fa311
d4d243196681f702decf366fbc46a9ffdd1ec0f8
F20110217_AADAAR finn_k_Page_001.tif
151c45278a5e06a610e73d215e8daa1c
5f157b2507cccfa23ee214a9f04268a9de182e9e
100156 F20110217_AACZZL finn_k_Page_056.jpg
3e1cdeab3ec44a19785ef3fbed440d07
38cc140327994f2166ecd30c50d4e552f088e88e
F20110217_AACZYW finn_k_Page_013.tif
8212327b9a3deff0758294ecc436958d
84dfcae84313a15e06ecfc6417f051376dbbef58
F20110217_AADABG finn_k_Page_022.tif
29b1b26958eb92f5672c3ba379b88eb0
20189dc5f2cdbdbd452742b5c1bd16fdb18e7881
7415 F20110217_AADAYO finn_k_Page_081thm.jpg
46ecaf4c9e4a57b17a9649b9aa36b545
5385254ceddf4296644f819b6ed8c93b317b72c6
F20110217_AADAAS finn_k_Page_002.tif
bab3f919a53fa1dd7bdcdec58c651e4b
2f734b04c2eecd86a17cf91183cbf474b1658e89
1051912 F20110217_AACZZM finn_k_Page_083.jp2
c6ac4c1894240c8298e13328b0a74770
90c68e69a9ab1aa535e0427fd6880d334d92c7fc
F20110217_AACZYX finn_k_Page_101.tif
dce2cdd635d849d1a679373468d73645
5b181a1b326b5737b049eeae8579a9901a7c598e
F20110217_AADABH finn_k_Page_025.tif
4b220df2af528256867b39b2579f7acc
3c09ced5394d8f08a1814b1e1a683f7ed22a27c4
8032 F20110217_AADAYP finn_k_Page_082thm.jpg
2b0159b8b215471034e9ab93e81cadf4
8f47eb0822603401b57f8474478d4e1071e42115
28921 F20110217_AACZZN finn_k_Page_126.QC.jpg
e22d0d4c0f1b3a52ccf6038941273df3
7b4bb6138c5baebee15dd5c98a46c11e7a94d395
32558 F20110217_AACZYY finn_k_Page_082.QC.jpg
9fe233c8994a5fc98d7c2235b32b1c8c
3172546155c357d697e41fbbbf8a68f50e44ec45
F20110217_AADABI finn_k_Page_027.tif
9b27af973dcd5db3968054f2e276614c
96e1764e18dcfd5ddad68bdc79b6b7bb04f549d8
F20110217_AADAAT finn_k_Page_004.tif
a0b54d0647f317183eea8811a5ab0ec2
e861bba39c3f1be4a1d57fd4c31a4bca60552913
7886 F20110217_AADAYQ finn_k_Page_094thm.jpg
545f239ae4171fa7a542e6a04f395186
b4dc3a6a8e52f626a1c3b56e2c1c4249769c56b7
100303 F20110217_AACZZO finn_k_Page_035.jpg
ba0b745e16f0a7f7836b7556abafbb1b
2ead01d18aa42602d2646d3712495d36261f4bf0
F20110217_AACZYZ finn_k_Page_087.jp2
f7d97ec11551e034b934869ec04a1206
4112b5779a4b53ffdf01a0eb11b4426c1deee51a
F20110217_AADABJ finn_k_Page_029.tif
3c658509cd9cdc67fafc6242445cec32
8312b74e8cf4ec2531ab97df068c02531d73202d
F20110217_AADAAU finn_k_Page_005.tif
c7edf0762c1cc655df1e9abfc0fd5e89
d211d8a34bc780f0108e60d7181b643006ef0c03
8079 F20110217_AADAYR finn_k_Page_097thm.jpg
144ce7c9a03c1347770b7630e71d04ea
e65af24c55598bd3dc803d180472271fe43a83a1
F20110217_AADABK finn_k_Page_030.tif
1f0c965890106c5dbbffeae4b6fd4ccc
d2346bfafb003e69a6da726c14a7e32cf2b34a57
F20110217_AADAAV finn_k_Page_006.tif
e87d464fc9222003af07fd14a98390ed
3fd2cbdd4207dddf60f2c7fcb32ed10adf87d647
8397 F20110217_AADAYS finn_k_Page_098thm.jpg
7102eee328d3a87cfeed250a8375d3f9
b9fd15d325cd053894a6db3ede1c75f2b5010ed5
F20110217_AADABL finn_k_Page_031.tif
63a5323ea5b29d8523e46927ce3db9a5
48d9b088275cd70cea0870861fdef0738818df9a
F20110217_AADAAW finn_k_Page_009.tif
0c01191e2156baf47f0f9d63cf719a5f
7c2736b40a901da2f3df76c2af547a3f93808cf1
6102 F20110217_AACZZP finn_k_Page_074thm.jpg
1b35cf1d6bc60750f8bb6626ac21a61f
0bd7fa83823e6b840191b0a7aec33d995d3bcfc8
6362 F20110217_AADAYT finn_k_Page_103thm.jpg
28270a91f0b61120dceb75a0307dfd40
c0be252b65e6fa14b0b337a6a9f437f4b2c8b887
F20110217_AADACA finn_k_Page_050.tif
2aa9fcadd558fa89f61872447b45584b
d64347450142896fd8ada937e8439c6718626a4a
F20110217_AADABM finn_k_Page_033.tif
e54d2be6fb2865924f4eafb5c4156eb2
2c6dac3ce0a6475f5a691fe785d12d33344a4234
F20110217_AADAAX finn_k_Page_010.tif
cdbd0171a43845dd0a72c54b33ae3d1a
b4712c68136eaf2f28e0f969c1f3171fb8abf0fb
1914 F20110217_AACZZQ finn_k_Page_101.txt
ecbd7609e48084730773455785fc9cff
7ba5347e34c1b5bb23d57bc65fe9feac4be064a6
6060 F20110217_AADAYU finn_k_Page_106thm.jpg
0b95d11b74a13920f3b1bc13c080e9c0
c49d67bb86b0ee3878a22e72340741ae5e9c6029
F20110217_AADACB finn_k_Page_052.tif
8192cde8b5fac3ab119ccc8830e1303e
85320d7fb4a4a65204235f5ca1f21768661d3b4c
F20110217_AADABN finn_k_Page_034.tif
1b0a2b1d7f5425a8ddfdc78f94f12287
9d23e1b609e7641c2808e95869dca9878cb9f1dd
F20110217_AADAAY finn_k_Page_011.tif
0e8e22515462e9fde1db6feba85aaae6
be82662c4c19cc2f0528284833ddfd603d7ad1b9
34437 F20110217_AACZZR finn_k_Page_099.QC.jpg
98a2be9cb49305c32515e1d93e70ce90
2e24c333d21c71ec3ce132e7e06174791aa10eeb
5918 F20110217_AADAYV finn_k_Page_112thm.jpg
3ab11827e9a017399ecf6ecf880b9bcb
4b1d8d02985b895f598c564f7173b1162c27fb95
F20110217_AADACC finn_k_Page_053.tif
bba8d8714eb9e9383c0651b59d40a5f4
59f96d0bd4a738cbb8d4bd22aea5a72bc3881f87
F20110217_AADABO finn_k_Page_036.tif
d2f6bbb6f007c0f1ff63bc1a75b6b908
145669d21492246ddbb91ccbf46ef88603b21826
F20110217_AADAAZ finn_k_Page_014.tif
bfc68b5da64f4e3fdcc41b6a748baea8
da847529a423d567eab2b734c36423163bfe8db4
F20110217_AACZZS finn_k_Page_007.tif
f5b64c4d249ce0ba7e1c4459e602c9a8
d57d2dfe1681d42cbfebbbe656e24a8778799395
4166 F20110217_AADAYW finn_k_Page_114thm.jpg
9484df0e397d109b14f3ee90e3289b60
ad0e074d653a612aea43f7c5b5442222e0e453b5
F20110217_AADACD finn_k_Page_054.tif
1ad8b9e544b5dd9681ce2d528a99294a
8645fd0c4a5a66e87c00628d57c0a8eb2c7d8ef7
F20110217_AADABP finn_k_Page_037.tif
0bd8f792f000680be232904a6f5710b3
eace56bf19a556bc23c235d273ed8635768ad12e
1441 F20110217_AACZZT finn_k_Page_062.txt
7e54ebd26e634effe9aec676d6fb170e
208eee4a39dbf90f2397edf1be40a351ad735fc8



PAGE 1

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CONTROLLING Melaleuca IN SOUTH FLORIDA By KATHERINE FINN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Katherine Finn

PAGE 3

For Jeffrey

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to start off by thanking my hus band Jeffrey Finn who has traveled this journey with me and been the best partner I co uld have ever hoped for. I especially thank him for the encouragement and perspectiv e that he has offered me along the way. I wish to express eternal thanks to my Mom, Gena Carte, for her never ending support and for always telling me that I can do whatever I set my mind to, even when it feels like it is impossible. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my Dad, Jerry Carter, for showing me the value of hard work, fostering my appreciati on for nature, and for teaching me to hunt and fish better than most men. My deepest gratitude goes out to my committee members Dr. Alan Hodges, Dr. Donna Lee, and Dr. Mike Olexa for their guidance along the way. I am especially grateful to Dr. Hodges who worked with me on a day to day basis and taught me so much. His patience and dedication are appr eciated more than he will ever know. I wish to offer special tha nks to the USDA-ARS for fundi ng this research. I would like to express my gratitude to Francois La roche of the South Florida Water Management District and the members of th e TAME Melaleuca team, especially Cressida Silvers, Paul Pratt, and Amy Ferriter for always being will ing to answer “just one more question.” Many thanks go to Sharon Wallace of the S outh Florida Water Management District, Debbie Gillet of the Southwest Florida Wa ter Management District, Chris Wassil and Gary Lewis with the Florida Division of Forestry, and Gail Baxley with the Florida

PAGE 5

v Department of Environmental Protection’s Offi ce of Park Planning for sharing their data, insight, and experiences with me. Thanks go to Carol Fountain for all of her formatting expertise. I would like to express my th anks to all of the friends I have made in graduate school. They are the reason I will look back on this whole experience and have pleasant memories filled with smiles and laughter Thanks go to the best study group around, Erika Knight, Jamille Palacios, Anne Jones, and Jennie Varela; the first year core would have been impossible without them. I am especi ally grateful for the f act that at the first day of orientation I sat next to Erika Knight and struck up a conversation; her friendship has been priceless Special thanks go to Damian Ad ams for being a great colleague and wonderful friend. Thanks go to comedian s Justin Taylor ( GO RACERS!) and Athur Mabiso for always offering an easy laugh and “ Respect .” Thanks go to Annie Hildebrand for offering me big beautiful smiles when I needed them the most. Special thanks go to my friend Beth-Anne Blue for all of her wisdom, guidance, and support and especially for reminding me that I could do this. I would like to acknowledge th e close family members who are no longer here with me to share in the joy of this accomplis hment: my Grandparents Pepa and Grammie (Red and Mary) Carter, Gov (Gran-Daddy Victor B. Carte, Jr.), a nd step-father Scott Whidden. I wish to thank them for all of the love and support they offered during their time here. Last, but certainly not least, I offer my thanks to God, for with Him everything is possible.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Origins, Introduction, and Invasion..............................................................................2 The War Against Melaleuca .........................................................................................3 Problem Statement........................................................................................................5 Public Lands vs. Private Lands.....................................................................................6 Hypotheses & Parameters Estimated............................................................................7 Research Objectives......................................................................................................7 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................9 Introduction to Benefit-Cost Analysis..........................................................................9 Formal Theoretical Framework Behind BCA............................................................11 Benefit Cost Analysis and Social Welfare Theory.....................................................13 Individual Welfare Changes................................................................................13 Social Welfare Changes......................................................................................16 Benefit-Cost Analysis in Practice...............................................................................17 Use of Mail Surveys...................................................................................................19 The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)................................................................21 Previous Research on the Economic Impacts of Melaleuca .......................................25 3 SURVEY DESIGN, CONTEN T, AND ADMINISTRATION..................................27 Survey Methods..........................................................................................................27 Survey Study Area, Target Populations, and Sampling.............................................27 Survey Content...........................................................................................................28 Residential Survey...............................................................................................29 Professional Land Manager Survey.....................................................................31 Survey Administration................................................................................................33

PAGE 7

vii 4 SURVEY RESULTS..................................................................................................34 Results for Professional Managers.............................................................................34 Land Ownership Status........................................................................................34 Land Use..............................................................................................................34 Factors Affecting Land Management..................................................................36 Area Occupied By Invasive Plants and Area Treated.........................................39 Methods Used for Treating Melaleuca ................................................................41 Barriers to Controlling Melaleuca .......................................................................46 Sources and Usefulness of Information for Melaleuca Control..........................47 Costs for Melaleuca Control...............................................................................50 Impacts of Melaleuca ..........................................................................................52 Annual Income or Budget and Compar ison of Reported Melaleuca Control Expenses..........................................................................................................54 Results for Residents..................................................................................................56 Invasive Plant Awareness....................................................................................56 Amount of Melaleuca on Property......................................................................56 Use of Control Methods for Melaleuca ...............................................................57 Barriers to Controlling Melaleuca .......................................................................58 Information Sources for Melaleuca Control........................................................59 Expenses for Melaleuca Control.........................................................................60 Impacts on Property Values.................................................................................60 Willingness to Pay for Melaleuca Removal/Eradication....................................61 Impacts of Melaleuca on Outdoor Enjoyment....................................................62 Willingness to Pay to Reduce Melaleuca in Outdoor Activity Areas.................63 Respondent Demographics..................................................................................64 5 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS....................................................................................67 Calculation of Benefits...............................................................................................68 Ecosystem Benefits.............................................................................................70 Agricultural Land Productivity Benefits.............................................................73 Agricultural Land Market Value Benefits...........................................................74 Recreation Benefits.............................................................................................74 Additional Benefits..............................................................................................76 Calculation of Costs....................................................................................................77 Calculation of the Be nefit-Cost Ratio.........................................................................80 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................83 Summary.....................................................................................................................83 Conclusions, Implications, and Policy Recommendations.........................................85 Recommendations for Future Work...........................................................................88

PAGE 8

viii APPENDIX A MELALEUCA MANAGEMENT SURV EY OF PROFESSIONAL LAND MANAGERS..............................................................................................................90 B MELALEUCA MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES...99 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................113 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................117

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Land area managed by surveyed profe ssional land managers in Florida.................35 4-2 Land use types and areas managed by pr ofessional land managers in Florida........36 4-3 Factors influencing management deci sions by professional land managers in Florida......................................................................................................................38 4-4 Land area infested with and treated for invasive species by professional managers in Florida..................................................................................................41 4-5 Methods used for treatment of Melaleuca by professional land managers in Florida......................................................................................................................43 4-6 Number of professional managers us ing various control methods and area of Melaleuca treated in Florida, 2003 and 1990-2003.................................................44 4-7 Intentions for future use of various Melaleuca control methods by professional managers in Florida..................................................................................................45 4-8 Requests for more information on Melaleuca control methods by professional managers in Florida..................................................................................................45 4-9 Barriers to controlling Melaleuca by professional managers...................................47 4-10 Information sources and types of medi a used by professional land managers in Florida......................................................................................................................48 4-11 Usefulness of information received by professional land managers in South Florida......................................................................................................................50 4-12 Costs for Melaleuca control reported by professiona l land managers in Florida, 2003..........................................................................................................................5 1 4-13 Expenses for special equipment for Melaleuca control by professional managers in Florida..................................................................................................................51 4-14 Melaleuca treatment cost trends reported by professional land managers in Florida......................................................................................................................52

PAGE 10

x 4-15 Negative impacts of Melaleuca reported by professional land managers in Florida......................................................................................................................53 4-16 Reduction in utility due to Melaleuca infestation reported by professional land managers...................................................................................................................54 4-17 Annual income or budget for land mana gement by south Florida professional managers, 2003.........................................................................................................55 4-18 Awareness of Melaleuca and invasive plants by Florida residents..........................56 4-19 Amount of Melaleuca on property of Florida residents...........................................57 4-20 Methods used for Melaleuca control by Florida resident s, and interest in more information about control methods..........................................................................57 4-21 Barriers to controlling Melaleuca by Florida residents............................................58 4-22 Sources of information on Melaleuca received by Florida residents.......................59 4-23 Expenses for Melaleuca control by Flor ida residents, 2003..................................60 4-24 Negative effect of Melaleuca on property value of Florida residents......................61 4-25 Willingness to pay for removal of Melaleuca from property by Fl orida residents..62 4-26 Days of annual outdoor recreation activ ity reported by south Florida residents, 2003..........................................................................................................................6 3 4-27 Effect of Melaleuca on outdoor enjoyment by Florida residents.............................63 4-28 Willingness to pay per visit to reduce Melaleuca in recreational areas by Florida residents....................................................................................................................64 4-29 Demographics characteristics of su rveyed south Florida residents, 2003...............66 5-1 Ecosystem Values for Surveyed Land Use Classifications......................................72 5-2 Average Negative Impact Values fo r Surveyed Land Use Classifications..............73 5-3 Total Benefits of Melaleuca Control in 2003...........................................................77

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Average weighting of factors influe ncing management by professional land managers...................................................................................................................39 4-2 Usefulness rating of information sources and media by professional land managers in Florida..................................................................................................49

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CONTROLLING Melaleuca IN SOUTH FLORIDA By Katherine Finn August 2006 Chair: Donna Lee Major Department: Food and Resource Economics Melaleuca quinquenervia commonly referred to as Melaleuca, was introduced to Florida in the late 1800s and ha s flourished in the state since its introduction. In the late 1980s and early 1990s efforts to eradicate/control Melaleuca began in earnest. The Areawide Management Evaluation of Melaleuca (TAME) program was created specifically to research and address the problems and unique situations associated with Melaleuca control. Public agencies in Florida spent an estimated $25 million on control efforts from 1989 to 1999 and have succeeded in reducing the area it covers; however, private landholders have been less aggressive in its removal. Despite the control efforts on public lands, the lack of treatme nt on private lands has allowed Melaleuca to spread in many areas and resulted in no net loss of the acreage covered. Melaleuca causes a reduction in ecological function, agricultura l productivity, and recreational use value of lands occupied. In order to document the current management and socio-economic impacts of this species surveys were mailed to 2,000 agricultural

PAGE 13

xiii landowners, 285 park/preserve managers, and 5,000 randomly selected residents in the ten southernmost counties of Florida in 2004. Survey results revealed that Melaleuca covered more than 620,000 acres of land and that professional managers (both park /preserve and agricultural) had treated approximately 86,731 acres during 2003. A benef it-cost analysis was conducted for the areas controlled in 2003. The benefits were estimated based on the values for restored ecological function of agricultural and park /preserve land, agricultural productivity and market value of agricultural land, the recr eational use of park/preserve lands where Melaleuca controls had been implemented, and avoidance of costs connected with Melaleuca fueled fire control. Total benefits amounted to $23.3 million. The costs were derived from the residential and profe ssional survey data along with TAME Melaleuca program costs which include the costs associ ated with this research. Total costs amounted to $13.2 million The resulting benefit-cost ratio (1.76) indicates that the benefits of Melaleuca removal were significantly greater than the co sts, and that control efforts provided a net social benefit to society in the year 2003. Therefore, it is recommended that the policy stay in effect until the benef its no longer outweigh the costs.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION An invasive species as defined by th e 1999 Executive Order 13112 is “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” I nvasive species have affected many, if not most, countries around the world in some way. In some cases alien species are pur posefully introduced for bona fide reasons; case in point, the now infamous Kudzu used for ornamental purposes, erosion control, and livestock fora ge. In other situa tions a species is inadvertently introduced through increased globa l travel, such as the Brown Tree Snake’s introduction to Guam. Some alien species are introduced and remain rather innocuous throughout their lifespan. However, ofte n times they can cause devastating and irreversible consequences, such as the al most total annihilatio n of Guam’s songbird population and Kudzu’s prolific spread throughout the Sout heast and Hawai’i to now cover several million acres of land. Every year, a growing numb er of individuals make Florida their new home. However, this phenomenon is not limited to hum ans. Plants, animals, and pathogens also find ways to make this accommodating sub-tr opical land their home as well. Florida’s mild winters and warm wet summers are quite hospitable to many different species and allow non-native residents to become resident aliens. One especially destructive alien invader that has now become an invasive species is the highly problematic tree commonly known as Melaleuca ( Melaleuca quinquenervia ).

PAGE 15

2 Origins, Introduction, and Invasion Melaleuca also had a rather innocent beginning in Florida. It is thought to have been introduced in Florida by Royal Palm Nurseries in Manatee County around 1887. The tree was popularized by nurseries and gained greater recognition due to its ability to thrive in many environments and rapidly provide shade and windbreaks for home owners (Serbesoff-King 2003). It was subsequently pl anted in swampy areas to help dry up the standing water so developers could build to meet the demand of the booming South Florida population (Laroche and McKim 2004). This notion has now become the subject of much debate amongst scholars. While so me scientists adhere to the belief that Melaleuca consumes more water than native vegeta tion, others argue th at their research indicates that it does not use any more water than the average plant. In 1941, Florida populations of Melaleuca from Lake Okeechobee southward began to increase as the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planted the trees along levees and spoil islands for erosion control (Stocker a nd Sanders 1981). This fast growing species has now become establishe d, and has spread much more quickly in Florida than in Australia, and competes with many native plant species (Rayamajhi et al. 2002). Due to its rapid grow th and reproduction rates, Melaleuca may completely dominate landscapes that it invades, thus decreasing biodiversity and precluding the growth of native vegetation (Schmitz and Hofs tetter 1999). Studies show that patches of Melaleuca can spread to dominate one square mi le of land in only 25 years (Laroche and Ferriter 1992). Melaleuca may also increase wildfire danger, because the dense stands burn with greater intensity making fire c ontrol more difficult (Diamond et al. 1991).

PAGE 16

3 The War Against Melaleuca While this tree has been on Florida soil for more than 100 years, its control was not seriously pursued in the state until the late1980’s. This is due, in part, to the movement to restore the Everglades During the 1990’s, the fram ework leading up to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) began to be developed. After the foundation was laid by the previous Water Resources Deve lopment Acts of 1992 and 1996 President Clinton signed the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Section 601 which authorized the CERP. When it became clear that invasive species would only serve to thwart the goals of CERP which are restoring, preserving, and protecting South Florida’s ecosystem, measures were taken to address the growing pr oblem. Specifically, the Melaleuca Eradication and Other Exotic Plan ts project, within the CERP, was designed to address exotic and invasive sp ecies management and control in Southern Florida (CERP 2004). Recognizing the need to take aggressi ve action against invasive species, in 1993 the Florida legi slature enacted statutes that require agencies such as the Florida Department of Environmental Protec tion Bureau of Invasive Plant Management (FDEP-BIPM) to investigate methods of control for Melaleuca and to implement those control methods within thei r jurisdiction (FS 369.252). Unde r current state law it is illegal to sell, transport, colle ct, cultivate or possess any plan t, including any part or seed of the species Melaleuca quinquenervia without a permit from th e FDEP or the Florida Department of Agriculture and C onsumer Services (FDACS) (FS 369.251). In 1997 the legislature directed the Bureau of Invasive Plant Management (BIPM) to build a program to bring exotic upland species under maintenance control, by enacting Florida statute 369.22. The statute detail s that a maintenance control program is “a method for the control of non-indigenous aqua tic plants in which control techniques are

PAGE 17

4 utilized in a coordinated manner on a conti nuous basis in order to maintain the plant population at the lowest feasible level as determined by the department” (FS 369.22 p.1). The 1993 Florida legislature also set aside an annual budget of $1 million to the FDEP specifically for Melaleuca control. The FDEP took the award from the legislature and then entered into a cost-sharing program (called the Melaleuca Program) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in which they match that award dollar for dollar (BIPM 2003.) The goal of the Melaleuca program is to control Melaeluca on all SFWMD land and to maintain the lowest po ssible infestation rates while minimizing impacts to non-target plant species. In orde r to prevent the wider spread of the plant, outlying lesser infested areas are treated fi rst according to a quar antine strategy (BIPM 2003). The goal of the FDEP is to reduce infest ations of upland invasi ve exotic plants on public lands by 25 percent by the year 2010 based on the estimated 1995 level of infestation of 1.5 million acres (BIPM 2003). It should be noted that this estimated area is for all upland invasive species and not just Melaleuca Additionally, The Areawide Ma nagement Evaluation of Melaleuca (TAME Melaleuca or TAME) has been established under th e auspices of the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Areawide Pest Ma nagement initiative to demonstrate the efficacy of an integrated approach that can be applied to invaded areas for control of Melaleuca This group has proceeded to implemen t the control recommendations of the Melaleuca Task Force as enumerated in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s (FLEPPC’s) Melaleuca Management Plan (Pratt and Ferriter 2001). TAME has subsequently teamed up with the Food and Resource Economics Department (FRED) at the University of Florida’s Institute of F ood and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS) to

PAGE 18

5 conduct this research into the socio-economic impacts of Melaleuca in South Florida. Estimates place the coverage of Melaleuca at anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 acres of land in South Florida. From 1989-1999 Flor ida agencies have spent about $25 million on its control and have succeeded in reduci ng the area it covers on public land by about 100,000 acres (Pratt and Ferriter 2001). Problem Statement A major problem with the spread of Melaleuca is that it causes a reduction of economically viable uplands and ecologically sensitive wetland areas. A general estimate of the value of environmenta l and economic services prov ided by wetlands is $14,785 per hectare per year (Costanza et al. 1997). A ssuming minimal losses of one percent, and a current infestation of 200,000 hectares, the di minished value would be almost $30 million per year. Farmers and ranchers are losing valuable grazing and crop land while natural areas such as parks/preserves are losing natura l habitats, which in turn affect plant and animal diversity. Melaleuca invades utility easements such as power lines, canals, and other waterways, thus impairing their use, and often makes costly tree removal necessary to maintain the use of these service areas. It has been projected that the unfettered spread of this plant would severely limit the use of parks and recr eational areas by tourists and residents causing a negative impact to the Florida economy at $160 million annually (Diamond et al. 1991). Additional reports s how that by the year 2010 an estimated $1.76 billion in damages would be caused due to the various negative impacts it has on recreation, ecotourism, fires, and loss of endangered species (Balciunas and Center 1991). The majority of the information gathered through mail survey s focus on elements traditionally used in determining the extent to which Melaleuca covered land, how much

PAGE 19

6 was being treated, what methods were being us ed to treat it, and the costs incurred for those treatments. However, at the time this research was being carried out it was not readily apparent that much was known about the negative effects caused by Melaleuca infestation. To help bridge the apparent information gap, additional data need to be collected to determine how indivi duals perceived the effects that Melaleuca infestations have on ecological function, agri cultural productivity, land mark et values, the use of land for recreation and enjoyment of the outdoors. Public Lands vs. Private Lands For many years, the slogan of “Florida Stat e Parks: The Real Florida” was used to help promote tourism within the State’s park system. The general goal of having these parks is to allow visitors to see Florida’s natural state where it has been left relatively untouched by human hands. However, inva sive species, which often completely dominate native flora and fauna, thwart the goal of preserving the “real Florida.” In order to meet this goal, non-native species must be removed. This need has been realized by managers of the public lands and therefore c ontrol has been concentrated on these lands. However, while its removal is a mandat e for public agencies, one of the major obstacles facing the success of Melaleuca control is the fact that private individuals often implement few or no controls. While it is te chnically illegal for pr ivate individuals to possess Melaleuca very little is actually being done to force them to remove it from their private property (with the excep tion of a few pro-active municipa lities). This presents the conundrum of falling infestation rates on pub lic lands, while infestations flourish on private lands and often cause cross-contaminatio n in areas that have been treated (such as public lands) or areas that have not yet been infested. The efficiency of treatment is greatly reduced if public land managers continue to treat and kill Melaleuca while

PAGE 20

7 private individuals allow for outlying infestat ions to spread. A comprehensive strategy for inducing private citizens to control Melaleuca is necessary if there is to be any chance of gaining the upper hand in the war against its spread. Hypotheses & Parameters Estimated The issues surrounding the impacts that inva sive species have on society are very broad and far reaching. Previ ous research on invasive species has mainly focused on the biological characteristics of th e plants. Current research has started to focus on what kinds of monetary and non-monetary impact s these invaders are having on the economy and society as a whole. This research seek s to focus more on the socio-economic impact that Melaleuca has had on Florida in the regi on south of Lake Okeechobee. The hypothesis that will be tested is that this analysis will yi eld a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) for treating Melaleuca that is greater than unity (1). Parameters that will be estimated by this research are: What are the impacts/costs of reducing Melaleuca infestations in South Florida? What factors influence the choice of control method (or lack thereof)? How much money is currently spent on Melaleuca controls? How much money would homeowners be willing to spend to remove Melaleuca from their property? How much money would residents be willing to spend to reduce Melaleuca in the places where they engage in outdoor recreational activities? What is the BCR for controlling Melaleuca ? Research Objectives The general objective of this research is to determine the economic impact that Melaleuca has had on professional land managers and residents in South Florida, along with evaluating the socio-economic impact of its control. This will require gathering

PAGE 21

8 information including (but not limited to) wh ich control strategies are currently being used, how much they cost, and what area is curr ently being treated. It is hoped that this research will shed some new light on why individuals are more or less likely to implement control measures. Then policy makers and implementers can custom tailor outreach and education program s to increase the area of Melaleuca being treated. A specific objective of this research is to measure the benefits and costs associated with the treatment of Melaleuca infestations for the year 2003. Trying to eradicate a species that has such a stronghold on a la rge area of ecologi cally sensitive and economically valuable land is not cheap. A large amount of money has been and will continue to be spent if this program is to be considered su ccessful. It is imperative to determine whether the benefits of controlling this invasive species outweigh the costs. As a matter of public policy, th e resources being allocated to this program should provide a net benefit to society. A benefit-cost analysis will provide information to determine if the resources being allocated to this fight are economically justified.

PAGE 22

9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The legislative aim of controlling Melaleuca has many far reaching implications for society. Current research is beginning to focus more on the socio-economic impact of invasive plants. A combination of tools is necessary to fully evaluate the socio-economic affects of controlling Melaleuca Among the tools available, this study employs the use of Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) and Con tingent Valuation (CV) through mail survey administration. Introduction to Benefit-Cost Analysis Every day new projects and policies are proposed in both the public and private sectors. Decision makers are then faced with the daunting task of deciding which of the myriad projects or policies will help to ach ieve their desired goal or end result. Over time, BCA has been used extensively to help determine the economic viability of legislation and investment pr ojects. Since the 1930s BCA has been used by many U.S. agencies to determine if the benefits of thei r policies outweigh the costs to society (Prest and Turvey 1965). Many past U.S. Presid ential administrations have recognized the value that this type of anal ysis can provide by attempting to clearly delineate the costs and benefits of a proposed policy/course of action (Whittington and Grubb 1984). Through Executive Order 12291 signed on Februa ry 17, 1981, President Ronald Reagan sought to standardize and make permanent the requirement for federal agencies to conduct BCA on all “major” regulations.

PAGE 23

10 Due to the fact that some policies and regulations can result in “win-lose” situations, analysis needs to identify the wi nners and the losers and exactly how those groups will be affected. Sassone and Schaffer (1978) point out that the need for careful analysis is especially important in large scale public projects with irreversible consequences. A thorough anal ysis can help to identify nor mally “unforeseen” costs that tend to creep up during the life of a project. Policy makers or project managers can then develop strategies and contingency plans that will help to mitigate these circumstances. There are many definitions on what constitutes a BCA. However, there are generally some key similarities between the de finitions of the process. One description suggests that BCA is a “generic term embr acing a wide range of evaluative procedures which lead to a statement assessing costs and benefits relative to project alternatives” (Sassone and Schaffer 1978, p.3). Another more specific definition states that it is “a process of identifying, measuri ng, and comparing the social benefits and costs of an investment project or program” (Campbe ll and Brown 2003, p. 1). BCA has been described as a procedure for “measuring the ga ins and losses to individuals, using money as the measuring rod of those gains and losse s and aggregating the money valuations of the gains and losses of the individuals and expr essing them as net social gains or losses” (Pearce 1983, p. 3). An integral part of a BCA is the identific ation of all relevant costs and benefits. Another important step is th e quantification of those cost s and benefits (Sassone and Schaffer 1978). It is important to note that these costs and benef its are analyzed by a “with” and “without” comparison. Specifically, th e analysis of the pr oject seeks to assign a value to the costs and benefits that occur “with” the project and compare them to the

PAGE 24

11 state of the world as it w ould exist “without” the project (Gittinger 1982). This is different from considering the state of th e world “before” the project and “after” its implementation. If a “before/after” comparis on is used it neglects the change that would take place without the project and allows for an erred account of the benefits that can be ascribed to the project/policy. Campbell and Brown (2003) also point out that the important concept of opportunity cost beco mes a factor in the “with and without” comparison. Without the project, scarce res ources such as land, labor, and capital could be designated to other uses. With the projec t, the opportunities to use those same scarce resources for some other beneficial purpose are foregone. Each possible outcome offers a particular value to society. After comple ting a thorough analysis of the two possible outcomes (with or without the project) and determining the costs and benefits of the projects the analyst can determine if the benefits exceed the costs. If this is the case, then the project would be recomme nded to the policy maker. Formal Theoretical Framework Behind BCA Using BCA to assign a moneta ry value to the effects a project will have relies upon two key assumptions. The first is that the so cial value of a project is a summation of the values of the project to indi vidual members of society. The second is that the value of a project to an individual is equal to thei r (fully informed) willi ngness-to-pay (WTP) for the project (Sassone and Schaffer 1978). Willingness-to-pay is the specific expression of the value an individual assigns to a commodity or service. This leads to an essential conclusion in microeconomics that for any given price of a good, rational individuals aiming to increase their state of well-being as much as possible, will purchase a number of units of that good so that at the margi n, their willingness to pay for that good just equals its price. Therefore, if an effect of a project were a small increase or decrease in

PAGE 25

12 the number of units of a good accessible to an individual for consumption, that increase or decrease has a social value equal to the number of units concerned multiplied by the market price (Sassone and Schaffer 1978). The formal BCA theoretical framework, reliant upon welfare economics, set forth by Sassone and Schaffer (1978) in dicates that a state (of the world) S is a particular distribution of utility among the individual memb ers of society; specifically demonstrated by: (2-1) S = (U1, U2, …, Uj, …, UN), for a society made up of N members. A well defined project, through intentional act ions, will advance society from the current state of status quo, So to an alternative state of S’. Vj is the value of a project to an individual j, and is their maximum WTP amount to have the project implemented (when they are in favor of the project), and when th ey do not favor the project, it is the negative of the minimum amount of their willingness-toaccept as payment in order to remain just as well off in S’ as in So. If the project does not alter individual j’s utility then their compensating variation, Vj = 0. Therefore, the social value of a project is the summation of the individuals’ willingness to pay, identified by Vj. Actually acquiring each individual’s willingn ess to pay can be problematic in two ways (Sassone and Schaffer 1978). First, e ach individual would ha ve to have perfect knowledge of every aspect of the project. The impracticality of this is readily apparent due to the fact that many of the people act ually involved with the project are often not fully aware of every detail. The second difficu lty lies within the fact that individuals are often unable or have difficulty in defining th eir own compensating variation by stating an

PAGE 26

13 arbitrary number. The aforementioned reasons lead to the sugges tion that some other form of acquiring the individua ls compensating variations is necessary. Sassone and Schaffer (1978) suggest that th is information is best gleaned by using interviews or questionnaires. Benefit Cost Analysis and Social Welfare Theory As suggested in the previous section, welfare economics prov ides a theoretical basis for BCA. Although BCA did not original ly evolve from welf are economics it has come to rely upon the foundation that welfar e economics creates (Cohn 2003). It has been suggested that BCA is an application of welfare economics (Sassone and Schaffer 1978). While Sassone and Schaffer (1978) provide a very general introductory framework for BCA (as shown in the previous section), Cohn (2003) provides a more indepth analysis into it s theoretical basis. Individual Welfare Changes Following the assumption that each individual x1, x2, …, xn has n goods and services (including savings) available to him or her, a utility function of Ui for the ith individual is expressed as: (2-2) Ui = U(xi1, xi2, …, xin). If a new government policy is introduced that has an impact on some of the quantities of goods and services that individual i consumes, the change in utility ensuing from a change in the quantity of the jth good or service is defined as: (2-3) Ui = ( MUij) xij. MU ij describes individual i ’s marginal utility for an added unit of j and xij is the change in the quantity of good or service j that the individua l receives. From the microeconomic

PAGE 27

14 principle stated earlier, it is known that an individual will select goods and services so that the marginal utility for any good, j would be equal to the price of the good, pj, multiplied by the individual’s marginal utility of income ( MUYi), given as the following: (2-4) MUij = ( MUYi)pj. By substituting equation (2-4) into equa tion (2-3), the following results: (2-5) Ui = ( MUYi)pj xij. The change in the income of individual i due to the change in the quantities of goods and services brought about by the new gove rnment policy is found in the term pjxij. Finally, the change in individual i ’s utility is equal to the change in income weighted by the value of the individual’s marginal utility of income. Due to the fact that a new government policy will affect many people it is important to know what change in social welf are is due to the new policy. This can be found by determining the changes in the individual utilities of m persons affected by the policy using the social welfare function: (2-6) W = W (U1, U2, U3, …, Um), where W represents social welfare. Taking equa tion (2-6) into consid eration, a change in social welfare is noted as: (2-7) W = V = ( U1, U2, U3, …, Um), where W represents the change in social welfare. Keeping in mind that Arrow’s Theorem questions the possibility of deriving a social welfare function at all, Cohn (2003) s uggests that the real issue is whether an “acceptable” function can be developed. One major stumbling block for this is the interpersonal comparison of utility, which so me economists argue condemn BCA. While

PAGE 28

15 there are cases when various forms of so cial welfare functions do not provide an acceptable social choice, the argument can be ma de that a flawed social welfare function is better than none at all. Therefore, equation (2-7) can be differentiated to the form of: (2-8) d W = ( W / Ui)d Ui, to obtain: (2-9) W = ( MSU i) Ui, where MSUi demonstrates the change in social we lfare arising out of the change in the utility of the i th individual. MSUi is also known as the “distr ibutional weight” given to individual i ’s utility. In other words, it reflects th e societal value of the changes in the individual’s level of utility. Substituting equation (2-3) into equati on (2-9), the following is obtained: (2-10) W = ( MUYi) ( MSUi)pj xij. This equation illustrates the changes that oc cur in social welfare due to a new public policy that influences the qua ntities of goods and services available to individuals in society. It is the sum of the fluctuations in effectiv e income for every individual weighted by the product of the marginal utility of income of the individual i ( MUYi), and the changes in the quantities of goods and services as a result of the new policy, pj xij. Assuming that all individuals have identical ma rginal utilities of in come and changes in utility associated with the new policy, then the marginal utility of income ( MUY i) and marginal social utility ( MSU i) will each equal one and the change in social welfare (due to the new policy) is equivalent to the cha nge in national income due to the policy. According to Cohn (2003) and Zerbe a nd Dively (1994), the marginal social utility and marginal utility of income are di fficult to estimate which causes many analysts

PAGE 29

16 to restrict their analyses to the efficiency aspect of the equation. This causes the equation that reflects the change in welfare to be reduced to: (2-11) W = pj xij. However, it must be kept in mind that if th e marginal utilities of income and marginal social utilities vary significantly among thos e influenced by the po licy, and the end goal is to maximize social welfare; the BCA coul d result in erred decisions. If the analyst feels that ignoring the marginal utilities of income and marginal social utilities is detrimental then he/she should avoid BCA that does so. Social Welfare Changes It should be noted that Arrow’s Impossibi lity Theorem (originally developed from research on election procedures) casts some doubt as to whether a social welfare (choice) function can be derived from an aggregation of individual preferen ces to allow for the optimal allocation of resources (Arrow 1963). This is due to the fact that the following conditions must be met before a “fair” social welfare function can be derived: Unrestricted domain or univ ersality. The social welfar e function must include each individual’s preferences. Non-imposition or citizen sovereignty. All societal preferences should be achievable through some set of individual preferences. There must be at least as many individua ls as there are op tions being debated. Non-dictatorship. The social welfare function should not be sensitive to only one individual. The function is responsive to more than one individual’s requirements. Monotonicity or positive association of soci al and individual values. The social welfare function should promote the change or not change at all if an individual modifies their preference order. An individual should never be penalized for modifying their preference. Independence of irrelevant al ternatives. If the social choice function focuses on a specific subset of alternatives, then the resulting outcome will be compatible with those specific alternatives. If individu als change their ranking of “irrelevant”

PAGE 30

17 alternatives it will have no impact on the social ranking of the “relevant” alternatives. This implies a limitation on the sensitivity of the social function. Benefit-Cost Analysis in Practice Benefit Cost Analysis has been used for analyzing a broad spectrum of projects. Stober and Falk (1967) offer a discussi on on using BCA for proposed local water allocation programs to help determine how a community should allot water among the various needs within a community. Faced w ith two alternative s cenarios, the authors offer analysis on a reimbursable community proj ect that can supply wa ter at a lower cost than that at which industrial and municipa l users can meet their own needs. By formulating a benefit-cost ra tio (BCR), they can determine if the community project is justified. They finally determine that the structure of corporate income taxes and the community’s lower costs of capital provide a large bias in favor of the community supplied water project. Benefit Cost Analysis has been used to evaluate the economic feasibility of treatment/eradication programs for other invasi ve species in Florida. In 2004, Zansler conducted a BCA of the Citrus Canker Er adication Program (CCEP). This study investigated the effects that citrus canker would have on th e citrus industry if it were allowed to become endemic, to demonstrate the benefits of the CCE P. Estimates of the costs were determined by the change in the cost of production and government expenditures on eradication of citrus groves in Florida. This form of analysis has been used to estimate the gains and losses from policies aimed at providing increased product safety for consumers. Dardis, Aaronson, and Lin (1978) used BCA to evaluate flammability st andards of children’s sleepwear as well as investigating the role BCA plays in determini ng whether product safety regulations are in

PAGE 31

18 the public interest. The research first delinea ted the general costs and benefits associated with implementing this safety regulation. The n, actual monetary values were assigned to the related benefits and costs of the safe ty regulation. Upon completing their BCA, the researchers determined that the new safety standard was cost effective in spite of a decrease in consumer choice. Haveman (1976) provides a summary of two cases using benefit cost analysis on human resource programs. The first case looked at the benefits and costs associated with the Upward Bound program. This government program was designed to recognize “high potential, disadvantaged youths” at the high school level, who would probably not be attending college, and provide them with specialized colleg e preparatory education to help lessen the education gap for less privileg ed students. The research evaluated the benefits and costs of the program from the pe rspective of the pupils enrolled in it, as well as the benefits and costs of the program as viewed from the rest of society. The study determined that the students viewed this progr am as a worthwhile activity; therefore, they believed the benefits outweighed the costs (u sing five and 10 percent discount rates). The additional analysis indicated that the pr ogram’s benefits outweighed its costs for the society at large, as long as the discou nt rate used is below seven percent. The second case study addresses the benefits and costs associat ed with a federal government program “designed to provide instit utional training in o ccupational skills to adult workers.” The cost-ben efit analysis sought to dete rmine if the program was a valuable social investment. The study showed that increases in the participant’s income could be attributed to the program. Add itionally, social benefits and costs of the programs were compared to reveal that the length of the program affected the ratio of

PAGE 32

19 benefits to costs. The shorter courses ha d higher benefit-cost ratios than the longer courses, where the present value of the costs exceeded the present value of the benefits. Gittinger (1982) offeed analysis on various agricultural projects, and specifically carried out a BCA on the Philippine Ilocos Irrigation Systems Improvement Project by formulating a BCR for the project. Blum, Damsgaard, and Sullivan (1980) provi ded a general discussion of the use of BCA in health care as it relates to three following areas: The use of BCA for analysis of diseasespecific programs of intervention from a prospective point of view (for illnesses such as polio, syphilis, and renal disease). This has historically con centrated on the economic impact of such diseases measured by the untimely loss of life or capac ity to function due to the illnesses. BCA has been used as a technique for the evaluation of alternative means of delivering medical services. Hospitals have used BCA to assist in determining if it would be cost effective to construct new ambulatory care centers or if the funds should be used for improving ex isting emergent care facilities. BCA has been implemented to estimate the return on public investments in areas such as medical research and health manpower development. Use of Mail Surveys Surveys have proven to be a useful tool in many areas of study for gaining insight into people’s opinions and beliefs, or obtai ning general quantitative information. More surveys are conducted by mail than through any other means (Dillman 1991). The U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s 1984 rese arch reported that 90 percent of the government’s surveys categorized as “sel f-administered” were conducted through mail procedures. The use of mail administered surveys has distinct advantages and disadvantages (Dillman 1991, Benson 1946, and Kramer and Schaffer 1954). One of the greatest advantages that has helped mail surveys gain popularity is the relatively low cost of implementing mail su rveys when compared with interviews

PAGE 33

20 conducted in person or by telephone. The re lative simplicity of administering mail surveys allows organizations and individua ls to conduct the surveys themselves as opposed to hiring outside agencies. Mail su rveys also make it possible to contact individuals when they are scattered acro ss a broad geographic region. Additionally, by accessing the necessary lists of potential respondents, mail surveys can be efficient at reaching specific subsets of the population such as college graduates, homeowners, or agricultural land owners. When mail surveys are used, the interviewer bias observed in phone surveys or personal interviews is elim inated. When anonymity is assured by the entity conducting the survey, the respondent is likely to be more forthcoming in mail questionnaires as opposed to personal interviews Finally, when the necessity arises to gather responses from all household members, mail surveys allow those members to be reached relatively easily as opposed to sche duling additional interviews if all the necessary members are not availa ble at one particular time. One of the disadvantages of using mail su rveys is that it is impossible to tell whether the respondent answered on their own or solicited answers from outside sources. If it is imperative that the re spondent give only their persona l opinion or answer questions based on their current level of knowledge, then mail surveys cannot assure this. The goal of gaining a representative sa mple of the population can be problematic, because those of higher education and/or income levels may be more likely to reply than those of a lower socio-economic class. Another difficulty is that the responses gathered by mail surveys can be biased towards those who are inclined to one or extreme or the other. In other words those with more polarized biases ar e more likely to respond than those who are uninformed or have more moderate positions on the subject.

PAGE 34

21 Due to the threat of respondent fatigue, ma il surveys must be kept relatively brief to avoid non-responses attribut ed to a lengthy questionnaire do cument. Furthermore, the importance of question sequence is lost on mail surveys due to the fact that nothing really prevents the respondent from perusing the w hole questionnaire befo re actually answering the questions. Finally, only a limited amount of demographic information can be gleaned from mail surveys. Respondents often feel that th is line of questioning is too invasive, especially when copious amounts of personal information are requested. It is imperative for a researcher to co nsider the pros and cons of the various methods used to gather survey information. No one survey method can be endorsed as better than another; the decision must be ma de on a case by case basis. According to Kramer and Schaffer (1954) when consideri ng the disadvantages of a technique the researcher must ask if: They are factors that would significantly influence the results of the survey? Does the disadvantage limit the scope of the technique or does it eliminate the technique for their part icular area of inquiry? Does the disadvantage apply to all survey techniques or just the particular one being considered? Are there any techniques to mitigate the disadvantageous effects? The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) It is especially difficult to measure or put a monetary value on irreplaceable goods like health or the environment. Often the mark et fails to establish prices for public goods because they are nonexclusive. This is why there is the need to find out what values people place on these public goods. Hanema nn (1994) points out that a survey or questionnaire offers a way to demonstrat e public demand for a good, especially when indirect methods fail to offer a complete m easure of a person’s value for a particular

PAGE 35

22 good. While price systems are one way to determine how people establish what something is worth; another way is to simply ask them through surveys or votes (Schelling 1968). Mitchell and Carson (1989) submit that in general, the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) appears as accurate as other me thods, and is capable of measuring types of benefits that other methods can measure only with difficulty, if at all. The fact that economists now have a tool to value goods, previously thought almost impossible to value, has helped this valuation method gain worldwide popularity (Navrud 1992). The CVM uses survey questions to determine an individual’s preferences for public goods by establishing what they would be willing to pay for specific improvements in them; thus eliciting their willingness-t o-pay (WTP) or willingness-to -accept (WTA) some loss in dollar amounts (Mitchell and Carson 1989). If the study has been car efully designed and pre-tested, the responses gathered should sy mbolize valid WTP responses (Mitchell and Carson 1989). If the random sample gathered has a sufficiently high response rate and appropriate measures are taken to adjust for non-respondents and poor quality responses, the results can be generalized (with a known margin of error) to represent the population from which the sample was taken (Mitchell and Carson 1989). The Carson et al. (1994) bibliography lists more than 1600 studies and papers from more than 40 countries that used CV on varied topics such as transporta tion, sanitation, health, th e arts and education, and the environment. While there is no one standard for the design of contingent valuation surveys, it is important for them to include several key el ements, because the quality of responses is directly related to the qualit y of the design of the survey. To begin, the survey must

PAGE 36

23 contain a clear descrip tion of the policy/program that th e respondent is valuing (Portney 1994). If a clear description is lacking, the respondent will likely be less able to accurately value the situation in question. Th e survey must include a means for eliciting a value or a choice from the respondent, th rough the use of tools such as referendum formats, open-ended questions, or bidding game s (Portney 1994). Finally, CV surveys usually seek to gather the demographic in formation of the respondents along with their attitudes toward the environm ent or a description of thei r recreational behavior for environmental and/or natural res ource studies (Portney 1994). While the CVM is widely used around the world, the subject is not without debate or its detractors. In 1992 a panel of expert s, including Nobel laureates, was convened to advise the National Oceanic and Atmospheri c Agency (NOAA) if the “CVM was capable of providing estimates of lost nonuse or exis tence values that were reliable enough to be used in natural resource damage assessmen t” (Portney 1994, p.8). While the “bottom line” of the panel report found that “CV studi es can produce estimates reliable enough to be the starting point of a judicial process of damage assessment, including lost existence values,” they also developed a strict a nd lengthy framework under which CV studies should be conducted if they were to produce reliable estimates (Portney 1994, p. 8). Among those guidelines, the panel stated that face-to-face interviews are preferred to telephone surveys and telephone surveys are pr eferred to mail questionnaires, and that studies should gather information on willingn ess to pay to prevent future incidents instead of determining minimum compensati on required for an event that has already occurred. Additionally, studies using CV should implement the referendum format, where respondents are asked how they would vote for a particular program that would

PAGE 37

24 achieve some level of environmental benefit in exchange for higher taxes or commodity prices. The panel offered that the reasoning behind this guide line is that these types of decisions more accurately reflect the reality of real world decisions and would provide a more accurate valuation than the typical open-ended question that seeks a maximum willingness-to-pay value. The panel also st ated that analyses using the CVM should open with a scenario to accurately illustrate th e anticipated effect of the program being considered as well as a reminder that a willingness-to-pay amount for the proposed policy/program would reduce their disposab le income. Finally, follow-up questions should be provided to ensure that the indivi dual could comprehend the choice they were being asked to make and to discover the reasoning behind their response. Some economists critical of the CVM have charged that it is not useful because, in their view, the resulting information is cont rary to economic theory (Hanemann 1994). To that end, critics have sugge sted that the CVM is insens itive to scope, thereby making it an unreliable method for obtaining useful information regarding natural resource damage estimates. Kahneman and Knetsch (1 992) put forth that their study of WTP for the clean-up of lakes in Ontario, Canada show s that respondents’ WTP to clean up all of the lakes in Ontario is less than the WTP for the clean up of lakes in a specific region. Logic would suggest that an individual’s WT P for cleaning up a larg er number of lakes would be higher than their WT P for cleaning up a smaller area of lakes. It has been argued that this insensitivity to scope is unavoidable because “respondents are expressing ideological values, receiving a warm gl ow, or purchasing moral satisfaction” (Kahnemann and Knetsch 1992, p. 64). The NOAA panel also included a requirement that studies using the CVM should test for the sensitivity of responses to the scope of the

PAGE 38

25 damage described in the scenario. To addr ess this issue the panel suggested that the questionnaires should seek to determine whet her or not the responde nts were willing to pay more to prevent more serious ecological accidents. Previous Research on the Economic Impacts of Melaleuca While the biological research on Melaleuca is now quite extensive, there is a noticeable paucity in the amount of economic research that has b een conducted on this invasive species. However, there are a few researchers who sought to analyze the economic impacts that Melaleuca has had in Florida relativel y early in the eradication program’s life. Balciunas and Center (1991) discussed the prospects and dilemmas that could arise if biologi cal control is used in the fight against Melaleuca Additionally, they conducted a Benefit Cost Analys is under the assumption that Melaleuca is allowed to spread unchecked. Their research helped to provide a good starting point for the benefits and costs to be enumerated. For the purpose of this research, howev er, the Balciunas and Center research is used as a guide to show the worst ca se scenario for the negative impacts of Melaleuca Diamond, Davis, and Schmitz (1991) also provided additional research on the economics of the Melaleuca invasion. They specifically considered the economic impact associated with the addition of Melaleuca to the Florida Prohibited Aquatic Plant List and provided a more extensive Benefit Co st Analysis of the spread of Melaleuca The authors went into great detail considering possible effects of Melaleuca on Florida’s ecotourism, sport fishing and game hunting, as we ll as its effects on Fl orida agriculture and the ecosystem in general. They also speci fically provided useful cost figures for the economic damages caused by wildfires fueled with Melaleuca Their research helps to provide a checklist of sorts to ensure a thor ough analysis. However, due to the fact that

PAGE 39

26 both of the previously mentioned articles we re written during the early stages of the Melaleuca eradication/treatment initiative, and the changes that have taken place since then, they will have a rather limited application in this research.

PAGE 40

27 CHAPTER 3 SURVEY DESIGN, CONTENT, AND ADMINISTRATION Survey Methods As discussed in the previous chapter, this research used mail surveys to gather part of the information necessary to this project. The quality of a survey’s design is arguably the deciding factor as to whether it will yield useful and reliable data. Over time, research has been undertaken to try to devise a recipe, of sorts, that survey designers can follow to help increase the likelihood that thei r surveys will yield their greatest potential. This research uses Dillman’s (1978) Total Design Method (TDM) as a guide for survey design. Survey Study Area, Target Populations, and Sampling The study area for these survey s included the 10 southernmost counties in Florida: Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendr y, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach. Just over 2.5 million househol ds are located in these counties (BEBR, 2004). For the residential survey, a randomly se lected sample of 5,001 households, which represented 0.2 percent of th e population, was purchased from a market research firm (MSG, Inc.). Due to the fact that many Hisp anic non-English speaking individuals reside in South Florida, a Spanish language version of the survey mirrored each page of the English version. Both agricultural owners/ operators and managers of public parks/preserves were targeted for the survey of professional la nd managers. Agricultural land owners were

PAGE 41

28 selected from a list compiled from county pr operty appraisers by the Florida Department of Revenue in Tallahassee. A random sample of 2,000 landowners with property classified for agricultural use was selected for the survey. This sample represented 17 percent of the population of about 11,500 landowners. For public lands, a list of 285 names wa s obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Re search Service (USDA-ARS) representing managers of parks and preserves for local, state, and federal government agencies, and managers of rights-of-ways for public utilities. Surveys were mailed to all managers on this list. Survey Content Beginning in fall 2003, two separate que stionnaires were developed for the respective survey groups of re sidents and professional land managers. The content of these questionnaires was developed in c onsultation with The Areawide Management Evaluation of Melaleuca (TAME Melaleuca ) project collaborators at the University of Florida Institute of Food a nd Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS), USDA-ARS, and the South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD). The questionnaires and informed consent protocol for the survey were review ed and approved by the Un iversity of Florida Institutional Review Board (UF-IRB) for co mpliance with ethical standards for human subject research. Following the suggestions in Dillman’s (1978) TDM, each survey had an arrangement of various colored photographs on the front cover. Inside the front cover included an introductory statement explai ning who was conducting the study, the purpose of the questionnaire, the importance of provi ding a response, general instructions for completing and returning the questionnaire, the anticipated length of time for completion of the survey, a guarantee of confidentiality, contact information should the participant

PAGE 42

29 have any questions, and a statement of gra titude for participating in the study. The residential survey was seven pages in lengt h for each language, yielding 14 total pages, inclusive of the opening instru ctions and areas provided for comments. The professional land manager survey was a total of nine page s. Each survey conc luded by thanking the respondents for their participa tion and asking that they retu rn the questionnaire in the postage-paid envelope provided. Copies of the survey materials are provided in the Appendix. Residential Survey The residential survey was designed to he lp provide some insight into attitudes, opinions, and experiences with Melaleuca by the general public. The survey questionnaire focused on determining the exte nt of residents’ know ledge and experience with both invasive plants and Melaleuca specifically. The content of the survey can be broken down into three categories: (1) an in troductory assessment of experience with and knowledge of Melaleuca (2) an assessment of opini ons and willingness-to-pay information, and (3) demographic information. An introductory line of questions were posed to determine the respondent’s level of aw areness of invasive plants in the state. Residents were asked to indi cate if they could recognize Melaleuca and if they were aware of its non-native status. Then, res pondents were asked to indicate how much, if any, Melaleuca was located on their property. The next questions in the survey sought to determine what control methods residents were currently using or interested in learning more about, along with any fact ors that limited th eir ability to cont rol the plant. Residents were also asked to indicate from which sources they received information about Melaleuca The first section ends by asking th e respondent to estimate what range of money they had spent (since 1990 or owning their property) specifi cally for the control

PAGE 43

30 of Melaleuca on their property. If the amount wa s over $500 the respondents were asked to write in the estimate. The second section began by asking responde nts to indicate whether they felt that Melaleuca had negatively affected their property value. If the respondent answered “yes”, they were asked to then indicate by wh at percentage it had negatively affected the value. Residents were also asked to indica te how much they would be willing to pay to remove/eradicate Melaleuca on their property. If they we re willing to pay more than $500 they were asked to write in a specific amount. Respondents were then given a list of outdoor activities and asked to indicate how many days they engage in those activities on an annual basis. The responde nt was provided with space to write-in an activity that was not listed. Residents were asked if Melaleuca had in any way affected their enjoyment of the outdoors. If the respondent answered yes, they were then asked to specify if they had been negatively or posit ively affected. The second section concluded by asking respondents to indicate how much th ey would be willing to pay, per visit, to reduce Melaleuca in the areas where they engage in outdoor recreational ac tivities. If the amount was more than $25 per visit, they we re asked to write-in a specific amount. The third and final section of the reside ntial survey sought to gather demographic information about the respondent. Informati on was gathered on the zip code in which they resided, the duration of residence at th eir current location, and the ownership status of their residence. Questions such as gende r, year of birth, educational achievement, ownership of 25 or more acres of land in Fl orida, participation in state/local elections, household size, and pre-tax income (for 2003) we re also asked. Space was also provided

PAGE 44

31 for the respondents to add any comments they had as well as to indicate their name and address if they wished to receiv e a summary of the survey results. Professional Land Manager Survey While there are some similar questions in the two surveys, the survey administered to the professional land managers was intende d to gather more technical information on the level of infestation and pract ices used for the control of Melaleuca Both professional agricultural land managers a nd park/preserve managers received the same survey questionnaire. The content of the manage r’s surveys can be broken down into two categories: (1) general descriptive informa tion reflecting the management unit, and (2) specific information on Melaleuca control. In the first segment, managers were asked to indicate their name followed by their or ganization’s name, address, and telephone number. They were then asked to specify in which counties their land holdings or management units were located. In order to determine the ownership classification of their land, managers were asked to indicate how much of their land was privately owned, publicly owned, or privately leas ed. To gather more specif ic information on the land’s use, managers were asked to indicate how ma ny acres of their land fell within certain categories, such as cropland, co mmercial timberland, park/prese rve, etc. In the hopes of gaining some insight into the factors aff ecting land management decisions, respondents were asked to indicate whether various f actors exerted significant, moderate, or no influence over their management choices. Th e managers were then asked to report how many acres of exotic plants currently occupied their management area as well as indicate how many acres of each plant had been treated from 1990-2003. The section of the survey specificall y designated to acquire information on Melaleuca began by asking managers to indicate wh at control methods they had used on

PAGE 45

32 Melaleuca They were then asked to specify th e area treated for each control used during 2003 and from 1990-2003. Managers were also as ked to indicate if they had not used any control measures for Melaleuca Respondents were asked to indicate whether they planned to continue using or to adopt specific control measures for Melaleuca and indicate if they would like to receive more information on an y of the control types listed, as well as indicate the type s of sources that provided Melaleuca control information to them. Managers were asked to indicate any reasons that limited their ability to control Melaleuca on their property. Additionally, th e managers were asked to rate the usefulness of the information in terms of “useful”, “somewhat useful”, or “not useful”. Respondents were asked to indi cate the costs for control of Melaleuca on their management unit during 2003 as well as indi cate the total expenses for any special equipment or heavy machinery purchased specifically for the control of Melaleuca since 1990. The survey went on to ask respondent s to indicate if the total costs of Melaleuca control on their land had increase d, decreased, or stayed about the same over the past five years. Managers were also allowed to indica te that they “didn’t know” the trend. If the respondent indicated that the costs had increased or decreased they were asked to indicate by what percentage. Respondents were also asked to indicate if they felt that Melaleuca had reduced their land’s agricu ltural productivity, lowered its market value, impaired its ecological function, or diminished its recreationa l use. If the respondent indicated that it had negatively affected one of these aspects they were asked to pr ovide the percentage loss that Melaleuca had caused. Professional managers were also asked to indicate their organization’s gross income or annual budget for land management from 2003. Participants were given the option of writing in a specific amount, indicating a range, or

PAGE 46

33 indicating that they did not know the amount. Finally, manage rs were given the option of adding additional comments as we ll as indicating whether they would like a copy of the results through the mail or e-mail. Survey Administration Survey administration was begun in June 2004 following the protocol of the TDM (Dillman). An introductory letter was first ma iled to all targeted respondents to notify them that they had been selected for the su rvey, explaining the purpos e of the survey, and requesting their cooperation. Approximately one week later, questionnaires were mailed along with a postage-paid return envelope and a cover letter resta ting the purpose of the study. Reminder postcards were mailed one w eek later. A second complete mailing of the survey and reminder postcard wa s repeated six weeks later. After the completed surveys were receive d from respondents and categorized into the appropriate group (i.e.park/preserve managers, agricultural managers, and homeowners) a code number was assigned to each completed questionnaire. The survey responses were entered into an Excel worksheet and then verified for accuracy. If contact information was provided in the response, fo llow up phone calls or emails were used for verification or clarification as necessary.

PAGE 47

34 CHAPTER 4 SURVEY RESULTS Results for Professional Managers Land Ownership Status Land area owned and leased by professional managers responding to the survey is summarized in Table 4-1. A total of 5.4 milli on acres were reported, which consisted of about 5.1 million acres controlled by park managers and 317,000 acres controlled by agricultural mangers. The vast majority of land managed by park/preserve managers was publicly owned, although 86,372 acres were privately owned. In contrast, most of the land managed by agricultural managers was privately owned. Publicly owned landholdings managed as parks/preserves averaged 74,488 acres per manager, and ranged in size from four acres to 1,400,000 acres. Privately owned agricultural landholding averaged 775 acres per manager and ranged from less than 1 acre to 140,000 acres. A relatively small amount of land was being privately leased by both park and agricultural mana gers. When these numbers ar e expanded to represent the full population of agricultural managers in th e 10 county study area of South Florida, an estimated 1.74 million acres would fall unde r private ownership, 73,893 acres would be privately leased, and 8,884 acres wo uld be classified publicly owned. Land Use In terms of land use, some 6.94 mill ion acres were reported managed by park/preserve managers, and 319,771 acres were reported managed by agricultural managers, giving a total of 7.26 million acres (Table 4-2).

PAGE 48

35 Table 4-1. Land area managed by survey ed professional land managers in Florida. Classification Number Sum (Acres) Mean (Acres) Minimum (Acres) Maximum (Acres) Park/Preserve Managers 805,084,967 Privately Owned 1086,3728,637770,000 Publicly Owned 674,990,67074,48841,400,000 Privately Leased 37,92526421057,500 Agricultural Managers 431316,528 Privately Owned 390302,1327750.3140,000 Publicly Owned 31,54551551,380 Privately Leased 3812,85133812,700 Overall Total 5115,401,49510,57011,400,000 The largest type of land-use by area as reported by survey respondents was for parks/preserves, comprising a total of 4.80 million acres, or 73,883 acres per manager. The next largest land uses reported by park managers were right-of-ways totaling 871,483 acres, followed by lakeshore (508,272 acres), mitigation areas or constructed wetlands (373,017 acres). Miscellaneous other uses totaling 356,262 acres included target ranges, recreational areas, and office buildings Some park/preserve managers indicated that some of their land was used for pa sture/range land, crop pr oduction, fruit/citrus groves, and nurseries, but none indicated that their land was being used as forest for commercial timber production. The most commonly reported land use by agricultural land managers was pasture/rangeland, with 38 percent of respondents reporting a total of 143,243 acres, averaging 853 acres per respondent. Crop la nd was the next larges t land use reported totaling 116,388 acres, followed by fruit/citrus groves (34,275 acres), and right-of-ways (4,547 acres). Miscellaneous other uses totaling 18,272 acres reported by agricultural managers included residences, ponds, horse fa rms, and barns. When these numbers are

PAGE 49

36 expanded to represent the populat ion of agricultural managers in South Florida, it is estimated that a total of 1.83 million acres were being managed, including 823,647 acres for pasture/rangeland, 669,231 acres for crop la nd, 197,081 acres for fruit/citrus groves, and 26,145 acres for right-of-ways, and 105,064 acres for miscellaneous other uses. Table 4-2. Land use types and areas managed by professional land managers in Florida. Park Managers Agricultural Managers All Managers Land Use Type # Sum (Ac) Mean (Ac) # Sum (Ac) Mean (Ac) Sum (Ac) Park/Preserve 65 4,802,38973,883 8304 4,802,419 Right of Way 16 871,48354,468364,547126 876,030 Lakeshore 6 508,27284,7127193 508,291 Mitigation/Wetland 14 373,01726,644925128 373,268 Pasture/Range 4 25,2106,303168143,243853 168,453 Crop 2 90045050116,3882,328 117,288 Fruit/Citrus 3 1,9086369834,275350 36,183 Nursery 5 1941031,39514 1,414 Forest 0 101,351135 1,351 Other Use(s) 16 356,26222,2668318,272220 374,534 Total of all uses 6,939,460319,771 7,259,231 Factors Affecting Land Management Survey respondents were asked to rate va rious factors that influenced their land management decisions as either “significant” “moderate”, or “none” (Table 4-3). These factors included agency funding, adverse weathe r conditions, availabil ity of agricultural land, encroachment of urban land uses, forei gn or other state comp etition, cost of inputs or supplies, prices for crops, fr uit, or livestock invasive plants, predators, insect pests, and the ability to conduct prescribed burns. Th e average ratings for each of these factors are summarized in Figure 4-1, where each respondent’s rating was assigned a number value: 0 for “none”, 1 for “moderate”, and 2 for “significant”.

PAGE 50

37 For park/preserve managers, agency funding was the most influential factor in land management decisions; being rated as signifi cant by 77% and moderate by 19%. Perhaps this is not surprising since many of these res pondents work for local, state, or federal agencies. Invasive plants were rated as a si gnificant factor by 73% of park managers, while 25% rated them as a moderate influen ce. The ability to c onduct prescribed burns was rated as significant by 39% of park/preserve managers, and as moderate by 23%. Input costs were considered significant by 36% and modera te by 53% of park/preserve mangers. Urban encroachment was rated as a significant or moderate influence by 28% and 40% of these respondents, respectively. Adverse weather was viewed as a moderate influence (71%), although this may be considered more im portant after the 2004 hurricane season. Only 8% indicated that pr edators or insect pest s were a significant factor in their management, while 42% rate d these pests as moderate, and 50% gave considered it of no significance. Factors other than those listed in th e survey (such as the general public, staffing, and wildfires) were ra ted as significant by 38% of park/preserve managers. Factors that were considered to have little or no affect on the park/preserve management decisions were prices (99%), av ailability of agricultural land (93%), and competition (86%). For agricultural managers factors influencing land ma nagement were rated lower overall. Prices for crops, fruit and livestoc k was the most important factor, with 29% indicating it was significant a nd 33% as moderate. The costs for inputs or supplies were rated as a significant factor by 24% of agricultural managers and as moderate by 41%. Adverse weather conditions were a significan t factor for 23%, urban encroachment was rated as significant by 23%, a nd availability of agricultura l land was significant for 20%.

PAGE 51

38 The latter finding may be due to the fact that most agricultural managers already own/lease their land, so they aren’t worried about acquiring any additional land, or it may indicate that agricultural ma nagers generally do not intend to expand their operations. Some 19% of agricultural managers rated predators and insect pests as a significant factor, with 46% rating them as moderate. I nvasive plants were ra ted as significant by 16% and as a moderate influence by 43%. Foreign or other state competition was generally not viewed as important, which is somewhat surprising given the significance of commodity prices. Table 4-3. Factors influenci ng management decisions by professional land managers in Florida. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Factor None % Moderate % Significant % None % Moderate % Significant % Agency funding 41977917 2 Adverse weather 1571154037 23 Availability of ag. land 93705130 20 Urban encroachment 3340275027 23 Competition 861317315 12 Costs 1253363541 24 Prices 99103933 29 Invasive plants 325734143 16 Predators/ Pests 504283646 19 Prescribed burns 3823396626 8 Other factors 441938893 8

PAGE 52

39 Figure 4-1. Average weighting of factors in fluencing management by professional land managers. Area Occupied By Invasive Plants and Area Treated The importance of Melaleuca as an invasive plant was a ssessed in relation to other invasive plants, based on the area currently occupied in 2003, and the area treated during the period 1990 to 2003. The area occupied wa s intended to represent the areas of contiguous stands, not very small isolated pa tches and individual out lying trees. The ratio of area treated since 1990 to the area occupied currently was also ta ken as a gauge of the intensity of treatment by land managers. For park/preserve managers, Melaleuca was the invasive pl ant reported to occupy the largest area ( 619,317 acres) in 2003. Melaleuca also had the largest area treated during 1990-2003 (402,088 acres), wh ich represents 65% of the area currently occupied. 1.7 1.0 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.0 1.7 0.6 1.0 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.9 1.9 00.511.52 Agency Funding Adverse Weather Availability of Ag. Land Urban Encroachment Competition Costs Prices Invasive Plants Predators/ Pests Ability to conduct prescribed burns Other Factors affecting mgmt.Average Significance Agricultural Managers Park Managers

PAGE 53

40 Brazilian Pepper was the second most co mmon invasive plant, occupying 425,805 acres in 2003, with 75,215 acres treated between 1990 and 2003. This represented 18% of the area occupied in 2003. Among other sp ecies, Old World Climbing fern ( Lygodium ) occupied 113,884 acres, and 49,213 acres were treated (43% of area occupied). Australian Pine ( Casuarina ) occupied 111,782 acres, with 16,598 acres treated (15%), Cogon grass ( Imperata ) occupied 20,147 acres, with 6,527 acres treated (32%), Tropical Soda Apple ( Solanum ) occupied 15,418 acres, with 3,475 acres treated (23%), and miscellaneous other plants occupied 11,433 acr es, with 7,094 acres treated (62%). Some of the other plants frequen tly listed were air potato ( Dioscorea bulbifera ), downy rose myrtle ( Rhodomytrus tomentosa ), latherleaf ( Colubrina asiatica ), carrot wood ( Cupaniopsis anacardioicles ), and cattail ( Typha ). For agricultural managers, 94 managers reported a total area of 2,134 acres occupied by Melaleuca in 2003, and 57 managers reporte d treating a total of 1,460 acres during 1990-2003. This represente d 68 percent of area occupi ed. This suggests that agricultural managers have treated Melaleuca at similar rates as park managers have, however other indicators in this survey and ot her research imply that park managers have acted much more aggressively. Tropical Soda Apple ( Solanum ) was reported by agricultural managers to o ccur on 10,393 acres in 2003, and 7,855 acres (or 76% of this area) were treated. Brazilian Pepper ( Schinus ) occupied 7,096 acres and 2,768 acres (39%) were treated. Miscellane ous other invasive plants, including air potato, dog fennel, and smut grass, occupied 2,561 acres, and 2,094 acr es (82%) of those plants were treated. When these numbers are expanded to repr esent the tota l population of agricultural managers, Melaleuca is estimated to cover 12,271 acr es in South Florida during 2003,

PAGE 54

41 and 8,395 acres were treated between 1990 and 2003. The area infested by other invasive plants on agricultural lands is estimated at 139,058 acr es, including 59,760 acres for Tropical Soda Apple, and 40,802 acres for Brazilian Pepper ( Schinus ). Table 4-4. Land area infested w ith and treated for invasive species by professional managers in Florida Park/Preserve Managers Agricultural Managers Area Currently Occupied Area Treated Since 1990 Area Currently Occupied Area Treated Since 1990 Species # Acres # Acres # Acres # Acres Paper bark or Punk tree ( Melaleuca ) 59619,31754402,08894 2,134 571,460 Australian Pine (C asuarina ) 55111,7825016,59829 34 155 Brazilian Pepper ( Schinus ) 68425,8056575,215146 7,096 1042,768 Cogon grass ( Imperata ) 3320,147316,52714 320 973 Old World Climbing fern ( Lygodium ) 45113,8844049,21323 178 1624 Torpedo grass ( Panicum ) 3325,0603111,00840 1,468 31888 Tropical Soda Apple ( Solanum ) 3215,418253,47537 10,393 327,855 Other plants 3711,433367,09433 2,561 182,094 Total 3621,342,846332571,218416 24,184 28215,167 Methods Used for Treating Melaleuca Managers were asked indicate if they had used a specific method for controlling Melaleuca and then to indicate the area they treated with th at method in 2003 and also cumulatively from 1990 to 2003. Respondents we re given a choice of several options: Mechanical removal (felling, mowi ng, tilling, grubbing, disking, etc.) Foliar or soil applied herbicides Basal frill followed by herbicide treatm ent (also known as “hack and squirt”) Girdling followed by herbicide treatment (a ri ng of bark is removed from the base of the tree and then treat ed with an herbicide)

PAGE 55

42 Felling followed by herbicide treatment on the cut stump (“stump treatment”) Biological control with benefi cial insects (natural enemies of the tree are released which may cause stress in establishe d trees and death of younger saplings) Biological controls combined with one or more other methods. Since respondents were given the opportuni ty of indicating more than one control method, a count was taken to see how many mana gers chose at least one control choice, and this number was used to compute the percentage of managers responding in the affirmative for using a particular control method. Among park/preserve managers, 82% indi cated they had employed the stump treatment, 59% used hack and squirt, 51% used mechanical control methods, 28% employed biological control, 21% used biolog ical control combined with one or more other form(s) of control, and 7% reported using some other method of control such as fire. Many agricultural managers did not have Melaleuca on their property, and if they did, many chose not treat it. So, it was not surp rising that 71% of agricultural managers had not used any particular control measures for Melaleuca Among agricultural managers who did use controls, 33% indica ted they had employed mechanical methods for control, 10% used foliar or soil app lied herbicides, 8% reported using stump treatment, and 4% used hack and squirt (Table 4-5).

PAGE 56

43 Table 4-5. Methods used for treatment of Melaleuca by professional land managers in Florida. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Method Used Number Percent Number Percent Mechanical 315170 33 Foliar/Soil herbicides 223620 10 Hack and Squirt 36598 4 Felling and herbicide (stump treatment) 508216 8 Biological Control 17283 1 Biological control + other method 13210 0 Other methods 374 2 No Controls 1321149 71 The area of Melaleuca treated using various control methods in 2003 and cumulatively during the period 1990-2003 is su mmarized in Table 4-6. The total area treated in 2003 was 86,731 acres, and the to tal area treated since 1990 was 422,449 acres. For park/preserve managers, the total area treated in 2003 was 84,740 acres, and the area treated since 1990 was 419,741 acres. The stump tr eatment (felling + herbicide) was used over the largest area (303 ,933 acres) since 1990, followed by hack and squirt (52,476 acres), foliar or soil applied herbicides (36,622 acres), mechanical methods (16,625 acres), and biological control (12,642 acres). Biological controls combined with one or more other method(s) were used on 80,575 acr es, and together with the area treated strictly by biological control represented 93,217 acres. For ar ea treated in 2003, the most important method used was stump treatme nt (46,958 acres), followed by foliar/soil herbicides (15,987 acres), and hack and squi rt (11,494 acres). In comparing the area treated in 2003 with the averag e annual rates since 1990, it is apparent that the use of all treatment methods has accelerated in 2003 for parks/preserves. For agricultural mana gers, overall area of Melaleuca treated by any particular method since 1990 was significantly less than th e park/preserve mana gers, at about 2,707

PAGE 57

44 acres, including mechanical methods (1,957 acres), stump treatment (274 acres), and foliar/soil-applied herbicides (355 acres). Th e smaller area treated for 1990-2003 than for 2003 in some cases was apparently due to reporting errors. Table 4-6. Number of profe ssional managers using various control methods and area of Melaleuca treated in Florida, 2003 and 1990-2003. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Area Treated 2003 Area Treated 1990-2003 Area Treated 2003 Area Treated 1990-2003 Method Used # Acres # Acres # Acres # Acres Total Area Treated 1990-2003 (Acres) Mechanical 20 4,5922214,669431,36737 1,95716,625 Foliar/Soil Herbicides 15 15,8021536,267151858 35536,622 Hack and Squirt 23 11,4542852,4377405 3952,476 Felling + Herbicide (stump) 37 46,56237303,6591439610 274303,933 Biological Control 7 6,3101012,600232 4212,642 Biological + Other 4 4,242680,5750 00 080,575 Other Control 3 2031100 01 40150 Total* 109 84,740121419,742811,99163 2,707422,449 Total area excludes biologica l plus other control methods, to avoid double counting. Managers were also asked to indicate wh ether they planned to use or continue using various control met hods (Table 4-7). Among park/preserve managers who answered this question, the la rgest share intended to use st ump treatment (85%), followed by hack and squirt (72%), mechanical contro l (50%), and biological control (45%), or biological control combined w ith other methods (40%). Fo r agricultural land managers, the majority intended to use mechanical met hods (79%), with much fewer intending to use foliar/soil applied herbicides (29%), st ump treatment (27%) or “hack and squirt” (16%). Very few agricultural managers e xpressed interest in biological control.

PAGE 58

45 Table 4-7. Intentions fo r future use of various Melaleuca control methods by professional managers in Florida. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Method Number Percent Number Percent Mechanical 30505870 Foliar/Soil herbicides 23382429 Hack and Squirt 43721316 Felling + Herbicide 51852227 Biological Control 274545 Biological + Other 244034 Other Methods 3567 Managers were also asked whether they were interested in receiving additional information about any of the specific Melaleuca control methods (Table 4-8). Most park/preserve managers were interested in l earning more about biolog ical control (74%), but a majority was also interested in folia r/soil applied herbicides and stump treatment (65%), hack and squirt (58%), and mech anical methods (52%). Among agricultural managers who responded to this question, 40% to 50% wished to learn more about biological control, stump treatment, soil/folia r herbicides and hack and squirt. The low interest in learning more about mechanical c ontrol, at the same time this group expects to continue using this method extensively, s uggests that this method is well understood. Table 4-8. Requests for more information on Melaleuca control methods by professional managers in Florida. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Method Number Percent Number Percent Mechanical 165212 25 Foliar/Soil herbicides 206522 45 Hack and Squirt 185822 45 Felling + Herbicide 206524 49 Biological Control 237424 49 Biological + Other 165217 35 Other Methods 5163 6

PAGE 59

46 Barriers to Controlling Melaleuca Land managers were asked to choose from a list of factors that may have limited their ability to control Melaleuca (Table 4-9). Among park/preserve managers, the biggest barriers identified were inaccessibili ty to infestations (22%), expense (18%), excessive size of infestations (15%), lack of cost sharing programs (13%), and lack of time (12%). However, a significant proportion of these respondents (3 2%) indicated they encountered other types of ba rriers not specifically identif ied in the question. Some of these other barriers included: infestations ar e too small, lack of needed equipment or knowledge to use controls, fear of harming othe r beneficial plants, fe ar of or dislike for using chemicals, and environmental regula tions. Although they were listed in the question, some respondents wrote-in that lack of money and lack of time were barriers to implementing controls. Only 13% of park/preserve managers said that Melaleuca was not a problem for them. Agricultural land mangers responded quite differently to the barriers to control question. Seventy-four percent i ndicated that they did not have Melaleuca on their property and 31% reported that Melaleuca was not a problem for them even it they did have it. Some 9% of agricultural managers repo rted that their infestations were too small, 6% indicated that controls were too expensiv e, 5% indicated they lacked the necessary equipment to carry out control measures, a nd 5% indicated a barr ier other than those listed in the survey. No particular barrier was mentioned more than any other; however, some respondents stated that there we re no economic incentives for removing Melaleuca that licenses were needed for purchasing the necessary herbicides, and that some areas required permits for removing the trees. It is interesting to note that one respondent

PAGE 60

47 stated that Melaleuca trees provide shade in pastures, which suggests that there may be some benefits of Melaleuca for agricultural use. Table 4-9. Barriers to controlling Melaleuca by professional managers. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Barriers Number Percent* Number Percent* No Melaleuca on property 1728227 74 Not a problem 81396 31 Don't care 0013 4 Infestations too small 5828 9 Infestations too large 9158 3 Controls won't work 003 1 Don't know how to use controls 358 3 No time to use controls 7123 1 Afraid of harm 355 2 Afraid of/Dislike 3513 4 Infestation inaccessible 13226 2 Lack equipment 5816 5 Environmental regulations 234 1 No cost sharing 81312 4 Controls too expensive 111819 6 Other reason 193214 5 Percent of respondents an swering this question. Sources and Usefulness of Information for Melaleuca Control Professional land managers were asked if they had received information about Melaleuca from one or more of 13 possible so urces (Table 4-10). These respondents were also asked to classify the usefulness of these sources as either “useful”, “somewhat useful”, or “not useful” (Table 4-11). These classifications we re scored on a scale of 2, 1 or 0 respectively in order to compute a weighted average rating (Figure 4-2). Park/preserve managers who responded to this question indicated that state and federal agencies were their main source of in formation, with 83% indicating that they had received information from these sources, followed by UF/IFAS extension (72%), land managers’ advice (67%), pamphlets or bul letins (60%), land managers’ observations

PAGE 61

48 (58%), and professional organizations (52%). Other information sources or media that were received by less than 50 percent of respondents were weed professionals, area demonstration plots, TAME Melaleuca, video cassettes or CDs, internet websites, computer software, and email. In terms of the usefulness of information from state and federal agencies, 88% of park/preserve manage rs rated it as a useful source, 10% rated it as somewhat useful, and 2% indicated it wa s not useful (Table 4-11), representing an overall average score of 1.9 (Figure 4-2). Ot her information sources with high usefulness ratings were UF/IFAS extension (1.9), mana ger observations (1.8), land manager advice (1.8), weed professionals (1.8) professional organizations ( 1.7), internet websites (1.7), pamphlets/bulletins (1.6), a nd the TAME project (1.6). Table 4-10. Information sources and t ypes of media used by professional land managers in Florida. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Sources Number Percent Number Percent State and federal agencies 508331 44 Professional organizations 315216 23 Land manager observations 355812 17 UF/IFAS extension 437233 47 Weed professionals 254210 14 TAME Melaleuca 22375 7 Land manager advice 406713 19 Pamphlets or bulletins 366017 24 Video cassettes or CDs 9154 6 Area demonstration plots 12204 6 Computer software 354 6 Website/Internet 213514 20 E-mail/direct notification 15254 6 Other information source 589 13 Among agricultural managers who responded to this question, 47% indicated they had received information from UF/IFAS extension, followed by state and federal agencies (44%), pamphlets/bul letins (24%) and professional organizations (23%) (Table 4-10). In terms of usefulness, the top ra ted sources were UF/IFAS extension (1.4),

PAGE 62

49 manager observations (1.1), state/federal agen cies (1.1), weed professionals (1.1), land manager advice (1.1), and inte rnet websites (1.1) (Figure 42). None of the agricultural managers indicated they considered area dem onstration plots, computer software/decision aids, or email/direct notifications as being useful sources. 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.3 1.1 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.6 00.511.522.5 State & Federal Agencies Professional Organization Manager's Observations UF/IFAS extension Weed professionals TAME project Land Manager's Advice Pamphlets/ Bulletins Video/CD's Demonstration plots Software/ Decision aids Website/ Internet E-mail Other media Specified Average Rating Agricultural Managers Park Managers Figure 4-2. Usefulness rating of informa tion sources and media by professional land managers in Florida

PAGE 63

50 Table 4-11. Usefulness of information receiv ed by professional land managers in South Florida. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Source Useful Somewhat Useful Not Useful Useful Somewhat Useful Not Useful Percent of Respondents State/federal agencies 881024126 33 Professional organizations 771953720 43 Land mgr. observations 791924719 34 UF/IFAS extension 881026116 23 Weed professionals 79183524 44 TAME Melaleuca 63307137 80 Land mgr. advice 811544720 33 Pamphlets or bulletins 623342641 33 Video cassettes or CDs 433621147 79 Area demonstration plots 532918021 79 Computer software 144343014 86 Website/Internet 791564016 44 E-mail/direct notification 473715014 86 Other information source 752502121 57 Costs for Melaleuca Control Managers were asked to indicate the cost s incurred during 2003 for the control of Melaleuca within the categories of contract services, labor (including wages and benefits), equipment (fuel, ma intenance, and rental), herbic ides, and indirect costs (such as administration and overhead). The total annual cost for controlling Melaleuca for surveyed park/preserve ma nagers was $10.87 (Mn.). This included $8.07 Mn. for contract services, $837,000 for labor co sts, $796,000 for herbicides, $308,000 for equipment, $330,000 for indirect costs, and $528,000 for costs miscellaneous other costs (Table 4-12). Surveyed agricultural ma nagers reported spending $205,000 in 2003 to control Melaleuca with $130,000 for contract serv ices, $29,000 for labor, $22,000 for herbicides, $18,000 on equipment, and $5950 on i ndirect costs. If these numbers are

PAGE 64

51 expanded to represent all ag ricultural managers in Sout h Florida, a total of $1.18 Mn is estimated to have been spent by these managers on controlling Melaleuca in 2003. Table 4-12. Costs for Melaleuca control reported by professional land managers in Florida, 2003. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Expense # Sum ($) Mean ($)Max ($) #Sum ($) Mean ($) Max ($) Contract services 34 8,066,544237,2514,060,0008129,90016,238100,000 Labor 29 837,47028,878400,0001728,9751,70420,000 Equipment 26 308,42811,863225,0001817,8559925,000 Herbicides 33 796,40124,133425,0001921,6101,13715,000 Indirect 19 329,77017,356110,00055,9501,1905,000 Other 7 527,50075,357500,0001500500500 Total 10,866,113204,790 Managers were also asked to indicate expe nses for any special equipment or heavy machinery purchased since 1990 specifically to control Melaleuca It is important to note that these expenses may be partly captured in the previous section under annual costs for equipment expenditures. Among park/prese rve managers surveyed, 28% reported spending a total of $1.44 Mn for special eq uipment, with a maximum expenditure of $1.20 Mn, as shown in Table 4-13. Some 7% of agricultural manage rs reported spending $244,000 on special equipment, which would represent a total of $1.40 Mn when expanded to represent the population in the region. Table 4-13. Expenses for special equipment for Melaleuca control by professional managers in Florida. Category Number Mean ($)Sum ($) Maximum ($) Park Managers 2557,5561,438,9001,200,000 Agricultural Managers 337,390243,879130,000 Managers were asked about how costs for controlling Melaleuca on their land had changed over the past five years; whether th ey had increased, decreased or remained the same. If there had been a change, they were asked to indicate the percentage change

PAGE 65

52 (Table 4-14). Among park/preserve managers, 21% indicated that costs had increased, 26% indicated that costs decreased, and 32% indicated no change. Of those who indicated that costs had incr eased, the average estimated ch ange was 253 percent, while for those who said costs had decreased, the estimated average decline was 117 percent. For agricultural managers, 11% indicated the costs had increased, 9% indicated a decrease and 41% indicated that costs had st ayed about the same. For those indicating a change in costs, the average increase was 81% and the average decrease was 87%. These results suggest that costs for Melaleuca control may be increasing more for park/preserve managers than for agricultura l land managers. A plausible explanation could be the fact that most park/preserv e managers are managing sensitive ecosystems and are mandated to control invasive plants such as Melaleuca in order to keep their management area in a more naturally pristi ne state. Many agricultural managers do not seem to think that Melaleuca is much of a problem so they are probably less interested in removing it, along with the fact that some mangers find that it sometimes provides benefits for their operations. Table 4-14. Melaleuca treatment cost trends reported by professional land managers in Florida. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Trend Number Percent Average Change (%) NumberPercent Average Change (%) Increased 13212531111 81 Decreased 162611799 87 Unchanged 20324041 Don't know trend 13213738 Impacts of Melaleuca Information was sought from managers regarding any negative impacts that Melaleuca had on their land and management over the past five years. The first part of

PAGE 66

53 the question provided the responde nts with a list of options as well as giving them the opportunity to specify any othe r adverse impacts. A second pa rt of the question sought to quantify the impact in terms of the percen tage change in func tion. Among park/preserve managers, 88 percent of those who indicated any impact reported that Melaleuca had impaired the ecological function of their ma nagement area, while 35 percent indicated a reduction in the recreational us e or value of their land (Table 4-15). A small number of park/preserve managers reported other impacts such as increased fire danger, restriction of necessary clearances, and smoke manageme nt issues with prescribed burns. Among agricultural land managers who answered this ques tion, 59% indicated that Melaleuca had reduced their land’s agri cultural productivity, while 39% said it impaired ecological function of their land and dimini shed its recreational use, an d 20% said that their land market values were reduced (Table 4-15). Some of the other negative impacts listed included allergies caused by pollen and various maintenance problems such as damage by falling trees to fences. Table 4-15. Negative impacts of Melaleuca reported by professional land managers in Florida. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Impact NumberPercentNumberPercent Reduced Agricultural Productivity 002459 Lowered Market Value 00820 Impaired ecological function 35881639 Diminished recreational use 14351639 Other impacts 410820 As a follow-up, managers were asked to es timate the percentage change in value or utility due to Melaleuca infestation. Park/preserve managers estimated that the loss of ecological function and recreational use aver aged 23 %, while agricultural managers

PAGE 67

54 estimated that Melaleuca had caused an average loss of 25 % in recreational use and 24% in agricultural productivity (Table 4-16). Table 4-16. Reduction in utility due to Melaleuca infestation reported by professional land managers. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Impact # Mean (%) Min (%) Max (%) # Mean (%) Min (%) Max (%) Reduced Agricultural Productivity 01824 3100 Lowered Market Value 0611 520 Impaired Ecological Function 242311001122 150 Diminished Recreational Use 82311001225 5100 Other Impact 1303030343 5100 Annual Income or Budget and Comparis on of Reported Melaleuca Control Expenses Professional managers were as ked to indicate their gross income from agricultural operations or their agency’s budget for land management activities for the year 2003, or to indicate the appropriate ra nge of values (Table 4-17). A small percentage of park/preserve managers (16%) reported th eir actual budgets, whic h totaled $9.1 Mn, and averaged $650,000. Among park preserve mana gers, 30% indicated their budget was less than $50,000, 7% said it was within th e range of $50,001-$99,999, 11% indicated it was $100,000 to $249,999, 9% said it was $250,000 to $499,999 range, 5% said it was $500,000 to $999,999, and 29% indicated thei r annual income/budget was $1,000,000 or more. Among agricultural managers, 10% reported actual inco me totaling $7.83 Mn. Some 55% indicated their budget wa s less than $50,000, 6% had $50,001 to $99,999, 12% had $100,000 to $249,999, 2% had $250,000 to $499,999, 3% had $500,000 to $999,999, and 6% had $1,000,000 or more Reported expenses for the control of Melaleuca were compared to reported income or budget in order to gauge the re lative level of effort allocate d to this effort. If managers

PAGE 68

55 chose to write in their income, that exact figure was used in the comparison., however, if their income/budget was reported for a range of values, then the midpoint for that range was used, and for the highest and lowest ra nges (less than $50,000, $1 million or more) $25,000 and $1.5 million were used, respectively. Only managers who reported both expenses and budget/income information could be used for this analysis. The analysis revealed that on average 38 % of park managers’ budget was expended on control measures for Melaleuca as a weighted average. For some managers, reported expenses were as much as 3 to 8 times more than thei r budget. A few of the respondents indicated that less than 1% of their inco me/budget was used on controlling Melaleuca These outliers may be due to reporting errors or ma y simply be due to the fact that some agencies/operations are involve d in deficit spending, i.e. sp ending more than their budget provides. Table 4-17. Annual income or budget for land management by south Florida professional managers, 2003. Park Managers Agricultural Managers Income/Budget Range Number Percent Number Percent Less than $50,000 173010555 $50,001--$99,999 47126 $100,000--$249,999 6112212 $250,000--$499,999 5932 $500,000--$999,999 3553 $1,000,000 or more 1629126 Don't know 593217 Approximate Amount Reported Number Mean Sum Max Park Managers 14650,3869,105,4004,385,000 Agricultural Managers 46170,2137,829,7952,450,000 For agricultural managers, an average of 4% of their income was spent controlling Melaleuca The majority of these managers fe ll into the 1 to 5% range, and some

PAGE 69

56 reported their control expenses were less than one percent, however, some indicated that 60 to 100% of their income went to controlling Melaleuca Results for Residents Invasive Plant Awareness Citizen awareness of non-native flora and in the state of Florid a is an important issue for the management of invasive plants. In the resident survey, a series of questions were included to gauge the public’s level of knowledge about invasive plants generally, and Melaleuca in particular. The vast majority of the respondents (91%) indicated they were aware that some plants and trees are not native to the State. Nearly as many (89%) indicated they were aware that non-native plan ts could harm local in digenous plants. A strong majority (71%) responde d that they could recognize Melaleuca and an equal percentage indicated that they were aware it was not native to Florida (Table 4-18). Table 4-18. Awareness of Melaleuca and invasive plants by Florida residents. Number Percent Awareness Issue No Yes No Yes Aware some plants are not native to Florida 85898 9 91 Aware non-natives can cause harm 109875 11 89 Can recognize Melaleuca 288689 30 71 Aware Melaleuca isn't native to Florida 280700 29 72 Currently have Melaleuca on property 92137 96 4 Amount of Melaleuca on Property When residents were asked if they had any Melaleuca on their property, only 4% indicated in the affirmative. Of those who had Melaleuca 31% indicated they had only one tree, 16% had two to five trees, and 31% had six to 20 trees Three percent of residents with Melaleuca had one-quarter to one-half of an acre of land infested, 9% had one to four acres, and 6% indicated they had five or more acres of Melaleuca on their property (Table 4-19).

PAGE 70

57 Table 4-19. Amount of Melaleuca on property of Florida residents. Trees or acres Number Percent One tree 1031 Two-five trees 516 Six-20 trees 1031 0.25 acre 13 0.5 acre 13 1-4 acres 39 5 + acres 26 Use of Control Methods for Melaleuca The respondents who stated that they had Melaleuca on their property were asked to indicate which, if any, of the listed control methods they were currently using. Some 84% of residents indicated they had not us ed any control measur es (Table 4-20). Mechanical controls were used by 12 percen t, foliar/soil-applied herbicides or stump treatment were used by 3% each, while 1% i ndicated they had used hack and squirt, biological control, or biological co mbined with some other control. Table 4-20. Methods used for Melaleuca control by Florida residents, and interest in more inform ation about control methods. Methods Used Interested in Learning About Method Number Percent Number Percent Mechanical 23121350 Foliar/Soil herbicides 531869 Hack and Squirt 111662 Felling + Herbicide 531869 Biological Control 212181 Biological + Other 211662 Other Methods 00831 No controls used 15784 The respondents who had Melaleuca were also questioned regarding control methods they would be interested to learn more about. There was a very high level of interest in learning more about biological controls, with 81% of respondents expressing

PAGE 71

58 such an interest (Table 4-20). A majority of respondents were also interested in learning more about foliar/soil-applied he rbicides (69%), stump treatment (69%), hack and squirt (62%), and biological control co mbined with other methods ( 62%). Interest was lower for mechanical controls (50%). Some 31% indicat ed they were interested in some other method of control, however, none specified what the other methods might be. Barriers to Controlling Melaleuca Residents were given a list of factors that potentially limit their ability to control Melaleuca and asked to indicate which of those f actors applied in their case. Of those respondents who indicated any barrier, 56% said that Melaleuca was not a problem, 20% did not care, 19% were afraid of or dislik ed using chemicals, 15% did not know how to use controls, 13% lacked the necessary equi pment and 10 percent gave other reasons (Table 4-21, Figure 4-3). Table 4-21. Barriers to controlling Melaleuca by Florida residents. Barrier Number Percent Not a problem 8056 Don't care 2920 Infestations too small 96 Infestations too large 128 Controls won't work 53 Don't know how to use controls 2115 No time to use controls 96 Afraid of harm to other plants 64 Afraid of or dislike using chemicals 2819 Infestation inaccessible 96 Lack equipment 1813 Environmental regulations 32 No cost sharing 32 Controls too expensive 53 Other reason 1510

PAGE 72

59 Information Sources for Melaleuca Control Residents were given a list and asked to indicate which sources and types of media they had received information from or on the control of Melaleuca (Table 4-22). The most common source of information was newspaper, reported by 59% of those responding to this question, followed by local/nat ional news (47%), and state and federal agencies (42%). Other sources were public television (29% ), pamphlets/bulletins (28%), UF/IFAS extension (27%), w eed professionals (17%), a nd professional organizations (12%). Some miscellaneous other sources mentioned by 17% of re spondents included word of mouth, park or garden club tour s, public speakers, personal research, or educational classes. Finally, only 1% of respondents indicated that they had received information from the TAME Melaleuca project. Table 4-22. Sources of information on Melaleuca received by Florida residents. Source Number Percent State and federal agencies 15242 Professional organizations 4412 Land manger observations 206 UF/IFAS extension 9627 Weed professionals 6117 TAME Melaleuca 41 Land manager advice 236 Pamphlets or bulletins 16628 Video cassettes or CDs 00 Area demonstration plots 203 Computer software 10 Website/Internet 275 E-mail/direct notification 203 Local/national news 28347 Newspapers 35359 Public television 17629 Other source(s) 10317

PAGE 73

60 Expenses for Melaleuca Control Residents were asked to indicate ho w much they had spent on controlling Melaleuca since owning their present prope rty, or during the period 1990-2003, by choosing the appropriate ra nge of values or by estimating the amount if their expenditures exceeded $500. As shown in Ta ble 4-23, 93% of residents indicated they had spent $0-$49, and it is most likely, gi ven previous data, that the majority of respondents in this category probably paid zero. One per cent of respondents indicated that they had spent $50 to $99. Nearly 2% spent $100 to $249 and the same number spent between $250 and $500. Slightly over 2% of respondents spent more than $500 on Melaleuca control. For t hose reporting expenses over $500, the average amount was $1,992, representing a total of $11,950. If these numbers are expanded to represent the entire population of households in South Flor ida, an estimated $15.3 million was spent on Melaleuca control. Table 4-23. Expenses for Melaleuca control by Florida residents, 2003. Expense Range Number Percent $0-$49 38093 $50-$99 41 $100-$249 72 $250-$500 72 $500+ 92 Impacts on Property Values Residents were asked to indi cate whether and by how much Melaleuca had negatively affected their property value. As shown in Table 4-24, 5% reported that Melaleuca had negatively affected their property value, and that values were reduced by an average of 18 percent. However, the majority (95%) said it had not affected their property value.

PAGE 74

61 Table 4-24. Negative effect of Melaleuca on property value of Florida residents. Effect Number Percent No 44095 Yes 245 Number 11 Mean (%) 18 If Yes, amount specified (%) Max (%) 50 Willingness to Pay for Melaleuca Removal/Eradication Residents were also asked to indicate th e dollar amount they would be willing to pay to have Melaleuca removed or eradicated from their property. If respondents indicated they were willing to pay more than $500, then they were asked to estimate the amount. As shown in Table 4-25, 74% of reside nts indicated they would be willing to spend $0 to $49, however, since many residents previously indicated Melaleuca was not a problem for them, the majority of responde nts for this category likely would choose $0. Only 11% indicated they were willing to spend $50 to $99, 6% would pay $100 to $249, 7% would pay $250 to $500, and 2% would pay more than $500. Of those respondents in the last category, the amount they would be willing to pay averaged $1,500. When these numbers are expanded to represent the populat ion of households in South Florida it is estimated that residents would be willi ng to spend a total of $13.7 Mn to have Melaleuca removed from their property, which is simila r to the estimated amount actually spent (see above).

PAGE 75

62 Table 4-25. Willingness to pay for removal of Melaleuca from property by Florida residents. Expense Range Number Percent $0-$49 22474 $50-$99 3411 $100-$249 196 $250-$500 207 $500+ 52 Number 3 Sum 4,500 Mean 1,500 If more than $500, amount specified Max 2,500 Impacts of Melaleuca on Outdoor Enjoyment Residents were asked about the number of days per year they spent in various outdoor recreational activities, and how Melaleuca has affected their enjoyment of the outdoors. Residents reported a total of 8,790 days per year observing/photographing wildlife, 8,132 days for boating or ATV activ ities, 6,263 days for freshwater fishing, 3,434 days for camping/hiking, 601 days for hun ting, and 22,475 days for other activities such as golf, jogging, cycling, walking, ga rdening, tennis, swimming, and saltwater fishing (Table 4-26). When asked about how Melaleuca had affected their enjoyment of the outdoors, 77% indicated that it had not a ffected them and 23% said it had (Table 427). Furthermore, 95% of those affected said it had negatively affected their enjoyment of the outdoors, while only 5% indicated it had positively affected them.

PAGE 76

63 Table 4-26. Days of annual outdoo r recreation activity reported by south Florida residents, 2003. Activity Number Sum Mean Max Wildlife observation/ photography 2618,79034365 Boating/ ATV 3048,13227200 Camping/ Hiking 2423,43414150 Freshwater fishing 6,263 Hunting 496011275 Other Activity 20722,8741111,000 Table 4-27. Effect of Melaleuca on outdoor enjoyment by Florida residents. Response Number Percent No 59877 Yes 17923 If Yes--Negative Effect 17995 If Yes--Positive Effect 95 Willingness to Pay to Reduce Melaleuca in Outdoor Activity Areas Residents were asked how much they would be willing to pay (per visit) to reduce Melaleuca in areas where they engaged in outdoo r activities. They were given several ranges of amounts, and if they were willing to pay more than $25 per visit were asked to estimate the amount. Some 44% of respondent s indicated they were willing to pay nothing, 8% would pay something less than $1 per visit, 27% would pay $1 to $4, 9% would pay $5 to $9, 7% would pay $10 to $15, 4% would pay $16 to $25, and 1% would be willing to pay more than $25 (Table 428). When these numbers are expanded to represent the population of households in Sout h Florida, these residents would be willing to pay an estimated total of $1.35 million to reduce Melaleuca in the areas where they engage in outdoor activities.

PAGE 77

64 Table 4-28. Willingness to pay per visit to reduce Melaleuca in recreational areas by Florida residents. Expense Range Number Percent $0 27544 $0-$1 48 8 $1-$4 171 27 $5-$9 58 9 $10-$15 42 7 $16-$25 23 4 $25 + 9 1 Count 5 Sum $500 Mean $100 If more than $25 estimated amount Max $200 Respondent Demographics Demographic information such as age, gender, property ownership, household size, and income were collected as part of this survey, to help understa nd factors influencing attitudes and behavior toward Melaleuca and other invasive plants. This information is summarized in Table 4-29. In regard to le ngth of residency, 63% had lived in their current location for more than five years, 33% had lived there for one to five years, and 4% had lived there less than one year. Regarding property ownership, 89% of respondents indicated they owne d their home, and 2% owned agricultural, forestry or other natural land in Florida. Some 57% of residents were male and 43% were female. The average year of birth was 1947, the olde st respondent’s year of birth was 1911 and the youngest was 1985. Regarding education leve l, 14% had a high school diploma or its equivalent, 11% had completed a technical/trade school, 26% had some college education or an AA degree, 23% had a bachelor’s degree, and 23% had a gradua te or professional degree. Some 80% of respondents indicated they had voted in a state or local election in the last three years. A household size of 2 people was reported by 91% of respondents.

PAGE 78

65 Regarding household income before taxe s, 5% made less than $10,000, 7% received $10,000 to $19,999, 12% received $20,000 to $29,999, 8% received $30,000-$39,999, 16% received $40,000 to $49,999, 6% received $50,000 to $59,999, 15% received $60,000 to $79,999, 12% received $80,000 to $99,999 range, and 20% indicated they made $100,000 or more.

PAGE 79

66 Table 4-29. Demographics characteristics of surveyed south Florida residents, 2003. Variable Level Number Percent Less than 1 year 33 4 1-5 years 309 33 Residency duration 5+ years 584 63 Lease 104 11 Residence ownership Own 827 89 Female 399 43 Gender Male 524 57 892 Mean 1947 Year of birth Min/Max 1911/1985 Less than high school diploma 26 3 High school diploma or equivalent 132 14 Some college or AA degree 241 26 Technical/Trade School 102 11 Bachelor’s Degree 214 23 Education level Graduate/Professional Degree 210 23 No 926 98 Ownership of 25 or more acres in Florida Yes 19 2 No 183 20 Voted in state or local Election in Past 2 Years Yes 757 81 921 Number of people per household Mean 2.4 Less than $10,000 37 5 $10,000-$19,999 52 7 $20,000-$29,999 89 12 $30,000-$39,999 60 8 $40,000-$49,999 121 16 $50,000-$59,999 47 6 $60,000-$79,999 116 15 $80,000-$99,999 89 12 Household income before Taxes $100,000+ 149 20

PAGE 80

67 CHAPTER 5 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS The primary data used for this analysis were gathered by the previously discussed mail questionnaires; however, some additional da ta were gathered from other sources. After the survey data and the additional da ta gathered were verified, analysis was conducted to ascertain the bene fits and costs of treating Melaleuca in South Florida during the year 2003. This task included delineating the moneta ry values associated with a loss in ecological function due to Melaleuca infestation. Due to time constraints, monetary values specific to South Florida ecosystems could not be generated by this research. However, Constanza et al. (1997) provides the average gl obal values of ecosystem services based upon a synthesis of previous work. The analysis provides estimated annual values for ecosystem services per unit area by ecosystem type. This research will utilize these values assess a monetary va lue to ecosystem function gains from the treatment of Melaleuca Due to the fact that park/pre serve managers indicated that Melaleuca diminished the recreational use of the land they mana ged, a monetary value was assessed to the losses in recreational value that were avoided by the treatment of the infested areas. The Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection (FDEP) Divisi on of Recreation and Parks provided an estimate of the direct economic impact of the state park system (Baxley, pers. comm.). The National Park Service and Florida State park’s economic impact of visitor spending at parks are ba sed on the Money Generation Model 2 (MGM2)

PAGE 81

68 developed at Michigan State University (MGM2 2003). The analysis provides information as to the number of days vi sited by both local and non-local visitors, the amount of money spent per day, the jobs created, tax revenue generated, the output (revenue) generated by the parks, and othe r economic impacts generated by visitor spending. Calculation of Benefits This analysis focuses on valuing benef its to ecological function, agricultural productivity, agricultural land market va lue, and recreationa l benefits from Melaleuca treatments on public and privately held lands. It is assumed that benefits can only accrue in areas where Melaleuca has actually been killed and acc rue immediately after treatment and that a year of benefits accrues regardless of what time of the timing of treatment. In addition it is important to note that just because an infestation of Melaleuca is treated once does not mean that the job is done. Due to the tenacity of the species, multiple follow up treatments are usually necessary for permanent control to be achieved. Annual benefits may be diminished if sufficient fo llow up treatments are not implemented. A model was developed that relates the areas of Melaleuca treated on specific categories of land to a specific ecosystem va lue to calculate the benefits accruing to that land. The equations used to determine the benefits of Melaleuca control are as follows: 90 10 445 10 (5-1) EB = R Ie ((Aj/Mj) (CxjDx)) + R It F ((Ak/Mk) (CxkDx)) j=1 x=1 k=1 x=1 445 6 (5-2) APB = R P Ib F ((Ak/Mk) (Cxk)), k=1 x=3 445 6 (5-3) MVB = R V Im F ((Ak/Mk) (Cxk)), k=1 x=3

PAGE 82

69 90 (5-4) RB = R Y Ir (Aj/Mj) (Cx1j))/L, j=1 where the dependent variable EB represen ts the ecosystem benefits, the dependent variable APB represents the agricultural pr oductivity benefits, the dependent variable MVB represents the agricultural land mark et value benefits, and RB represents the recreational benefits. Cx is the acreage of land classified for a specific use (x1…x10), as reported by each individual park/preserve manage r (j) or agricultural manager (k). Each x value corresponds directly to the land use classification lis ting from the survey, where x1 represents land used as park/preserve, x2 represents right of way, x3 represents pasture/rangeland, x4 is crop land, x5 is fruit/citrus grove, x6 is nursery, x7 is forest, x8 is wetlands, x9 is lakeshore, and x10 is other uses. The variable M represents the total management acreage reported by each park/preserve manager (j) or agricultural manager (k), A is the acreage of Melaleuca treated as reported by each park manager (j) or agricultural manager (k), and R is the effec tive rate of treatment. The variable I, represents the percentage re duction in value reported aver aged across responding park and agricultural managers to ecosystem se rvices, agricultural pr oductivity, land market value or recreational use of la nd reported by park managers ( noted by the subscripts e and r) and agricultural managers (noted by subs cripts t, b, and m) as matched to the corresponding equation. The variable F is the expansion factor used to expand the sample results of agricultural manage rs to represent th e entire population, Dx is the ecosystem value adjusted for inflation from Costanza et al. (1997), P represents the average market value (cash receipts per ac re of land in agricultural production) of agricultural products produced in the 10 county survey region V represents the average

PAGE 83

70 market value of land and buildings per acre in agricultural production in the 10 county survey region, Y represents the total economic output of all of the st ate parks, and two of the major national parks in the survey area, and L represents the total area of park/conservation land in the 10 county survey region as reported by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI 2005). Ecosystem Benefits In equation 5-1, the division of the Cx term by the M term yields the proportion that indicates how much of the manager’s land area is de voted to particular uses. The percentage this calculation yields is then multiplied by the acreage of Melaleuca treated, represented by A, as reported by the park ma nager (j) and the agricultural manager (k). This part of the equation is made necessary due to the fact that th e professional managers separately reported their land ar eas managed and the areas of Melaleuca that were treated. That is to say, based upon the inform ation gathered in the survey, there was no delineation as to the land use classification of the infested area treated. Therefore, it became necessary to make the assu mption that the reported area of Melaleuca treated was proportionally distributed among the nine po ssible land use designa tions reported by the individual managers. For example, if a ma nager reported that they managed 120 acres of pasture or rangeland and 30 acres of cropl and, and that they treated 60 acres of Melaleuca on their management site, then 48 acres of the Melaleuca was assumed to be treated on rangeland while 12 acres was treated on cropland. This assumption allows for the areas of Melaleuca treated to be broken down by land use classification into the nine possible classifications, which in turn, allows for an ecosystem function value to be properly assigned to each land use classification. In equation 5-1 all land us e classifications are considered, due to the fact that most terres trial areas provide some sort of ecological

PAGE 84

71 function, even if it is somewhat diminished. The Costanza et al. value assigned to the proper land use classification builds in an allowance for any diminished value in ecological function. For example, the ecologi cal function of cropla nd is only valued at $108/hectare/year, while the function of we tlands is valued at $17,393/hectare/year. As mentioned earlier, the tenacity of Melaleuca makes it difficult to kill. After speaking with vegetation management e xperts from the South Florida Water Management District and Ever glades National Park, it was determined that the minimum rate of kill to be reasonably expected after properly treating Melaleuca was approximately 90 percent (Laroche and Tayl or, pers. comm.). When contractors are hired to go into an area and treat a Melaleuca infestation, they are contractually obligated to guarantee that the existing infestation will be reduced by at least 90 percent. Therefore the R variable represents the effective rate of treatment a nd is a constant .90. This adjustment is made to the area of Melaleuca treated, reported by managers, to allow for the most realistic outcome of treatment to be represented within this benefit equation. The variable Dx represents the ecosystem valu e described by Costanza et al. (1997) that is assigned to the corresponding land use classification from the survey. Costanza et al. report their va lues in 1994 U.S. dollars per hectare which were adjusted for inflation to reflect current 2003 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator 1.176 as provided by the United State Department of Commerce (USDOC 2006). Additionally, the treatment area figures reported by the mana gers in acres were converted to hectares. Costanza et al. provides a value for land gene rally classified as terrestrial, but also provides values for specific subcategories of land such as, forest, grass/rangelands, wetlands, lakes/rivers, and cropland. The land use categories from the survey were

PAGE 85

72 matched up with a terrestrial biome value so as to provide a dollar value per hectare for the function of that ecosystem. Table 5-1 s hows the Costanza et al. values adjusted for inflation and assigns those valu es with the corresponding land use classifications from the survey. As shown below, there are six po ssible amounts and they are applied to the 10 particular land use classifica tions reported by managers. Table 5-1. Ecosystem Values for Su rveyed Land Use Classifications. Ecosystem Classification Value adjusted for Inflation using GDP Implicit Price Deflator ($/ha/year) Corresponding Land Use from Survey Terrestrial 946Right of way, Other Forest 1,140Park/preserve, Forest Grass/rangelands 273Pasture/rangeland Wetlands 17,393Mitigation area/constructed wetland Lakes/rivers 9,997Lakefront Cropland 108Crop, Fruit/citrus grove, Nursery The next term, I (with the subscript e fo r park managers and t for agricultural managers) represents the value for average ne gative impact to ecological function caused by Melaleuca as reported by professional land managers In the surveys, managers were asked to indicate how their operations had b een negatively impacted in the areas of agricultural productivity land market value, ecological f unctions, and/or recreational use as a result of Melaleuca infestations. None of the pa rk/preserve respondents indicated any negative impacts to the agricultural pr oductivity or market value of their land. Therefore, these negative impacts were not a pplied to any of the equations using their information. The responses were then app lied to the land use classifications and are reflected in Table 5-2. Ma nager’s perceptions are refl ected by applying the average negative impact percentage to th e benefit gained by treatment of Melaleuca on each land use classification. This fact or is an important addition because nobody knows the effect

PAGE 86

73 Melaleuca has on the land better than those who ma nage it and reflects the losses that can be avoided by treating Melaleuca Table 5-2. Average Negative Impact Values for Surveyed Land Use Classifications. Impact Average Reduction Park Managers (%) Average Reduction Agricultural Managers (%) Corresponding Land Use Classification Reduced Agricultural Productivity N/A24Pasture, Crop, Fruit, Nursery Lowered Market Value N/A11Pasture, Crop, Fruit, Nursery Reduced Ecological Function 2322All Land Classifications Diminished Recreational Use 2325Park/Preserve Finally, the equation for agricultural managers also includes the term F which is an expansion factor used only when applying the data collected for agricultural managers to the equation. Since only a sample of ag ricultural managers were surveyed, it was necessary to expand the sample results to represent the population of agricultural managers in South Florida. Expansion fact ors can be devised based on either the land areas surveyed or the number of people su rveyed. In this cas e it was based on the number of managers surveyed. The popul ation was 11,500 and the sample size was 2,000. Dividing the population size by the samp le size yields an expansion factor of 5.75. This calculation assumes that the sample data gathered was re presentative of the population. Agricultural Land Productivity Benefits Survey results indicated that only a small portion of the total area of Melaleuca treated occurs on agricultural land. However, in order to conduct a thorough analysis, as many factors as possible are considered in ca lculating a benefit value. Equation 5-2 is basically the same as the equation (5-1) used to calculate ecosystem benefits, with the

PAGE 87

74 exception that the land areas reported and values applied are changed to reflect the effects on agricultural productivity and not the ecological function a nd it only considers the data gathered from agricultural managers. In esse nce the P variable repl aces the value of the ecological function seen in the ecosystem benefits equation and is equal to $1,034 per acre as reported by the 2002 Agricultu ral Census data (USDA-NASS 2002). Additionally, the average ne gative impact value, Ib, is reflective of the average percentage reduction in agri cultural productivity reporte d by agricultural managers (24%), shown in Table 5-2. In this case onl y areas treated on agriculturally classified land (range (x3), crop (x4), fruit (x5), or nursery (x6)) by agricu ltural managers are considered since park/preserve managers repo rted that they managed very few acres of land classified as being used for agricultural purposes. Agricultural Land Market Value Benefits A monetary value was estimated for the benefits accruing to agricultural land market values due to the treatment of Melaleuca on those agricultural lands. As is the case with the previous equations (5-1 and 5-2) the variables in equation 5-3 are generally the same; and this equation also considers on ly the data collected from agricultural managers. Therefore, the areas reported for land uses Cxk, acres of Melaleuca treated Ak, total land management area Mk, and average negative impact value Im,(which is equal to 11% as shown in Table 5-2) are specific to agricultural managers a nd their perceptions of the effects of Melaleuca on land market values. Additiona lly, the variable V is equal to $7,017 per acre, according the 2002 Agricult ural Census data (USDA-NASS 2002). Recreation Benefits Not only does land set aside as parks or pr eserves play an invaluable role in allowing vital ecological processes to be carried out, but it also provides natural areas that

PAGE 88

75 allow for humans to interact with nature a nd gain some measure of satisfaction from recreation. Many individuals w ould probably indicate that the enjoyment they gain from outdoor recreation is not completely attribut ed to the ecological functions taking place on the land, and that some measure of enjoyment is gained from the existence of the land and the availability of the land to provide th em with a place to experience the outdoors. Therefore, it is imperative to find a way to measure the recreational value that would be lost due to a Melaleuca infestation on a park or preserve. Equation 5-4 shows that the rate of treatment is found by dividing Cxj by Mj then multiplying that by Aj, and by the effective rate of tr eatment R (0.9). The Y variable represents the total ec onomic output for the year 2003 of a ll of the state parks and two of the major national parks (Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve) in the survey region as generated by th e Money Generation Model 2 (MGM2) and is equal to $305,670,188 (MGM2 2003). Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties with the website that publishes this information, at the time of this publication, the economic output of other federal parks and preserves coul d not be collected. It is important to note that the inclusion of the economic output s of these other parks would drive the recreational benefit value highe r. The equation accounts for the percentage loss in the recreational value of pa rk/preserve land due to Melaeluca infestation as reported by professional park/preserve manage rs, therefore, the variable Ir is equal to 23%. Finally, the previously discussed variab les are all divided by the vari able L which represents the total area of park/conser vation lands in the 10 count y region for 2003 (5,275,455 acres) as reported by the Florida Natural Areas I nventory (FNAI) located at Florida State University (FNAI 2005).

PAGE 89

76 Additional Benefits The issue of fire danger associated with dense Melaleuca stands has been documented over the years. The fire danger is not only a serious concern for the Florida ecosystem, but also for the lives and pr operties that are threatened when a Melaleuca fueled fire occurs. Fire-fighting cost es timates have been compiled through suppression bills issued by the Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF). In 1985 and 1989 Melaleuca fueled fires burned nearly 12,000 acres adjacen t to the Dade County Northwest well field at a cost of $25,000 and $21,000, respectively, an d a 1,000 acre fire in Broward County cost approximately $10,000 (Diamond et al. 1991) Costs for municipal fire departments are estimated to be three times that of the FDOF due to their greater manpower requirements and equipment expenditures (Wasil and Lewis pers. comm.). These estimates yield a per acre cost of $2 to $10 for the (FDOF) and $6 to $30 for local municipalities. When the median of the estim ated cost ranges ($6 and $16) are used, and applied to an assumed 12,000 acre fire the calculations yield cost savings estimates (adjusted for inflation using the GDP implic it price deflator) of $97,207 for wildland fire control by the FDOF and $259,219 for local muni cipal fire departments. Table 5-3 shows that the total benefits gained from treating Melaleuca in 2003 were $31,742,298. The benefits that apply to the areas of land reported by park/preserve managers are ecosystem benefits, recrea tional values, and the benefits gained from avoidance of increased fire damages, which are $13.14 million, $9.17 million, and $178,213, respectively for a total of $22.49 million. The benefits of restored ecological function, agricultural productivity, agricultural market value, and a voidance of fire damages apply to Melaleuca treatment areas as reported by agri cultural managers in the amounts of $236,866, $2.15 million, $6.68 million, and $178,213, resp ectively, and yield a total of

PAGE 90

77 $9.24 million. Since there are two categories of managers being considered, the overall avoidance of fire damages AB ($356,426) is di vided between the two categories to yield $178,213 for each managerial category. Finally, the total benefits are reached by adding equations 5-1 through 5-4, along with the additio nal benefits of fire prevention, together to yield: (5-5) TB=EB + RB + APB + MVB + AB, where TB stands for total benefits and AB stands for additional benefits due to fire prevention. Table 5-3. Total Benefits of Melaleuca Control in 2003. Benefit Value ($) Agricultural Productivity 2,146,228 Agricultural Land Market Value 6,675,569 Ecological Function 13,397,685 Recreational Value 703,313 Avoidance of Fire damages 356,426 Total 23,279,221 Calculation of Costs The calculation of costs for this analysis is fairly straightforward since the cost data were gathered by the survey. The followi ng equations denote the different cost data gathered: 90 (5-6) Cp= Hj, j=1 445 (5-7) Ca= F Zk, k=1 1,015 (5-8) Cr= Gi i=1 (5-9) Ct= (C03 + C04)/2,

PAGE 91

78 where, the variable Cp represents park manager costs and is equal to the summation of the responses (Hj) of those managers, Ca represents agricultural manager costs and is equal to summation of those responses (Zk), the variable F represents the previously discussed expansion factor, and Cr are estimated residential cost s for the year 2003 based upon the survey responses (Gi). The methods for that estimation are discussed below. The dependent variable Ct is the TAME Melaleuca budget and the variables C03 and C04 represent the budgets for fis cal years 2003 and 2004 for TAME Melaleuca When the survey responses for the cost figures of park/preserve managers were summed it was calculated that they spent $10.87 million on Melaleuca controls during 2003. The sample of agricultural managers surveyed indicated that they spent $204,790. As mentioned earlier, assuming that the sample of agricultural managers is representative of the population, this cost figure can be e xpanded to represent the whole population of agricultural managers. This calculation reveals that the ag ricultural managers in South Florida spent an es timated $1.18 million on Melaleuca control in 2003. Additionally, the TAME Melaleuca program costs were reported as $820,000 for the 2003 fiscal year (October 1, 2002 to September 31, 2003) and $1,010,000 for the 2004 fiscal year (October 1, 2003 to September 31, 2004) (Silvers pers. com.). Since these fiscal years divide up the calendar year 2003, half of each of the budgets was taken and added together to yield $915,000 as the estimate for the 2003 TAME Melaleuca budget. Cost figures were also gathered from the residential surveys. However, the cost data collected in this survey were gathered by asking respondents to indicate what range of money they had spent on control measur es from 1990 to 2003 or since owning their property and were not as st raightforward as the costs reported by the professional

PAGE 92

79 managers. For example, instead of reporting that they spent $200 in 2003, residents indicated that they spent an amount that fell within the range of $100 to $249 since owning their property. These responses do not allow for a specific control cost figure to be gathered for the year 2003 and require so me additional assumptions and calculations to be made. For the sake of clarity the two issues will be addressed separately. Since the residential survey data was a sample gathered from the population the sample data gathered needed to be expanded to represent the populat ion of residents in South Florida. The survey populatio n was 2,511,141 and the sample size was 5,001. Dividing the population size by th e sample size yields an ex pansion factor of 502.13. For the sake of using a round number the e xpansion factor was rounded to 500 for the residential data. Due to th e fact that respondents indica ted a range of money spent on control efforts one specific figure could not be calculated. Instead three separate figures were calculated to reflect a range of possibi lities. Specifically, low, middle, and high range estimates were calculated to demonstr ate the possible outcomes for the responses gathered. For example, if a respondent indicat ed that they qualified for the categorical cost range of zero to $50, th en the low, medium, and high range possibilities for that respondent were zero, $24.50, or $49, respectivel y. Every person who responded to this question was assigned a low, medium, and hi gh range value. Each category’s outcomes were then summed together, thus allowing three different cost scenarios to be demonstrated for residents. These results indicate that $6,909, $31,029, and $68,808 were the raw results from the estimation of the low, middle, a nd high range residential cost scenarios, respectively. The low, middle, and high range numbers were then expanded to $3.45

PAGE 93

80 million, $15.51 million, and 34.40 million, respectiv ely, using the expansion factor of 500, as previously discussed. Due to the fact that the majority of residential respondents responded that they did not have Melaleuca on their property the assumption was made that most of the respondents who indicated the $0 to $49 range were most likely reporting that they had spent $0 on control measures, so this analysis uses the low cost estimates. Additionally, the cost figures must be adjusted to represent the time frame addressed in this analysis. A value must be calculated from th e data gathered to yield the best estimate of the cost figures for 2003. Since the data reported were for a time span of 1990 to 2003 the figures computed above were averaged out over the 14 year period to yield an average dollar amount spent per ye ar. Using the low, middle and high range scenarios as discussed above, resident s are estimated to have spent $246,750, $1.11 million, and $2.46 million respectively on control measures during 2003. Table 5-4 shows that an estimat ed total of $13,207,863 was spent on Melaleuca control measures in 2003. Th erefore total costs (TC) ar e equal to the summation of equations 5-6 through 5-9 and is demonstrated by: (5-10) TC= Cp + Ca + Cr + Ct. Table 5-4. Cost Data for Melaleuca Control in 2003 Group Costs ($) Park Managers 10,866,113 Agricultural Managers 1,180,000 Residents 246,750 TAME Melaleuca 915,000 Total 13,207,863 Calculation of the Benefit-Cost Ratio Given the previous equations and met hodology, the task of calculating a BCR that compares agricultural productiv ity, agricultural land market values, ecological function,

PAGE 94

81 and recreation benefits to control and progr am costs is now very simple. Using the general equation: (5-11) BCR = TB/TC, where the variable BCR represents the benef it-cost ratio and TB and TC represent the total benefits and total costs, respectively, all that has to be done is to enter the appropriate values into the equation to gain an overall BCR for treating Melaleuca As shown in the previous tables, the total benefits gained in the areas of agricultural productivity, agricultural land market valu es, ecological function, and recreational benefits from treating Melaleuca during the year 2003 equal $23,279,221 while the total control and program costs from the same time period amount to $13,207,863. When these values are applied to equation 5-11, th e results yield a bene fit-cost ratio of 1.76. While the total benefit-cost ratio is useful in helping to determine the overall success or failure of a program, the discus sion of the benefit-cost ratios from the subcategories considered in this analysis can also be useful. The categories of survey respondents had very different re sults for the areas occupied by Melaleuca and the areas treated. When the same methodologies used fo r the overall benefit-cost ratio are applied to the subcategories of data, separate be nefit-cost ratios can be determined for park/preserve managers and agricultural ma nagers. The total benefits accruing to park/preserve managers are $14.02 million, while the total costs park/preserve managers reported in the survey were $10.87 million, thus yielding a benefit-cost ratio of 1.29 for park/preserve managers. Total benefits accruing from treatment of Melaleuca on agricultural land are estimated to be $9.24 million. When the cost data reported by agricultural managers are

PAGE 95

82 expanded to represent the population it is estimated that the total costs were $1.18 million. Using equation 5-11, the calculation re veals a benefit-cost ratio of 7.83. This number is relatively high due to the fact that agricultural lands have multiple benefits accruing to them. Agricultural managers also reported lower costs because they have not been treating Melaleuca as aggressively as park manage rs and therefore have a greater marginal value response at this stage of their control efforts. If agricultural managers pursue controls more assertively, it is expected that the marginal value of the benefits from their control efforts will diminish with the greater treatment area. While park/preserve lands also have the multiple benefits of ecological function and recreational value, agricultural lands have agricultural pr oductivity and land market values as well as ecological function accruing to them. Even t hough the ecological benefits that accrue to agricultural lands are greatly diminished as comp ared to lands held in a natural state, the soil and bedrock contained in them still se rve some water filtra tion purposes, however minimal. Therefore, agricultural lands ha ve a relatively larger amount of benefits accruing to them than park/preserve. While the previous statement may be true for the purposes of this analysis, it is imperative to not jump to the conclusion that agricultural lands are simply more valuable than park/p reserve lands. There are benefits such as existence values for parks/preserves that are not considered in this pa rticular analysis and would undoubtedly drive the benefits accruing in those areas higher.

PAGE 96

83 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary This thesis seeks to characterize the current state of the management of Melaleuca in South Florida and determine the benefits and costs of controlling Melaleuca for the year 2003. Previous benefit-cost analyses ha ve primarily focused on the possible benefits and costs associated with the unfettered spread of Melaleuca That kind of research was quite useful in helping to de termine if the benefits to unde rtake control strategies would outweigh the costs. This analysis differs in that it seeks to assign a monetary value to the benefits actually gained on the areas of land invaded by Melaleuca which have been successfully treated and the cost s associated with that trea tment. Instead of conducting an analysis that assumes a hypothetical best or worst case scenario, this analysis seeks to focus on the reality of what is actually ha ppening with the spread and treatment of Melaleuca in South Florida and serves to eval uate policy and management decisions made during this program. After consultations between UF-IFAS, USDA-ARS, and TAME Melaleuca surveys were developed and mailed to professi onal land managers and residents in the 10 southernmost counties of Florida during th e summer of 2004. The surveys for the professional managers were sent to individuals whose manage ment areas were classified as park/preserve or agricultural. A wealth of information was gathered to help gain insight into the current st atus of the war against Melaleuca The benefit-cost analysis specifically used the data that pertained to the land use clas sifications of the management

PAGE 97

84 area, how much Melaleuca was on the land, the area of Melaleuca treated, the costs associated with the treatment, and the negative impacts to the land caused by the Melaleuca infestations as estimated by managers. The response rates for park/preserve and agricultural managers were 32% and 22%, respectively. The responses from park/preserve mana gers revealed th at 619,317 acres of Melaleuca inhabited their management areas, wh ile they treated a total of 84,740 acres during 2003. Based on the fact th at control strategies are not completely effective, a 90% rate of effective removal was applied to th e treatment areas repo rted by park/preserve managers to yield the estimated area of Melaleuca killed as 76,265 acres The total costs associated with these control methods were reported as $10.9 million. The park/preserve managers felt that Melaleuca impaired the ecological functi on and recreational use of the land they managed by an average of 23%. Agricultural managers indicated that a total of 2,134 acres of Melaleuca occurred on their land and that they treated approximately 1,991 acres during the year 2003. When the assumed effective rate of treatment is used it is estimated that approximately 1,701 acres of Melaleuca were killed on agricultural la nds during 2003. The total costs associated with these treatments were approximately $204,790. It should be noted that these figures collected from the sample of agri cultural managers were expanded to reflect the population for the calculation of the bene fit cost ratio(s). The expanded figures indicate that agri cultural managers had an esti mated total of 12,271 acres of Melaleuca occupying their land, while they treated an esti mated 10,868 acres at an estimated cost of $1,180,000 during 2003. Finally, the agricultural managers repor ted that the agricultural

PAGE 98

85 productivity, market value, and ecological func tion of their land had been reduced by an average of 24 percent, 11 percent, and 22 percent, respectively. The majority of the data gathered by the residential survey was directed at gathering information related to the awareness and perceptions of Melaleuca by the residents and therefore much of it was not used in this benefit-cost analysis. However, the cost data collected from the residents wa s used. Residents had the lowest survey response rate at 20 percent. Based on the da ta collected and the methods described in the previous chapter, it was estimated that the re sidents of South Florida spent an estimated $246,750 on Melaleuca control/removal in 2003. Using the information gathered from the mail surveys and other relevant data sources it was determined that the benefit-cost ratio for Melaleuca control in the year 2003 was 1.76. The benefit portion of the rati o was computed by assessing monetary values for the benefits that were gained due to the re stored ecological function of agricultural and park /preserve land, agricultural produc tivity and market value of agricultural land, a nd the recreational use of park/preserve lands where Melaleuca controls had been implemented. The additiona l benefit of avoidance of costs connected with Melaleuca fueled fire control was also consider ed in the benefit equation. The costs were derived from the residential and prof essional survey data along with the TAME Melaleuca program costs which include the cost s associated with this research. Conclusions, Implications, and Policy Recommendations Based upon the results of the surveys it is qu ite apparent that the vast majority of Melaleuca control is still taking place on public land in South Flor ida. As stated in the introduction of this thesis, this phenomenon is most likely due to th e fact that a legal mandate requires public agencies to remove inva sive plants from their management areas.

PAGE 99

86 It may be necessary for the legislature to make the current laws addressing the general public more stringent so as to induce a greater number of private land managers and homeowners to implement Melaleuca controls on their properties. While making the laws stricter is a step in th e right direction, it will also be necessary for the lawmakers to assign specific penalties for those in vi olation of the law and require a uniform enforcement of the laws and penalties. Th is would require increased presence by the enforcement agencies and would certainly re quire a greater amount of time and effort from those agencies. A requirement simila r to those municipalities that call for new construction sites to have Melaleuca trees removed from the pr operty before a certificate of occupancy can be issued may be a useful tool in inducing Melaleuca removal. The results of the benefit-cost analysis support the earlier hypothesis made that this analysis would yield a benefit-cost ratio higher than one. When the benefits from Melaleuca control realized on park /preserve and agricultural land are compared to the costs incurred by those land managers and privat e residents the analysis indicates that the benefits are almost two times gr eater than the costs. It is important to keep in mind that this is not even considering benefits that may be accruing to the private homeowners in South Florida and would only serve to increa se the benefits. Gi ven the resulting costbenefit ratio of 1.76, it can be said that the current policy requiring Melaleuca control is providing a benefit to society in the year 2003. It is interes ting to note that due to the compound effect of having multiple values tied to their land (i.e.-the values gained from the ecological functions, the actual production of agricultural commodities as well as the market value of the land) this analysis indi cates that agricultural lands have a higher benefit-cost ratio than park /preserve lands for treating Melaleuca (7.83 vs. 1.29). Even

PAGE 100

87 without considering the benefits accruing to agricultural land market values, the ratio is still greater for agricultural la nds than park/preserve lands (2 .17 vs. 1.29). Therefore it is recommended that policymakers and public agen cies continue to at least maintain the current levels of funding and control efforts for Melaleuca reduction. Not only should they continue to maintain the current leve ls of funding, but they should also consider increasing funds to help specifically target agricultural managers to persuade them to control Melaleuca on their property. This would se rve to help solve the problem of having Melaleuca spread around private lands, while it is being controlled on public lands, and would also help avoid cross contamin ation from the infested areas to the areas under control. A majority of residents who responded to the survey questions aimed at determining their awareness of Melaleuca indicated that they knew that Melaleuca was not native to Florida and that they knew non-native plants could be harmful (71% and 89%, respectively). However, when the re sidents were later as ked to indicate if Melaleuca effected their enjoyment of the outdoo rs 77% of those who responded to the question indicated that it did not When residents were asked to indicate if they felt that Melaleuca negatively affected their property va lue 95% of those responding to the question indicated that they felt it did not. There seems to be a gap between what people know about Melaleuca and how that knowledge affects th eir desire to take the actions necessary to control it. Acco rding to the survey data th e main sources that provide information on Melaleuca for residents were newspapers and local/national news (59% and 47% of residents who responded to the question, respectively). These may be the outlets that policy makers, environmenta l action groups, and public agencies should

PAGE 101

88 target to help educate the public about how Melaleuca can negatively affect their lives and why they should control it. If people are made aware of th e specific ways the environment (through the loss of native flora a nd fauna and the impairment of necessary ecological functions) and conse quently their lives could be negatively impacted if the spread of this plant is not slowed, then perhap s they would be more likely to take more of a proactive role in its control. Recommendations for Future Work When it comes to evaluating any public policy or program there are a myriad of different areas to consider. Evaluating Melaleuca control is no different. Due to time constraints there were areas that were not addressed by th is research. As mentioned earlier, this research did not address benefits that residents gained from Melaleuca control measures; this would serve to allow managers and policy makers to have a more complete picture of the benefits a nd costs involved with controlling Melaleuca Due to the fact that the mail surveys used for this analysis were generally focused on gaining information for the year 2003, only a small amount of the information gathered showed the progress of Melaleuca control since its beginning in the early 1990s. This analysis only looked at point estimates of the benefits from Melaleuca control. Consequently, these benefit estimates may be greater or lesser due to the fact that averages were often used. It would be very beneficial for a benefitcost analysis to be conducted for the whole lifespan of the eradi cation/control program. This would allow researchers, policy makers, and managers to see patterns that have developed over time and what kind of progress has been made, thus allowing them to adjust their strategies, if necessary.

PAGE 102

89 To date there is no one agency that has accounted for of all Melaleuca infestations and treatment areas. It would be very prudent for research to compile a database of the areas infested and treated each year and the co sts for the treatments. The research should also seek to determine the land use classifica tions of the infestation and treatment areas (i.e.-whether the land is used for park/prese rve, crop production, commercial timber, etc.) so that future researchers would not have to make the assumptions that this research had to use when assigning monetary values for be nefits of treatment. Additionally, it would be useful to ask managers to indicate their estimates of th e functionality regained on land that they have treated for Melaleuca rather than requiring resear chers to make inferences based on manager’s estimates of the negative im pacts of infestations on their land. This analysis assumed that full benefits were ga ined immediately after treatment occurred. Therefore, it would be valuable for research ers to determine the amount of time necessary for full benefits to be realized after successf ul treatment occurs and to quantify the rates at which the full benefits return during that time frame. This would allow for a more accurate picture of the value of the benefits gained from Melaleuca treatment on the various land uses. It should be noted that another roun d of surveys and/or focus groups are scheduled to be conducted at a later date to measure the success/visibility of the TAME Melaleuca program. This could serve as an opportuni ty to gather some of the previously mentioned data so as to conduct an exhaus tive benefit-cost analysis of the overall Melaleuca eradication/control program.

PAGE 103

90 APPENDIX A MELALEUCA MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF PROFESSIONAL LAND MANAGERS This survey is being conducted by the Un iversity of Florida’s Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences in partnership w ith the U.S. Department of AgricultureAgricultural Research Service, for th e purpose of examining the impacts of Melaleuca and other invasive plants in Florida. The survey is being mailed to a sample of public and private land managers. Please respond to the following questions, and return the completed questionnaire in the postage paid envelope provided. Your answers will be instrumental in developing successful and co st-efficient methods for better controlling invasive plants. The questions pertain to your operations during 2003, unless otherwise indicated. Please answer only for your property or the management unit(s) under your supervision. Information obtained in this survey will be kept strictly confidential; only averages or totals for all survey resp ondents will be disclosed. Your participation is voluntary and you may decline to answer any question if you do not wish. There is no compensation or anticipated risks for participating in this su rvey. The survey will require about 15 to 30 minutes to complete. If you have any questions about this su rvey, you may contact the investigator: Alan W. Hodges, PO Box 10240, Gaines ville, FL 32611, tel. 352-392-1881 x312, email AWHodges@ufl.edu or the sponsor at USDA-ARS Inva sive Plant Research Laboratory, 3205 College Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33314, tel. 954-475-0541, fax 954-476-9196, email csilvers@saa.ars.usda.gov or visit the website: http://tame.ifas.ufl.edu/ For questions about your rights as a research participan t, contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, telephone 352392-0433. Thank you for your participation!

PAGE 104

91 Contact and Location/Address Information: Name of person filling out form:_____________________________________________ Name of Organization:_____________________________________________________ Street or PO Box:_________________________________________________________ City & zipcode:__________________________________________________________ Telephone number:_______________________________________________________ Florida counties in which land holding(s) under your management are located (list all): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Fiscal Year/Ending Month for annual information reported Check here if information is reported for Jan1. to Dec. 31, 2003; Otherwise, indicate annu al period reported:_____________________________________ 1. Land Ownership. Indicate the land area under your management that is privately owned, publicly owned or leased: Ownership Acres Privately owned ________________ Publicly owned ________________ Privately leased ________________

PAGE 105

92 2. Land Use Enter numbers of acres managed for each of the following land use types: Land Use Type Acres Park or preserve (aquatic or terrestrial) ________________ Right of way (roads, canals, powerlines) ________________ Pasture or rangeland ________________ Crop land ________________ Fruit or citrus grove ________________ Nursery ________________ Forest (commercial timberland) ________________ Mitigation area or constructed wetland ________________ Lakeshore ________________ Other use(s); specify: ________________ Total of all land uses ________________ 3. Factors Affecting Land Management. Rate each of the following factors regarding its influence on your land management decisi ons; check the appropria te box to indicate whether influence is “none” (no influe nce), “moderate”, or “significant”: Influence Factor None Moderate Significant Agency funding Adverse weather conditions Availability of agricultural land Encroachment of urban land uses Foreign or other state competition Cost of inputs or supplies Prices for crops, fruit, livestock Invasive Plants Predators; insect pests Ability to conduct prescribed burns Other factor(s); Specify: ________________________________

PAGE 106

93 4. Area Occupied By Invasive Plants and Area Treated. Estimate the area on your lands currently occupied by each of the following invasive plants and the area that has been treated by any control method(s) between 1990 and 2003: Invasive Plant Total Area Occupied (Acres) Area Treated (Acres) Paper bark or Punk tree ( Melaleuca ) ________________ ______________ Brazilian Pepper ( Schinus ) ________________ ______________ Australian Pine ( Casuarina ) ________________ ______________ Old World Climbing fern ( Lygodium ) ________________ ______________ Cogon grass ( Imperata ) ________________ ______________ Torpedo grass ( Panicum ) ________________ ______________ Tropical Soda Apple ( Solanum ) ________________ ______________ Other plant(s); Specify:___________________ ________________ ______________ 5. Methods Used for Melaeluca control. Indicate the area treated with each of the following methods for control of Melaleuca both last year (2003), and since 1990. Check if Method Used Control Method(s) Used Area Treated 2003 (Acres) Total Area Treated 19902003 (Acres) Mechanical (felling, mowing, tilling, grubbing, disking, etc.) Foliar or soil applied herbicides (aerial or spot application) Girdling and herbicide treatment (“hack & squirt”) Felling and herbicide treatment on cut stump Biological control (beneficial insects) Biological control combined with one or more method(s) Other method(s) used; Specify: ____________________________________ Check here if you have not used any control measures for Melaleuca

PAGE 107

94 6. Intention toUse Melaleuca Control Methods. Indicate whether you plan to continue using or to adopt any of the fo llowing practices for control of Melaleuca and whether you would like to receive more informa tion about its effectiveness and cost. Check if you plan to use or continue using Check if you would like more information Control Methods Mechanical (felling, mowing, tilling, grubbing, discing, etc.) Foliar or soil herbicides (aerial or spot application) Girdling and herbicide treatment (“hack and squirt”) Felling and herbicide treatment on cut stump Biological control (beneficial insects) Biological control combined with one or more other method(s) Other method(s) used; Specify _________________________ 7. Barriers to Controlling Melaleuca Please indicate reasons that may limit your ability to control Melaleuca Check any that apply. Do not have Melaleuca on my property Melaleuca is not a problem for me Don’t care about Melaleuca Infestations are too small Infestations are too large Controls will not work Do not know how to use controls Do not have time to use controls Afraid controls will harm other plants Afraid of/dislike using chemicals Infestation areas are inaccessible Do not have the necessary equipment for controls Environmental regulations prev ent me from using controls There are no cost sharing programs for controls Controls are too expensive Other reason; Specify: ___________________________________

PAGE 108

95 8. Information Sources and Media for Melaleuca Control Indicate what types of information sources and media you have received information about control of Melaleuca and whether this was usef ul? Check all that apply. Information Usefulness Have Received Information Useful Somewhat Useful Not Useful Information Source or Media State and federal Agencies Professional organizations Observation of other land managers UF/IFAS extension information Recommendations by weed p rofessionals TAME Melaleuca project Advice from other land managers Pamphlets or bulletins Video cassettes or CDs Area demonstration plots Computer software decision aids Website / Internet E-mail newsletters or direct notifications Other information source(s) or media; Specify:__________________

PAGE 109

96 9. Annual Costs for Melaleuca Control. Indicate the costs for control of Melaleuca on your land last year (2003) in the categories listed below. Give actual amount or estimate an approximate amount. Expense Type Amount ($) Contract services $____________ Labor (wages & benefits) $____________ Equipment (fuel, maintenance, rental) $____________ Herbicides $____________ Indirect costs (administration, overhead) $____________ Other; (specify)________________________ $____________ Total costs $____________ 10. Expenses for Special Equipment. Indicate the total expense for any special equipment or heavy machinery purch ased specifically to control Melaleuca on your lands since 1990. Total equipment expenditure amount: $__________________ 11. Trends in costs for Melaleuca Control. How have the total costs of Melaleuca control on your lands changed over the past five years? Check appropriate response: Increased Decreased Stayed about the same Don’t know If increased or decreased, indicate by how much: ______ %

PAGE 110

97 12. Impacts of Melaleuca. How has Melaleuca negatively affected your land over the past five years? Check any that appl y, and indicate the percentage change: Check if applies Type of Impact Percent Change (Loss) Reduced agricultural productivity _______% Lowered market value _______% Impaired ecological function _______% Diminished recreational use _______% Other impact(s); Specify: _______% 13. Annual Income/Budget. Indicate your organization’s gross income from agricultural operations, or your agency’s budget for land manage ment activities last year (2003). Please give the approxi mate amount or check the range that represents this value. Approximate annual income or budget: $_____________ Less than $50,000 $50,001 to $99,999 $100,000 to $249,999 $250,000 to $499,999 $500,000 to $999,999 $1,000,000 or more Don’t know

PAGE 111

98 Comments. In the space below, please write any comments you may have regarding invasive plant management or the TAME Mela leuca Project. Feel free to address any issues not covered in this questionnaire. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Check here if you wish to receive a copy of the study results. by mail by e-mail___________________________________________________ Date survey completed:_________________________ Please return this questionnaire in the envelope provided. Thank you again for your participation.

PAGE 112

99 APPENDIX B MELALEUCA MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES This survey is being conducted by the Un iversity of Florida’s Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences in partnership with the U.S. Department of AgricultureAgricultural Research Service, for th e purpose of examining the impacts of Melaleuca and other invasive plants in Florid a. The survey is being mailed to a sample of the public at large. Please respond to the following questions, and return the completed questi onnaire in the postage-paid envelope provided. Your answers will be instrumental in devel oping successful and co st-efficient methods for better controlling invasive plants. Please answer only for your property. Information obtained in this survey will be kept strictly confidential; only averages or totals for all survey respondents will be disclosed. Your participation is voluntar y and you may decline to answer any question if you do not wish. There is no compensation or anticipated risks for participating in this survey. The survey will require about 15 to 30 minutes to complete. If you have any questions about this survey, you may contact the investigator: Alan W. Hodges, PO Box 10240, Gain esville, FL 32611, tel. 352-392-1881 x312, email AWHodges@ufl.edu or the sponsor at USDA-ARS Invasive Plant Research Laboratory, 3205 College Ave ., Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314, tel. 954-4750541, fax 954-476-9169, email csilvers@saa.ars.usda.gov or visit the website: http://tame.ifas.ufl.edu/ For questions about your rights as a research participant, contact the University of Florida In stitutional Review Board at PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, telephone 352-392-0433. Thank you for your participation! Please turn the page

PAGE 113

100 Este cuestionario esta siendo conducido conjuntamente por el Instituto de Alimentos y Ciencias Agrcolas de la Univer sidad de la Florida (U niversity of Florida Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences UF /IFAS) y por el Servic io de Investigacin Agrcola del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service), con el propsito de examinar el impacto de la Melaleuca y otras plantas de tipo i nvasivo en el estado de la Florida. El cuestionario esta siendo enviado por correo al publico en ge neral. Por favor, le pedimos conteste las siguientes preguntas, y regrese el cuestiona rio en el sobre provisto(no requiere de estampillas). Sus respuestas sern instrumentales en el desarrollo de mtodos econmicos, eficientes y exitosos para el me jor control de las plantas invasivas. Por favor conteste solamente con resp ecto a su propiedad. La informacin obtenida a travs de este cuestionario se r mantenida estrictamente confidencial; nicamente los promedios y totales para todos los encuestados sern publicados Su participacin es totalmente voluntaria. Usted puede omitir su respuesta a cualquier pregunta, si as lo desea. No se ofrece ni ngn tipo de remuneracin por participar en la encuesta, ni tampoco se anticipa riesgos. El cuestionario toma entre 15 y 30 minutos para ser completado. Si tiene cualquier pregunta acerca de este cuestionario, puede contactar al investigador: Alan W. Hodges PO Box 10240 Gainesville, FL 32611 tel. 352-392-1881 x312 Email AWHodges@ufl.edu a nuestro patrocinador: USDA-ARS Invasive Plant Research Laboratory 3205 College Ave. Ft Lauderdale, FL 33314 tel. 954-475-0541, fax 954-476-9169 Email csilvers@saa.ars.usda.gov o visite nuestra pagina Web: http://tame.ifas.ufl.edu/ Para preguntas acerca de sus der echos como participante en este proyecto de investigacin, por favor contacte a la Universidad de la Florida en: University of Florida Institutional Review Board PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611 telephone 352-392-0433. Gracias por su valiosa participacin! Porfavor pase a la siguiente pagina

PAGE 114

101 English Version 1. Are you aware that some plants and trees are not native to this State? Please check Yes No 2. Are you aware that some non-native plan ts can harm local native plant species by overcrowding them or by altering natural areas? Yes No 3. Can you recognize the plant Melaleuca also known as Paper Bark or Punk Tree? Yes No 4. Are you aware that Melaleuca is not native to Florida? Yes No 5. Do you currently have any Melaleuca on your property? Yes No 6. If Yes, please estimate how much Melaleuca is on your property. Check response that applies : One Tree Two to Five Trees Six to 20 Trees One-Quarter Acre One-Half Acre One to Four Acres Five or More Acres Please turn the page

PAGE 115

102 Versin en Espaol 1 Esta usted al tanto de que algunas plantas y rboles existentes en la Florida no son nativas de este estado? Marque con una x S No 2. Esta usted al tanto de que algunas de esta s plantas no nativas pueden ser dainas para especies de plantas que s s on nativas? Por ejemplo, quitndol es su espacio o alterando su ecosistema natural. S No 3. Es usted capaz de reconocer la planta Melaleuca conocida tambin como rbol de Corteza de Papel? S No 4. Sabia usted que la Melaleuca es una especie no nativa de la Florida? S No 5. Existe o tiene en su propiedad un rbol de Melaleuca ? S No 6. Si su respuesta es si, puede darnos un estimado de cuanta Melaleuca hay en su propiedad. Un rbol Dos o Cinco rboles Seis a 20 rboles de acre (1000m2) Medio acre (2000m2) Uno a cuatro acres Cinco o ms acres (2 Has. o ms) Porfavor pase a la siguiente pagina

PAGE 116

103 English Version 7. If you have Melaleuca on your property, pl ease indicate which of the following methods you are currently using to contro l Melaleuca, and any that you would be interested to learn more a bout. Check any that apply. Method Currently Using Interested To Learn More About Mechanical only (felling, mowing, tilling, pulling, grubbing, without herbicides) Chemical (leaf application of herbicides) Girdling of stems followed by herbicides (Hack & Squirt) Stump treatment (felling followed by herbicides on cut stump) Biological control with beneficial insects Biological control combined with at least one other method Other methods (Specify): _________________________________ Check here if you have not used any control measures for Melaleuca 8. Barriers to Controlling Melaleuca Please indicate any reasons that may limit your ability to control Melaleuca Check any that apply Do not have Melaleuca on my property Melaleuca is not a problem for me Don’t care about Melaleuca Infestations are too small Infestations are too large Controls will not work Do not know how to use controls Do not have time to use controls Controls will harm other plants Afraid of/dislike using chemicals Infested areas are inaccessible Do not have the necessary equipment for controls Environmental regulations prev ent me from using controls There are no cost sharing programs for controls Controls are too expensive Other reason; Specify: _________________________________ Please turn the page

PAGE 117

104 Versin en Espaol 7. Si es que tiene usted Melaleuca en su propiedad, por favor indique cual de los siguientes mtodos utiliza usted actualmente para controlar la Melaleuca y si hay alguno del cual usted deseara conocer ms. Marque todas las que aplican. Mtodo Usado actualmente Deseara conocer mas Solamente mecnico (tala, corte, labrado, arrancado a mano, escarbando, SIN herbicidas) Qumico (aplicacin de herbicidas directamente a la hoja) Corte y aplicacin en chorro a la zona de corte (Hack & Squirt) Tratamiento al tocn (tala seguida de aplicacin al tocn restante) Control biolgico con insectos benficos Control biolgico combinado con al menos un otro mtodo Otros mtodos(Especifique): _________________________________ Marque aqu si ningn mtodo es usado para controlar la Melaleuca 8. Impedimentos para controlar la Melaleuca Por favor indique cualquier motivo que le detenga de controlar la Melaleuca Marque cualquiera que se aplique a usted. No tengo Melaleuca en mi propiedad La Melaleuca no representa un problema para m Me es indiferente Las infestaciones son demasiado pequeas Las infestaciones son demasiado grandes Nada parece funcionar No s utilizar ningn mtodo de control No tengo tiempo para hacer cualquier tipo de control Los controles afectaran otras plantas Evito/me asusta el uso de qumicos Las reas infestadas son inaccesibles No poseo el equipo adecuado Las regulaciones ambientales no me lo permiten No existen programas para comp artir los costos de control Los controles son demasiado costosos Otros motivos; Especifique: __________________________ Porfavor pase a la siguiente pagina

PAGE 118

105 English Version 9. Information Media for Melaleuca Control. From what types of media have you received information about control of Melaleuca ? Check all that apply. Have Received Information Information Media Pamphlets or bulletins Video cassettes or CDs Area demonstration plots Computer software decision aids Website / Internet E-Mail newsletters or direct notifications Local and national news Newspapers Public television Other information media; Specify_____________________________________ 10. Information Sources for Melaleuca Control. From what sources have you received information about control of Melaleuca ? Check all that apply Have Received Information Information Source State and federal agencies Professional organizations Observation of other land managers UF/IFAS extension information Recommendations by landscape professionals TAME Melaleuca project Advice from other land managers Other information source(s); Specify: ____________________________________ Please turn the page

PAGE 119

106 Versin en Espaol 9. Medios de informacin para el control de la Melaleuca A travs de que medios de comunicacin ha recibido informacin acerca del control de la Melaleuca ? Marque todas las que se apliquen He recibido informacin Medio de comunicacin Panfletos o boletines Video cassettes o CDs reas de demostracin Paquetes de computo (software) para la ayuda de toma de decisiones El Internet y/o paginas Web E-mail (notificaciones directas o hojas informativas) Noticias locales o nacionales El diario (peridicos) Televisin publica Otros medios de comunicacin; Especifique: _____________________________________ 10. Fuentes de informacin para el control de la Melaleuca De cuales fuentes ha recibido usted informacin acerca del control de la Melaleuca ? Marque todas las que se apliquen He recibido informacin Fuente Agencias federales y del estado Organizaciones profesionales Observando el manejo de otros terratenientes Informacin del servicio de extensin UF/IFAS Recomendaciones hechas por profesionales en diseo y mantenimiento de areas verdes Proyecto TAME para la Melaleuca Consejos de otros terratenientes Otra(s) fuentes de informacin; Especifique: ____________________________________ Porfavor pase a la siguiente pagina

PAGE 120

107 English Version 11. Expenses for Melaleuca Control Estimate how much you sp ent specifically for the control of Melaleuca on your property since 1990 or since owning your property, including any costs for labor, contract se rvices, equipment, herbicides, etc. Please check appropriate range $0 to $49 $50 to $99 $100 to $249 $250 to $500 Over $500 If over $500, please estimate amount: $________ 12. Do you feel that Melaleuca has negatively affected th e value of your property? Please check Yes No If Yes, by what percen t has the value changed? _________% 13. What would you be willing to pay to remove/eradicate Melaleuca on your property? Please check appropriate range. $0-$49 $50 to $99 $100 to $249 $250 to $500 Over $500 If over $500, please estimate amount: $ ________ 14. Approximately how many days a year do you engage in the following outdoor recreational activities? Please enter number for each as appropriate Activity Number of Days Per Year Freshwater fishin g Hunting ______ Wildlife observation/photography ______ Boating/ATV’s ______ Camping/Hiking ______ Other (specify) _____________________ ______ 15. Do you feel that Melaleuca has in any way affected your enjoyment of these outdoor recreationa l activities? Please check Yes No If Yes, has this affected you negatively or positively? Please check Positively Negatively Please turn the page

PAGE 121

108 Versin en Espaol 11. Costos del control para la Melaleuca Estime cuanto ha gastado especficamente para el control de la Melaleuca en su propiedad desde 1990 o desde que compro su propiedad, incluyendo costos de mano de obra, servicios contratados, equipo, herbicidas, etc. Por favor marque el rango apropiado. $0 to $49 $50 to $99 $100 to $249 $250 to $500 Arriba de $500 Si es mas de $500, por favor estime el monto: $________ 12. Siente usted que la Melaleuca ha afectado de una manera negativa al valor de su propiedad? Por favor marque S No Si su respuesta es s, cuanto a cam biado su valor en porcentaje? _________% 13. Cunto estara usted dispuesto a pagar para remover/erradicar la Melaleuca de su propiedad? Por favor marque el rango apropiado $0-$49 $50 to $99 $100 to $249 $250 to $500 Arriba de $500 Si es mas de $500, por favor estime el monto: $ ________ 14. Aproximadamente, cuantos das dedica uste d al ao para actividades recreacionales a campo abierto? Por favor ponga l numero apropiado para cada una de las actividades. Actividad Numero de das al ao Pesca en a g ua dulce ______ Cacera ______ Fotografa/observacin de la naturaleza ______ Pasear en barca/ATV’s Caminatas y/o camping ______ Otras (especifique) ____________________ ______ 15 Siente usted que la Melaleuca ha afectado en alguna manera su disfrute de estas actividades a campo abierto? Por favor marque. S No Si su respuesta es si, las ha afect ado negativamente o positivamente. Por favor marque Positivamente Negativamente Porfavor pase a la siguiente pagina

PAGE 122

109 English Version 16. What would you be willing to pay per visit to reduce Melaleuca in the areas where you engage in outdoor recreational ac tivities? Assume these monies will support successful management. Please check $0 greater than $0 but less than $1 $1 $4 $5 $9 $10 $15 $16 $25 More than $25 If more than $25, please estimate amount: $__________ 17. In what zip code is your property located________________? 18. How long have you lived at your current residence? Please check less than a year one to five years five or more years 19. Do you own or lease the property where you reside? own lease 20. What is your gender: male female 21. In what year were you born? 19_______ 22. What is the highest level of fo rmal schooling you have completed? Less than high school diploma High school diploma or equivalent Some college or AA degree Technical/Trade School Bachelors degree Graduate/Professional degree Please turn the page

PAGE 123

110 Versin en Espaol 16. Cunto estara dispuesto a pagar por visita para reducir la Melaleuca en las reas donde usted suele realizar su s actividades recre acionales a campo abierto? Asuma que este dinero ser utilizado eficie ntemente para la reduccin de la Melaleuca Por favor marque. $0 mas de $0 pero menos de $1 $1 $4 $5 $9 $10 $15 $16 $25 mas de $25 Si es mas de $25, por favor estime cuanto: $__________ 17. Indique en que zip code se en cuentra ubicada su propiedad _________? 18. Cunto tiempo lleva usted viviendo en su residencia actual? Por favor marque. menos de un ao de uno a cinco aos cinco o ms aos 19. Es usted dueo o re nta su residencia? dueo rento 20. Indique su sexo: masculino femenino 21. Indique su ao de nacimiento 19_______ 22. Cul es el nivel mas alto de educacin formal que usted a completado? Menos que educacin secundaria (high school) Educacin secundaria completada o equivalente Algunos aos de universidad (AA degree) Titulo tcnico / licenciatura Titulo universitario / ingeniera (B.S. degree) Maestra / Doctorado Porfavor pase a la siguiente pagina

PAGE 124

111 English Version 23. Do you or anyone in your household own 25 or more acres of agricultural, forestry, or natural land in Florida? Yes No 24. Did you vote in a state or local election in the past 3 years? Yes No 25. Including yourself, how many pe ople live in your household?_______ 26. What was your total household income (before taxes) for last year (2003)? Less than $10,000 $10,000-$19,999 $20,000-$29,999 $30,000-$39,999 $40,000-$49,999 $50,000-$59,999 $60,000-$79,999 $80,000-$99,999 $100,000 or more Comments. Please offer any addition al thoughts or comments you may have regarding invasive plant management. Feel free to address any issues not covered in this questionnaire. Date survey completed: _____________ Check here if you wish to re ceive a copy of the study results. Name and Mailing Address: ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ Please return this questionnaire in the envelope provided. Thank you again for your participation!

PAGE 125

112 Versin en Espaol 23. Usted o algn miembro de su familia poseen 25 o ms acres (10 Hectreas) de tierra en la Florida que pudiera ser utilizada para ag ricultura, silvicultura (forestal), o como reserva natural? S No 24. Vot en cualquiera de las elecciones lo cales o estatales de los ltimos 3 aos? S No 25. Incluyndose usted mismo, cuantas personas viven en su hogar? _______ 26. Cul es el monto total (incluyendo todos los miembros de su hogar) de ingresos (antes de impuestos) que percibi su hogar en el ao pasado (2003)? Menos de $10,000 $10,000-$19,999 $20,000-$29,999 $30,000-$39,999 $40,000-$49,999 $50,000-$59,999 $60,000-$79,999 $80,000-$99,999 $100,000 o ms Comentarios. Por favor dganos cualquier comentario o pensamiento adicional que pueda usted tener con respecto al manejo de pl antas invasivas. Sientase en la libertad de discutir cualquier tema incl uyendo cualquiera que no haya sido parte de este cuestionario. Fecha en que se completo el cuestionario: _____________ Marque aqu si desea recibir una copia de los re sultados de este estudio Nombre y Direccin pa ra el correo: _____________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ Por favor enve este cuestionario por correo usando el sobre provisto. De nuevo le agradecemos por su valiosa participacin

PAGE 126

113 LIST OF REFERENCES Arrow, K. 1963. Social Change and Individual Values 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Wiley. Balciunas, J.K., and T.D. Cent er. 1991. “Biological contro l of Melaleuca quinquenervia: prospects and conflicts.” In: T.D. Center R.F. Doren, R.L. Hofstetter, R.L. Myers and L.D. Whiteaker (eds.). Proceedings of the Symposium on Exotic Pest Plants National Park Service, Denver, CO. NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91/06. 1-22. Benson, L.E. 1946. “Mail Surveys Can Be Valuable.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 10(2): 234-241. Blum, J.D., A. Damsgaard, and P.R. Sullivan. 1980. “Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 33(4): 137-147. Bureau of Economic and Busine ss Research (BEBR). 2004. Florida Statistical Abstract Warrington College of Business, Universi ty of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Bureau of Invasive Plant Management (BIP M). 2003. “Upland Invasive Exotic Plant Management Program Report”. [Online]. Available at: http://www.dep.state.f l.us/lands/invaspec/2ndle vpgs/pdfs/Uplands%2020022003.pdf Accessed June 2004. Campbell, H., and R. Brown. 2003. Benefit Cost Analysis: Financial and Economic Appraisals Using Spreadsheets Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Carson, R. T., J.L. Wright, N. Cars on, A. Alberini, and N. Flores. 1994. A Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers La Jolla, CA: Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc. Cohn, E. 2003. “Benefit Cost Analysis: A Pedagogical Note.” Public Finance Review 31(5):534-549. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). 2004. “Central and Southern Florida Project. Comprehensive Ever glades Restoration Plan. Project Management Plan: Melaleuca Eradication and Other Exotic Plants.” [Online]. Available at: http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/pmp/pmp_docs/pmp_95_melaleuca/092704_pm p_95_main_body.pdf Accessed June 2005.

PAGE 127

114 Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groots, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, G.G. Ra skin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Nature 387: 253-260. Dardis, R., S. Aaronson, and Y. Lin. November 1978. “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Flammability Standards.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60(4): 695-700. Diamond, C., D. Davis and D.C. Schmitz. 1991. “Economic Impact Statement: The Addition of Melaleuca quinquenervia to the Florida Prohibite d Aquatic Plant List.” In: T.D. Center, R.F. Doren, R.L. Hofstetter, R.L. Meyers, and L.D. Whiteaker (eds.). Proceedings of the Sympos ium on Exotic Pest Plants National Park Service, Denver, CO. NPS/ NREVER/NRTR-91/06. 87-110 Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method New York, NY: Wiley and Sons. Dillman, D.A. 1991. “The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys.” Annual Review of Sociology 17: 225-249. Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2005. “Florida’s Conservation Lands Interactive Map.” Florida State Univ ersity. [Online]. Available at: http://data.labins.org/imf2/FREAC/FNAI.jsp ?. Accessed February 2006. Florida Statute 369.22, 251-.252. 2004. “T itle XXVIII-Natural Resources; Conservation, Reclamation, and Use.” State of Florida. [Online]. Available at: http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/ Accessed June 2005. Flowers, J.D. II. 1991. “Subtropical Fire S uppression in Melaleuca qu inquenervia.” In: T.D. Center, R.F. Doren, R.L. Hofstetter, R.L. Myers and L.D. Whiteaker (eds.). Proceedings of the Symposium on Exotic Pest Plants National Park Service, Denver, CO. NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91/06. 151-158. Gittinger, J.P. 1982. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects Published for: The Economic Development Institute of the World Bank. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hanemann, M.W. 1994. “Valuing the Enviro nment Through Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4):19-43. Hofstetter, R.H. 1991. “The Current Status of Melaleuca quinquenervia in Southern Florida.” In: T.D. Center, R.F. Dore n, R.L. Hofstetter, R.L. Myers and L.D. Whiteaker (eds.). Proceedings of the Sympos ium on Exotic Pest Plants National Park Service, Denver, CO. NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91/06. 159-176. Haveman, R.H. 1976. “Benefit-Cost Anal ysis and Family Planning Programs.” Population and Development Review 2(1): 37-64.

PAGE 128

115 Kahneman, D and J. Knetsch. 1992. “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22:57-70. Kramer, R.C. and J.D. Schaffer. 1954. “The Case for the Mail Survey.” Journal of Farm Economics 36(4): 575-589. Laroche, F.B. and A.P. Ferriter. 1992. “The Rate of Expansion of Melaleuca in South Florida.” Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 30:62-65. Laroche, F.B. and J. McKim. 2004. “C ost Comparison of Melaleuca Treatment Methods.” South Florida Water Management District. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/clm/lsd/mitig ation/cell_17_18/cost_comparison_of_me laleuca.html Accessed February 2005. Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C.: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Money Generation Model 2 (MGM2). 2003. “M ethods.” Michigan State University. [Online]. Available at: http://www.prr.msu.edu/yayen/NPS/Methods.htm Accessed November 2005. Navrud, S. 1992. Pricing the European Environment New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pearce, D.W. 1983. Cost-Benefit Analysis New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Pratt, P.D. and A.P. Ferriter. 2001. “P lan of Work for The Areawide Management Evaluation of Melaleuca quinquenervia (TAME Melaleuca).” United States Department of Agriculture and the Sout h Florida Water Management District. Portney, P.R. 1994. “The Contingent Va luation Debate: Why Economists Should Care.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8:3-17. Prest, A.R. and R.Turvey. 1965. “Cost-benefit Analysis: A survey.” The Economic Journal 75(300):683-735. Rayamajhi, M.B., T.K. Van, T.D. Center, J.A. Goolsby, P.D. Pratt and A. Racelis. 2002. “Biological Attributes of the Canopy-H eld Melaleuca quinquenervia Seeds in Australia and Florida.” Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 40:87-91. Sassone, P.G. and W.A.Schaffer. 1978. Cost-Benefit Analysis. A Handbook New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc. Schelling, T. 1968. “The Life You Save May Be Your Own.” In: S. Chase (ed.). Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. 143-144.

PAGE 129

116 Schmitz, D.C. and R.H. Hofstetter. 1999. “Environmental, Economic and Human Impacts.” In: F. Laroche (ed.). Melaleuca Management Plan, Ten Years of Successful Melaleuca Manage ment in Florida 1988-1998 Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. 17-21. [Online]. Available at: http://www.fleppc.org/Manage_Plans/mplan.pdf Accessed November 2005. Serbesoff-King, K. 2003. “Melaleuca in Fl orida: A Literature Review on the Taxonomy, Distribution, Biology, Ecology, Economic Importance and Control Measures.” Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:98-112. Stober, W.J. and L.H. Falk. 1967. “A Benef it-Cost Analysis of Local Water Supply.” Land Economics 43(3): 328-335. Stocker, R.K. and D.R. Sanders, Sr. 1981. “Chemical Control of Melaleuca quinquenervia.” In: R.K. Geiger (ed.). Proceedings of the Melaleuca Symposium Florida Department of Agriculture and C onsumer Services, Division of Forestry: Tallahassee, FL. 129-134. United States Department of Agriculture-Nati onal Agricultural Statistics Service (USDANASS). 2002. “2002 Census of Agriculture.” [Online]. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/fl/index2.htm Accessed February 2006. United States Department of Commerce-Bur eau of Economic Analysis. 2006. “Gross Domestic Product: Implicit Price Defl ator.” [Online]. Available at: http://research.stlouisfed.or g/fred2/data/GDPDEF.txt Accessed February 2006. Whittington, D. and W.N. Grubb. 1984. “Economic Analysis in Regulatory Decisions: The Implications of Executive Order 12291.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 9:63-71. Woodall, S.L. 1981. “Site Requirements for Melaleuca Seedling Establishment.” In: R.K. Geiger (ed.). Procedings of the Melaleuca Symposium Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Di vision of Forestry. Tallahassee, FL. 915. Zansler, M.L. 2004. “The Economic Impacts to an Industry Associated with an Invasive Species: The Case of Citrus Canker in Flor ida.” Ph.D. Dissertat ion. University of Florida: Gainesville, FL. Zerbe, R.O. and D. D. Dively. 1994. Benefit Cost Analysis in Theory and Practice New York, NY: HarperCollins.

PAGE 130

117 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Katherine Carter-Finn is a native of Sebring, Florida. After graduating with honors from Sebring High School in 1999 she receiv ed her A.A. degree from South Florida Community College in Avon Park, Florida, in 2000. Katherine graduated with honors and received her B.S. in food and resource ec onomics from the University of Florida in May 2003. She began the M.S. program in food and resource economics in August 2003. She plans to attend law school at the Univer sity of Florida after completing her M.S. degree requirements.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014641/00001

Material Information

Title: Socio-Economic Impacts of Controlling Melaleuca in South Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014641:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014641/00001

Material Information

Title: Socio-Economic Impacts of Controlling Melaleuca in South Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014641:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS


OF CONTROLLING 2elaleuca IN SOUTH
FLORIDA


By

KATHERINE FINN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006


































Copyright 2006

by

Katherine Finn




























For Jeffrey
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to start off by thanking my husband Jeffrey Finn who has traveled this

journey with me and been the best partner I could have ever hoped for. I especially thank

him for the encouragement and perspective that he has offered me along the way.

I wish to express eternal thanks to my Mom, Gena Carte, for her never ending

support and for always telling me that I can do whatever I set my mind to, even when it

feels like it is impossible.

I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my Dad, Jerry Carter, for showing me the

value of hard work, fostering my appreciation for nature, and for teaching me to hunt and

fish better than most men.

My deepest gratitude goes out to my committee members Dr. Alan Hodges, Dr.

Donna Lee, and Dr. Mike Olexa for their guidance along the way. I am especially

grateful to Dr. Hodges who worked with me on a day to day basis and taught me so

much. His patience and dedication are appreciated more than he will ever know.

I wish to offer special thanks to the USDA-ARS for funding this research. I would

like to express my gratitude to Francois Laroche of the South Florida Water Management

District and the members of the TAME Melaleuca team, especially Cressida Silvers, Paul

Pratt, and Amy Ferriter for always being willing to answer "just one more question."

Many thanks go to Sharon Wallace of the South Florida Water Management District,

Debbie Gillet of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Chris Wassil and

Gary Lewis with the Florida Division of Forestry, and Gail Baxley with the Florida










Department of Environmental Protection' s Office of Park Planning for sharing their data,

insight, and experiences with me. Thanks go to Carol Fountain for all of her formatting

expertise.

I would like to express my thanks to all of the friends I have made in graduate

school. They are the reason I will look back on this whole experience and have pleasant

memories filled with smiles and laughter. Thanks go to the best study group around,

Erika Knight, Jamille Palacios, Anne Jones, and Jennie Varela; the first year core would

have been impossible without them. I am especially grateful for the fact that at the first

day of orientation I sat next to Erika Knight and struck up a conversation; her friendship

has been priceless. Special thanks go to Damian Adams for being a great colleague and

wonderful friend. Thanks go to comedians Justin Taylor (GO RACERS!i) and Athur

Mabiso for always offering an easy laugh and "Respect." Thanks go to Annie

Hildebrand for offering me big beautiful smiles when I needed them the most.

Special thanks go to my friend Beth-Anne Blue for all of her wisdom, guidance,

and s port and es ecially for reminding me that I could do this.

I would like to acknowledge the close family members who are no longer here with

me to share in the j oy of this accomplishment: my Grandparents Pepa and Grammie

(Red and Mary) Carter, Gov (Gran-Daddy Victor B. Carte, Jr.), and step-father Scott

Whidden. I wish to thank them for all of the love and support they offered during their

time here.

Last, but certainly not least, I offer my thanks to God, for with Him everything is

possible.



















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LI ST OF T ABLE S ................. ................. ix......... ...


LI ST OF FIGURE S .............. .................... xi


AB STRAC T ................ .............. xii


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Origins, Introduction, and Invasion ................. ...............2................
The War Against M~elaleuca ............ ..... ._ ...............3...
Problem Statement ............_....... .__ ...............5....
Public Lands vs. Private Lands................ ...............6.
Hypotheses & Parameters Estimated ................. ...............7................
Research Objectives............... ...............

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............. ...............9.....


Introduction to Benefit-Cost Analysis ................. ...............9................
Formal Theoretical Framework Behind BCA ................. ............... ......... ...11
Benefit Cost Analysis and Social Welfare Theory .......... ................ ...............13
Individual Welfare Changes ................ ...............13........... ....
Social Welfare Changes .............. ...............16....
Benefit-Cost Analysis in Practice............... ...............17
Use of Mail Surveys ..................... ........... ...........1
The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) .................. ...............21..
Previous Research on the Economic Impacts of Melaleuca .............. ...............25

3 SURVEY DESIGN, CONTENT, AND ADMINISTRATION .............. ...............27


Survey M ethod s .................. .... .......... .. .. ........ ............ 2
Survey Study Area, Target Populations, and Sampling .............. ....................2
Survey Content .............. ...............28....
Residential Survey ................... ...............29.......... ......
Professional Land Manager Survey ................. ...............31................
Survey Administration............... .............3












4 SURVEY RESULT S .............. ...............34....


Results for Professional Managers .............. ...............34....
Land Ownership Status............... ...............34.
Land U se................ .. ... .. ............3
Factors Affecting Land Management ................. ............. ............... 36. ....
Area Occupied By Invasive Plants and Area Treated .............. ....................3
Methods Used for Treating M~elaleuca .............__..... ........._........41
Barriers to Controlling M~elaleuca ......................... .............__ ............4
Sources and Usefulness of Information for M~elaleuca Control.............._.._.......47
Costs for M~elaleuca Control .......__ ......... __ .........___.....__......50

Impacts of2 ~elaleuca ................. ...... .... .... ... ..... .........5
Annual Income or Budget and Comparison of Reported Melaleuca Control
Expenses .............. ...............54....
Results for Residents .............. ...............56....
Invasive Plant Awareness............... ...............5
Amount of Melaleuca on Property ............_......__ ....__ ...........5
Use of Control Methods for M~elaleuca ......____ ........ .........._.......5
Barriers to Controlling M~elaleuca .....__.....___ ..........._ ............5
Information Sources for M~elaleuca Control ......____ ...... .. ...............59

Expenses for M~elaleuca Control ........._..._......__ ....__ ............6
Impacts on Property Values............... ......... .... ..........6
Willingness to Pay for M~elaleuca Removal/Eradication .............. ........._.....61
Impacts of Melaleuca on Outdoor Enj oyment ........._._..... .... ....___ ..............62
Willingness to Pay to Reduce M~elaleuca in Outdoor Activity Areas ........._......63
Respondent Demographics ................. ....___ ....___ .............6

5 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS ........._... .....___ ...............67...


Calculation of Benefits .............. ...............68....

Ecosystem Benefits ................. .... ..... .............7
Agricultural Land Productivity Benefits .............. ...............73....
Agricultural Land Market Value Benefits .....__.___ ..... ... ._ ........._.... ..74
Recreation Benefits .............. ...............74....
Additional Benefits ................. ...............76........... ....
Calculation of Costs .................. ............. ...............77......
Calculation of the Benefit-Cost Ratio ................. ...............80........... ...


6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................ ...............83................


Sum m ary ................. .. ... .. ....... ... ........ ...... .........83
Conclusions, Implications, and Policy Recommendations ................. ................ ...85
Recommendations for Future Work .............. ...............88....











APPENDIX

A MELALEUCA MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF PROFESSIONAL LAND
M ANAGERS ................. ...............90.......... ......

B MELALEUCA MANAGEMENT SURVEY OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ...99

LIST OF REFERENCE S ................. ...............113................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............117......... ......


















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

4-1 Land area managed by surveyed professional land managers in Florida. ................35

4-2 Land use types and areas managed by professional land managers in Florida. .......36

4-3 Factors influencing management decisions by professional land managers in
Florida. ............. ...............38.....

4-4 Land area infested with and treated for invasive species by professional
managers in Florida ................. ...............41........... ....

4-5 Methods used for treatment of2~elaleuca by professional land managers in
Florida. ............. ...............43.....

4-6 Number of professional managers using various control methods and area of
M~elaleuca treated in Florida, 2003 and 1990-2003 .......____ ...... ..__ ............44

4-7 Intentions for future use of various M~elaleuca control methods by professional
managers in Florida. .............. ...............45....

4-8 Requests for more information on M~elaleuca control methods by professional
managers in Florida. .............. ...............45....

4-9 Barriers to controlling Melaleuca by professional managers. .............. ..............47

4-10 Information sources and types of media used by professional land managers in
Florida. ............. ...............48.....

4-11 Usefulness of information received by professional land managers in South
Florida. ............. ...............50.....

4-12 Costs for M~elaleuca control reported by professional land managers in Florida,
2003 ....._..__ ........__ ....__ ....__ ....__ ....__ ..............51

4-13 Expenses for special equipment for M~elaleuca control by professional managers
in Florida. ............. ...............5 1....

4-14 M~elaleuca treatment cost trends reported by professional land managers in
Florida. ............. ...............52.....











4-15 Negative impacts of2~elaleuca reported by professional land managers in
Florida. ............. ...............53.....

4-16 Reduction in utility due to M~elaleuca infestation reported by professional land
managers. ........... ..... ._ ...............54...

4-17 Annual income or budget for land management by south Florida professional
managers, 2003 ........... .......__ ...............55...

4-18 Awareness of 2elaleuca and invasive plants by Florida residents. .......................56

4-19 Amount of Melaleuca on property of Florida residents .................... ...............5

4-20 Methods used for M~elaleuca control by Florida residents, and interest in more
information about control methods. ............. ...............57.....

4-21 Barriers to controlling Melaleuca by Florida residents............_.._ ..........___.....58

4-22 Sources of information on M~elaleuca received by Florida residents. ....................59

4-23 Expenses for Melaleuca control by Florida residents, 2003. ............. ...............60

4-24 Negative effect of M~elaleuca on property value of Florida residents.....................6 1

4-25 Willingness to pay for removal of2~elaleuca from property by Florida residents..62

4-26 Days of annual outdoor recreation activity reported by south Florida residents,
2003 ........._.._. ....._... ........_. ....._. ...._... ....._. .........._.63

4-27 Effect of2~elaleuca on outdoor enj oyment by Florida residents. ........._................63

4-28 Willingness to pay per visit to reduce M~elaleuca in recreational areas by Florida
re sidents ........... ....... __ ...............64..

4-29 Demographics characteristics of surveyed south Florida residents, 2003. ...............66

5-1 Ecosystem Values for Surveyed Land Use Classifications............... .............7

5-2 Average Negative Impact Values for Surveyed Land Use Classifications. .............73

5-3 Total Benefits of2~elaleuca Control in 2003 ........._._ ....... ................77

















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure pg

4-1 Average weighting of factors influencing management by professional land
managers ................. ...............39......_ ._ .....

4-2 Usefulness rating of information sources and media by professional land
managers in Florida ........._ ............ ...............49....
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CONTROLLING2~elaleuca INT SOUTH
FLORIDA

By

Katherine Finn

August 2006

Chair: Donna Lee
Major Department: Food and Resource Economics

M~elaleuca quinquenervia, commonly referred to as M~elaleuca, was introduced to

Florida in the late 1800s and has flourished in the state since its introduction. In the late

1980s and early 1990s efforts to eradicate/control M~elaleuca began in earnest. The

Areawide Management Evaluation of2~elaleuca (TAME) program was created

specifically to research and address the problems and unique situations associated with

M~elaleuca control. Public agencies in Florida spent an estimated $25 million on control

efforts from 1989 to 1999 and have succeeded in reducing the area it covers; however,

private landholders have been less aggressive in its removal. Despite the control efforts

on public lands, the lack of treatment on private lands has allowed M~elaleuca to spread in

many areas and resulted in no net loss of the acreage covered.

M~elaleuca causes a reduction in ecological function, agricultural productivity, and

recreational use value of lands occupied. In order to document the current management

and socio-economic impacts of this species, surveys were mailed to 2,000 agricultural










landowners, 285 park/preserve managers, and 5,000 randomly selected residents in the

ten southernmost counties of Florida in 2004.

Survey results revealed that M~elaleuca covered more than 620,000 acres of land

and that professional managers (both park/preserve and agricultural) had treated

approximately 86,731 acres during 2003. A benefit-cost analysis was conducted for the

areas controlled in 2003. The benefits were estimated based on the values for restored

ecological function of agricultural and park/preserve land, agricultural productivity and

market value of agricultural land, the recreational use of park/preserve lands where

M~elaleuca controls had been implemented, and avoidance of costs connected with

M~elaleuca fueled fire control. Total benefits amounted to $23.3 million. The costs were

derived from the residential and professional survey data along with TAME M~elaleuca

program costs which include the costs associated with this research. Total costs

amounted to $13.2 million

The resulting benefit-cost ratio (1.76) indicates that the benefits of2~elaleuca

removal were significantly greater than the costs, and that control efforts provided a net

social benefit to society in the year 2003. Therefore, it is recommended that the policy

stay in effect until the benefits no longer outweigh the costs.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

An invasive species as defined by the 1999 Executive Order 13112 is "an alien

species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or

harm to human health." Invasive species have affected many, if not most, countries

around the world in some way. In some cases, alien species are purposefully introduced

for bona fide reasons; case in point, the now infamous Kudzu used for ornamental

purposes, erosion control, and livestock forage. In other situations a species is

inadvertently introduced through increased global travel, such as the Brown Tree Snake's

introduction to Guam. Some alien species are introduced and remain rather innocuous

throughout their lifespan. However, often times they can cause devastating and

irreversible consequences, such as the almost total annihilation of Guam' s songbird

population and Kudzu's prolific spread throughout the Southeast and Hawai'i to now

cover several million acres of land.

Every year, a growing number of individuals make Florida their new home.

However, this phenomenon is not limited to humans. Plants, animals, and pathogens also

find ways to make this accommodating sub-tropical land their home as well. Florida' s

mild winters and warm wet summers are quite hospitable to many different species and

allow non-native residents to become resident aliens. One especially destructive alien

invader that has now become an invasive species is the highly problematic tree

commonly known as M~elaleuca (M~elaleuca quinquenervia).









Origins, Introduction, and Invasion

M~elaleuca also had a rather innocent beginning in Florida. It is thought to have

been introduced in Florida by Royal Palm Nurseries in Manatee County around 1887.

The tree was popularized by nurseries and gained greater recognition due to its ability to

thrive in many environments and rapidly provide shade and windbreaks for home owners

(Serbesoff-King 2003). It was subsequently planted in swampy areas to help dry up the

standing water so developers could build to meet the demand of the booming South

Florida population (Laroche and McKim 2004). This notion has now become the subject

of much debate amongst scholars. While some scientists adhere to the belief that

M~elaleuca consumes more water than native vegetation, others argue that their research

indicates that it does not use any more water than the average plant.

In 1941, Florida populations of2~elaleuca from Lake Okeechobee southward

began to increase as the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planted the trees along

levees and spoil islands for erosion control (Stocker and Sanders 1981). This fast

growing species has now become established, and has spread much more quickly in

Florida than in Australia, and competes with many native plant species (Rayamajhi et al.

2002). Due to its rapid growth and reproduction rates, Melaleuca may completely

dominate landscapes that it invades, thus decreasing biodiversity and precluding the

growth of native vegetation (Schmitz and Hofstetter 1999). Studies show that patches of

M~elaleuca can spread to dominate one square mile of land in only 25 years (Laroche and

Ferriter 1992). M~elaleuca may also increase wildfire danger, because the dense stands

burn with greater intensity making fire control more difficult (Diamond et al. 1991).









The War Against Melaleuca

While this tree has been on Florida soil for more than 100 years, its control was not

seriously pursued in the state until the latel980's. This is due, in part, to the movement

to restore the Everglades. During the 1990's, the framework leading up to the

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) began to be developed. After the

foundation was laid by the previous Water Resources Development Acts of 1992 and

1996, President Clinton signed the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Section

601 which authorized the CERP. When it became clear that invasive species would only

serve to thwart the goals of CERP which are restoring, preserving, and protecting South

Florida's ecosystem, measures were taken to address the growing problem. Specifically,

the M~elaleuca Eradication and Other Exotic Plants proj ect, within the CERP, was

designed to address exotic and invasive species management and control in Southern

Florida (CERP 2004). Recognizing the need to take aggressive action against invasive

species, in 1993 the Florida legislature enacted statutes that require agencies such as the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Invasive Plant Management

(FDEP-BIPM) to investigate methods of control for M~elaleuca and to implement those

control methods within their jurisdiction (FS 369.252). Under current state law it is

illegal to sell, transport, collect, cultivate or possess any plant, including any part or seed

of the species M~elaleuca quinquenervia without a permit from the FDEP or the Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) (FS 369.251).

In 1997 the legislature directed the Bureau of Invasive Plant Management (BIPM)

to build a program to bring exotic upland species under maintenance control, by enacting

Florida statute 369.22. The statute details that a maintenance control program is "a

method for the control of non-indigenous aquatic plants in which control techniques are









utilized in a coordinated manner on a continuous basis in order to maintain the plant

population at the lowest feasible level as determined by the department" (FS 369.22 p.1).

The 1993 Florida legislature also set aside an annual budget of $1 million to the FDEP

specifically for Melaleuca control. The FDEP took the award from the legislature and

then entered into a cost-sharing program (called the M~elaleuca Program) with the South

Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in which they match that award dollar for

dollar (BIPM 2003.) The goal of the M~elaleuca program is to control M~elaeluca on all

SFWMD land and to maintain the lowest possible infestation rates while minimizing

impacts to non-target plant species. In order to prevent the wider spread of the plant,

outlying lesser infested areas are treated first according to a quarantine strategy (BIPM

2003). The goal of the FDEP is to reduce infestations of upland invasive exotic plants on

public lands by 25 percent by the year 2010 based on the estimated 1995 level of

infestation of 1.5 million acres (BIPM 2003). It should be noted that this estimated area

is for all upland invasive species and not just M~elaleuca.

Additionally, The Areawide Management Evaluation of Melaleuca (TAME

M~elaleuca or TAME) has been established under the auspices of the USDA Agricultural

Research Service (ARS) Areawide Pest Management initiative to demonstrate the

efficacy of an integrated approach that can be applied to invaded areas for control of

M~elaleuca. This group has proceeded to implement the control recommendations of the

M~elaleuca Task Force as enumerated in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's

(FLEPPC's) M~elaleuca Management Plan (Pratt and Ferriter 2001). TAME has

subsequently teamed up with the Food and Resource Economics Department (FRED) at

the University of Florida' s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS) to









conduct this research into the socio-economic impacts of2~elaleuca in South Florida.

Estimates place the coverage of~elaleuca at anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 acres of

land in South Florida. From 1989-1999 Florida agencies have spent about $25 million on

its control and have succeeded in reducing the area it covers on public land by about

100,000 acres (Pratt and Ferriter 2001).

Problem Statement

A maj or problem with the spread of2~elaleuca is that it causes a reduction of

economically viable uplands and ecologically sensitive wetland areas. A general estimate

of the value of environmental and economic services provided by wetlands is $14,785 per

hectare per year (Costanza et al. 1997). Assuming minimal losses of one percent, and a

current infestation of 200,000 hectares, the diminished value would be almost $30 million

per year. Farmers and ranchers are losing valuable grazing and crop land while natural

areas such as parks/preserves are losing natural habitats, which in turn affect plant and

animal diversity. M~elaleuca invades utility easements such as power lines, canals, and

other waterways, thus impairing their use, and often makes costly tree removal necessary

to maintain the use of these service areas. It has been proj ected that the unfettered spread

of this plant would severely limit the use of parks and recreational areas by tourists and

residents causing a negative impact to the Florida economy at $160 million annually

(Diamond et al. 1991). Additional reports show that by the year 2010 an estimated $1.76

billion in damages would be caused due to the various negative impacts it has on

recreation, ecotourism, fires, and loss of endangered species (Balciunas and Center

1991).

The maj ority of the information gathered through mail surveys focus on elements

traditionally used in determining the extent to which M~elaleuca covered land, how much










was being treated, what methods were being used to treat it, and the costs incurred for

those treatments. However, at the time this research was being carried out it was not

readily apparent that much was known about the negative effects caused by M~elaleuca

infestation. To help bridge the apparent information gap, additional data need to be

collected to determine how individuals perceived the effects that M~elaleuca infestations

have on ecological function, agricultural productivity, land market values, the use of land

for recreation and enj oyment of the outdoors.

Public Lands vs. Private Lands

For many years, the slogan of "Florida State Parks: The Real Florida" was used to

help promote tourism within the State' s park system. The general goal of having these

parks is to allow visitors to see Florida's natural state where it has been left relatively

untouched by human hands. However, invasive species, which often completely

dominate native flora and fauna, thwart the goal of preserving the "real Florida." In order

to meet this goal, non-native species must be removed. This need has been realized by

managers of the public lands and therefore control has been concentrated on these lands.

However, while its removal is a mandate for public agencies, one of the maj or

obstacles facing the success of2~elaleuca control is the fact that private individuals often

implement few or no controls. While it is technically illegal for private individuals to

possess M~elaleuca, very little is actually being done to force them to remove it from their

private property (with the exception of a few pro-active municipalities). This presents the

conundrum of falling infestation rates on public lands, while infestations flourish on

private lands and often cause cross-contamination in areas that have been treated (such as

public lands) or areas that have not yet been infested. The efficiency of treatment is

greatly reduced if public land managers continue to treat and kill M~elaleuca, while










private individuals allow for outlying infestations to spread. A comprehensive strategy

for inducing private citizens to control M~elaleuca is necessary if there is to be any chance

of gaining the upper hand in the war against its spread.

Hypotheses & Parameters Estimated

The issues surrounding the impacts that invasive species have on society are very

broad and far reaching. Previous research on invasive species has mainly focused on the

biological characteristics of the plants. Current research has started to focus on what

kinds of monetary and non-monetary impacts these invaders are having on the economy

and society as a whole. This research seeks to focus more on the socio-economic impact

that M~elaleuca has had on Florida in the region south of Lake Okeechobee. The

hypothesis that will be tested is that this analysis will yield a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

for treating M~elaleuca that is greater than unity (1).

Parameters that will be estimated by this research are:

* What are the impacts/costs of reducing Melaleuca infestations in South Florida?

* What factors influence the choice of control method (or lack thereof)?

* How much money is currently spent on M~elaleuca controls?

* How much money would homeowners be willing to spend to remove Melaleuca
from their property?

* How much money would residents be willing to spend to reduce M~elaleuca in the
places where they engage in outdoor recreational activities?

* What is the BCR for controlling M~elaleuca?

Research Objectives

The general obj ective of this research is to determine the economic impact that

M~elaleuca has had on professional land managers and residents in South Florida, along

with evaluating the socio-economic impact of its control. This will require gathering









information including (but not limited to) which control strategies are currently being

used, how much they cost, and what area is currently being treated. It is hoped that this

research will shed some new light on why individuals are more or less likely to

implement control measures. Then policy makers and implementers can custom tailor

outreach and education programs to increase the area of Melaleuca being treated.

A specific obj ective of this research is to measure the benefits and costs associated

with the treatment of2~elaleuca infestations for the year 2003. Trying to eradicate a

species that has such a stronghold on a large area of ecologically sensitive and

economically valuable land is not cheap. A large amount of money has been and will

continue to be spent if this program is to be considered successful. It is imperative to

determine whether the benefits of controlling this invasive species outweigh the costs.

As a matter of public policy, the resources being allocated to this program should provide

a net benefit to society. A benefit-cost analysis will provide information to determine if

the resources being allocated to this fight are economically justified.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The legislative aim of controlling M~elaleuca has many far reaching implications for

society. Current research is beginning to focus more on the socio-economic impact of

invasive plants. A combination of tools is necessary to fully evaluate the socio-economic

affects of controlling M~elaleuca. Among the tools available, this study employs the use

ofBenefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) and Contingent Valuation (CV) through mail survey

admini strati on.

Introduction to Benefit-Cost Analysis

Every day new proj ects and policies are proposed in both the public and private

sectors. Decision makers are then faced with the daunting task of deciding which of the

myriad proj ects or policies will help to achieve their desired goal or end result. Over

time, BCA has been used extensively to help determine the economic viability of

legislation and investment projects. Since the 1930s BCA has been used by many U.S.

agencies to determine if the benefits of their policies outweigh the costs to society (Prest

and Turvey 1965). Many past U.S. Presidential administrations have recognized the

value that this type of analysis can provide by attempting to clearly delineate the costs

and benefits of a proposed policy/course of action (Whittington and Grubb 1984).

Through Executive Order 12291 signed on February 17, 1981, President Ronald Reagan

sought to standardize and make permanent the requirement for federal agencies to

conduct BCA on all "major" regulations.









Due to the fact that some policies and regulations can result in "win-lose"

situations, analysis needs to identify the winners and the losers and exactly how those

groups will be affected. Sassone and Schaffer (1978) point out that the need for careful

analysis is especially important in large scale public proj ects with irreversible

consequences. A thorough analysis can help to identify normally "unforeseen" costs that

tend to creep up during the life of a proj ect. Policy makers or proj ect managers can then

develop strategies and contingency plans that will help to mitigate these circumstances.

There are many definitions on what constitutes a BCA. However, there are

generally some key similarities between the definitions of the process. One description

suggests that BCA is a "generic term embracing a wide range of evaluative procedures

which lead to a statement assessing costs and benefits relative to proj ect alternatives"

(Sassone and Schaffer 1978, p.3). Another more specific definition states that it is "a

process of identifying, measuring, and comparing the social benefits and costs of an

investment project or program" (Campbell and Brown 2003, p. 1). BCA has been

described as a procedure for "measuring the gains and losses to individuals, using money

as the measuring rod of those gains and losses and aggregating the money valuations of

the gains and losses of the individuals and expressing them as net social gains or losses"

(Pearce 1983, p. 3).

An integral part of a BCA is the identification of all relevant costs and benefits.

Another important step is the quantification of those costs and benefits (Sassone and

Schaffer 1978). It is important to note that these costs and benefits are analyzed by a

"with" and "without" comparison. Specifically, the analysis of the project seeks to assign

a value to the costs and benefits that occur "with" the proj ect and compare them to the









state of the world as it would exist "without" the project (Gittinger 1982). This is

different from considering the state of the world "before" the proj ect and "after" its

implementation. If a "before/after" comparison is used it neglects the change that would

take place without the proj ect and allows for an erred account of the benefits that can be

ascribed to the proj ect/policy. Campbell and Brown (2003) also point out that the

important concept of opportunity cost becomes a factor in the "with and without"

comparison. Without the project, scarce resources such as land, labor, and capital could

be designated to other uses. With the project, the opportunities. to use those same scarce

resources for some other beneficial purpose are foregone. Each possible outcome offers a

particular value to society. After completing a thorough analysis of the two possible

outcomes (with or without the proj ect) and determining the costs and benefits of the

proj ects the analyst can determine if the benefits exceed the costs. If this is the case, then

the proj ect would be recommended to the policy maker.

Formal Theoretical Framework Behind BCA

Using BCA to assign a monetary value to the effects a proj ect will have relies upon

two key assumptions. The first is that the social value of a proj ect is a summation of the

values of the proj ect to individual members of society. The second is that the value of a

proj ect to an individual is equal to their (fully informed) willingness-to-pay (WTP) for

the project (Sassone and Schaffer 1978). Willingness-to-pay is the specific expression of

the value an individual assigns to a commodity or service. This leads to an essential

conclusion in microeconomics that for any given price of a good, rational individuals

aiming to increase their state of well-being as much as possible, will purchase a number

of units of that good so that at the margin, their willingness to pay for that good just

equals its price. Therefore, if an effect of a proj ect were a small increase or decrease in









the number of units of a good accessible to an individual for consumption, that increase

or decrease has a social value equal to the number of units concerned multiplied by the

market price (Sassone and Schaffer 1978).

The formal BCA theoretical framework, reliant upon welfare economics, set forth

by Sassone and Schaffer (1978) indicates that a state (of the world) S is a particular

distribution of utility among the individual members of society; specifically demonstrated

by:

(2-1) S =(U U2, ..., Uj,..., UN),

for a society made up of N members.

A well defined project, through intentional actions, will advance society from the current

state of status quo, So to an alternative state of S'. Vj is the value of a proj ect to an

individual j, and is their maximum WTP amount to have the proj ect implemented (when

they are in favor of the proj ect), and when they do not favor the proj ect, it is the negative

of the minimum amount of their willingness-to-accept as payment in order to remain just

as well off in S' as in So. If the proj ect does not alter individual j's utility then their

compensating variation, Vj = 0. Therefore, the social value of a project is the summation

of the individuals' willingness to pay, identified by C Vj.

Actually acquiring each individual's willingness to pay can be problematic in two

ways (Sassone and Schaffer 1978). First, each individual would have to have perfect

knowledge of every aspect of the project. The impracticality of this is readily apparent

due to the fact that many of the people actually involved with the proj ect are often not

fully aware of every detail. The second difficulty lies within the fact that individuals are

often unable or have difficulty in defining their own compensating variation by stating an









arbitrary number. The aforementioned reasons lead to the suggestion that some other

form of acquiring the individuals compensating variations is necessary. Sassone and

Schaffer (1978) suggest that this information is best gleaned by using interviews or

questionnaires.

Benefit Cost Analysis and Social Welfare Theory

As suggested in the previous section, welfare economics provides a theoretical

basis for BCA. Although BCA did not originally evolve from welfare economics it has

come to rely upon the foundation that welfare economics creates (Cohn 2003). It has

been suggested that BCA is an application of welfare economics (Sassone and Schaffer

1978). While Sassone and Schaffer (1978) provide a very general introductory

framework for BCA (as shown in the previous section), Cohn (2003) provides a more in-

depth analysis into its theoretical basis.

Individual Welfare Changes

Following the assumption that each individual xl, x2, ..., Xn has n goods and

services (including savings) available to him or her, a utility function of Ui for the ith

individual is expressed as:

(2-2) Ui = U(xil, xi2, ..., Xin).

If a new government policy is introduced that has an impact on some of the quantities of

goods and services that individual i consumes, the change in utility ensuing from a

change in the quantity of the jh gOOd or service is defined as:

(2-3) AUi = E(MUij)Axij.

M~Uij describes individual i's marginal utility for an added unit of j, and Axig is the change

in the quantity of good or service j that the individual receives. From the microeconomic










principle stated earlier, it is known that an individual will select goods and services so

that the marginal utility for any good, j, would be equal to the price of the good, pj,

multiplied by the individual's marginal utility of income (M~UYi), given as the following:

(2-4) M~Uij = (M~UYi)pj.

By substituting equation (2-4) into equation (2-3), the following results:

(2-5) AUi = C(M~UYi)pj~xij.

The change in the income of individual i due to the change in the quantities of goods and

services brought about by the new government policy is found in the term pjxij. Finally,

the change in individual i's utility is equal to the change in income weighted by the value

of the individual's marginal utility of income.

Due to the fact that a new government policy will affect many people it is

important to know what change in social welfare is due to the new policy. This can be

found by determining the changes in the individual utilities of m persons affected by the

policy using the social welfare function:

(2-6) W= W(U1, U2, U3, ..., Um),

where Wrepresents social welfare. Taking equation (2-6) into consideration, a change in

social welfare is noted as:

(2-7) AW= M'= (AU1, AU2, AU3, ..., AUm),

where AW represents the change in social welfare.

Keeping in mind that Arrow's Theorem questions the possibility of deriving a

social welfare function at all, Cohn (2003) suggests that the real issue is whether an

"acceptable" function can be developed. One maj or stumbling block for this is the

interpersonal comparison of utility, which some economists argue condemn BCA. While









there are cases when various forms of social welfare functions do not provide an

acceptable social choice, the argument can be made that a flawed social welfare function

is better than none at all. Therefore, equation (2-7) can be differentiated to the form of:

(2-8) dW= C(8W/8Ui)dUi,

to obtain:

(2-9) W = C(M~S~i) Ui,

where M~SUi demonstrates the change in social welfare arising out of the change in the

utility of the ith individual. M~SUi is also known as the distributionall weight" given to

individual i' s utility. In other words, it reflects the societal value of the changes in the

individual' s level of utility.

Substituting equation (2-3) into equation (2-9), the following is obtained:

(2-10) A W= CE(M~UYi,) (M~SUi)pyAxij.

This equation illustrates the changes that occur in social welfare due to a new public

policy that influences the quantities of goods and services available to individuals in

society. It is the sum of the fluctuations in effective income for every individual

weighted by the product of the marginal utility of income of the individual i, (M~UYi,), and

the changes in the quantities of goods and services as a result of the new policy, pj~xij.

Assuming that all individuals have identical marginal utilities of income and changes in

utility associated with the new policy, then the marginal utility of income (M~UYi) and

marginal social utility (M~SUi) will each equal one and the change in social welfare (due

to the new policy) is equivalent to the change in national income due to the policy.

According to Cohn (2003) and Zerbe and Dively (1994), the marginal social

utility and marginal utility of income are difficult to estimate which causes many analysts









to restrict their analyses to the efficiency aspect of the equation. This causes the equation

that reflects the change in welfare to be reduced to:

(2-11) AW= CE pjAxij.

However, it must be kept in mind that if the marginal utilities of income and marginal

social utilities vary significantly among those influenced by the policy, and the end goal

is to maximize social welfare; the BCA could result in erred decisions. If the analyst

feels that ignoring the marginal utilities of income and marginal social utilities is

detrimental then he/she should avoid BCA that does so.

Social Welfare Changes

It should be noted that Arrow' s Impossibility Theorem (originally developed from

research on election procedures) casts some doubt as to whether a social welfare (choice)

function can be derived from an aggregation of individual preferences to allow for the

optimal allocation of resources (Arrow 1963). This is due to the fact that the following

conditions must be met before a "fair" social welfare function can be derived:

* Unrestricted domain or universality. The social welfare function must include each
individual's preferences.

* Non-imposition or citizen sovereignty. All societal preferences should be
achievable through some set of individual preferences.

* There must be at least as many individuals as there are options being debated.

* Non-dictatorship. The social welfare function should not be sensitive to only one
individual. The function is responsive to more than one individual's requirements.

* Monotonicity or positive association of social and individual values. The social
welfare function should promote the change or not change at all if an individual
modifies their preference order. An individual should never be penalized for
modifying their preference.

* Independence of irrelevant alternatives. If the social choice function focuses on a
specific subset of alternatives, then the resulting outcome will be compatible with
those specific alternatives. If individuals change their ranking of "irrelevant"









alternatives it will have no impact on the social ranking of the "relevant"
alternatives. This implies a limitation on the sensitivity of the social function.

Benefit-Cost Analysis in Practice

Benefit Cost Analysis has been used for analyzing a broad spectrum of proj ects.

Stober and Falk (1967) offer a discussion on using BCA for proposed local water

allocation programs to help determine how a community should allot water among the

various needs within a community. Faced with two alternative scenarios, the authors

offer analysis on a reimbursable community proj ect that can supply water at a lower cost

than that at which industrial and municipal users can meet their own needs. By

formulating a benefit-cost ratio (BCR), they can determine if the community project is

justified. They finally determine that the structure of corporate income taxes and the

community's lower costs of capital provide a large bias in favor of the community

supplied water proj ect.

Benefit Cost Analysis has been used to evaluate the economic feasibility of

treatment/eradication programs for other invasive species in Florida. In 2004, Zansler

conducted a BCA of the Citrus Canker Eradication Program (CCEP). This study

investigated the effects that citrus canker would have on the citrus industry if it were

allowed to become endemic, to demonstrate the benefits of the CCEP. Estimates of the

costs were determined by the change in the cost of production and government

expenditures on eradication of citrus groves in Florida.

This form of analysis has been used to estimate the gains and losses from policies

aimed at providing increased product safety for consumers. Dardis, Aaronson, and Lin

(1978) used BCA to evaluate flammability standards of children' s sleepwear as well as

investigating the role BCA plays in determining whether product safety regulations are in










the public interest. The research first delineated the general costs and benefits associated

with implementing this safety regulation. Then, actual monetary values were assigned to

the related benefits and costs of the safety regulation. Upon completing their BCA, the

researchers determined that the new safety standard was cost effective in spite of a

decrease in consumer choice.

Haveman (1976) provides a summary of two cases using benefit cost analysis on

human resource programs. The first case looked at the benefits and costs associated with

the Upward Bound program. This government program was designed to recognize "high

potential, disadvantaged youths" at the high school level, who would probably not be

attending college, and provide them with specialized college preparatory education to

help lessen the education gap for less privileged students. The research evaluated the

benefits and costs of the program from the perspective of the pupils enrolled in it, as well

as the benefits and costs of the program as viewed from the rest of society. The study

determined that the students viewed this program as a worthwhile activity; therefore, they

believed the benefits outweighed the costs (using five and 10 percent discount rates).

The additional analysis indicated that the program's benefits outweighed its costs for the

society at large, as long as the discount rate used is below seven percent.

The second case study addresses the benefits and costs associated with a federal

government program "designed to provide institutional training in occupational skills to

adult workers." The cost-benefit analysis sought to determine if the program was a

valuable social investment. The study showed that increases in the participant' s income

could be attributed to the program. Additionally, social benefits and costs of the

programs were compared to reveal that the length of the program affected the ratio of









benefits to costs. The shorter courses had higher benefit-cost ratios than the longer

courses, where the present value of the costs exceeded the present value of the benefits.

Gittinger (1982) offered analysis on various agricultural proj ects, and specifically

carried out a BCA on the Philippine Ilocos Irrigation Systems Improvement Project by

formulating a BCR for the proj ect.

Blum, Damsgaard, and Sullivan (1980) provided a general discussion of the use of

BCA in health care as it relates to three following areas:

* The use of BCA for analysis of disease-specific programs of intervention from a
prospective point of view (for illnesses such as polio, syphilis, and renal disease).
This has historically concentrated on the economic impact of such diseases
measured by the untimely loss of life or capacity to function due to the illnesses.

* BCA has been used as a technique for the evaluation of alternative means of
delivering medical services. Hospitals have used BCA to assist in determining if it
would be cost effective to construct new ambulatory care centers or if the funds
should be used for improving existing emergent care facilities.

* BCA has been implemented to estimate the return on public investments in areas
such as medical research and health manpower development.

Use of Mail Surveys

Surveys have proven to be a useful tool in many areas of study for gaining insight

into people's opinions and beliefs, or obtaining general quantitative information. More

surveys are conducted by mail than through any other means (Dillman 1991). The U.S.

Office of Management and Budget' s 1984 research reported that 90 percent of the

government' s surveys categorized as "self-administered"' were conducted through mail

procedures. The use of mail administered surveys has distinct advantages and

disadvantages (Dillman 1991, Benson 1946, and Kramer and Schaffer 1954).

One of the greatest advantages that has helped mail surveys gain popularity is the

relatively low cost of implementing mail surveys when compared with interviews









conducted in person or by telephone. The relative simplicity of administering mail

surveys allows organizations and individuals to conduct the surveys themselves as

opposed to hiring outside agencies. Mail surveys also make it possible to contact

individuals when they are scattered across a broad geographic region. Additionally, by

accessing the necessary lists of potential respondents, mail surveys can be efficient at

reaching specific subsets of the population such as college graduates, homeowners, or

agricultural land owners. When mail surveys are used, the interviewer bias observed in

phone surveys or personal interviews is eliminated. When anonymity is assured by the

entity conducting the survey, the respondent is likely to be more forthcoming in mail

questionnaires as opposed to personal interviews. Finally, when the necessity arises to

gather responses from all household members, mail surveys allow those members to be

reached relatively easily as opposed to scheduling additional interviews if all the

necessary members are not available at one particular time.

One of the disadvantages of using mail surveys is that it is impossible to tell

whether the respondent answered on their own or solicited answers from outside sources.

If it is imperative that the respondent give only their personal opinion or answer questions

based on their current level of knowledge, then mail surveys cannot assure this. The goal

of gaining a representative sample of the population can be problematic, because those of

higher education and/or income levels may be more likely to reply than those of a lower

socio-economic class. Another difficulty is that the responses gathered by mail surveys

can be biased towards those who are inclined to one or extreme or the other. In other

words those with more polarized biases are more likely to respond than those who are

uninformed or have more moderate positions on the subj ect.









Due to the threat of respondent fatigue, mail surveys must be kept relatively brief

to avoid non-responses attributed to a lengthy questionnaire document. Furthermore, the

importance of question sequence is lost on mail surveys due to the fact that nothing really

prevents the respondent from perusing the whole questionnaire before actually answering

the questions. Finally, only a limited amount of demographic information can be gleaned

from mail surveys. Respondents often feel that this line of questioning is too invasive,

especially when copious amounts of personal information are requested.

It is imperative for a researcher to consider the pros and cons of the various

methods used to gather survey information. No one survey method can be endorsed as

better than another; the decision must be made on a case by case basis. According to

Kramer and Schaffer (1954) when considering the disadvantages of a technique the

researcher must ask if:

* They are factors that would significantly influence the results of the survey?

* Does the disadvantage limit the scope of the technique or does it eliminate the
technique for their particular area of inquiry?

* Does the disadvantage apply to all survey techniques or just the particular one
being considered?

* Are there any techniques to mitigate the disadvantageous effects?

The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)

It is especially difficult to measure or put a monetary value on irreplaceable goods

like health or the environment. Often the market fails to establish prices for public goods

because they are nonexclusive. This is why there is the need to find out what values

people place on these public goods. Hanemann (1994) points out that a survey or

questionnaire offers a way to demonstrate public demand for a good, especially when

indirect methods fail to offer a complete measure of a person's value for a particular









good. While price systems are one way to determine how people establish what

something is worth; another way is to simply ask them through surveys or votes

(Schelling 1968).

Mitchell and Carson (1989) submit that in general, the Contingent Valuation

Method (CVM) appears as accurate as other methods, and is capable of measuring types

of benefits that other methods can measure only with difficulty, if at all. The fact that

economists now have a tool to value goods, previously thought almost impossible to

value, has helped this valuation method gain worldwide popularity (Navrud 1992). The

CVM uses survey questions to determine an individual's preferences for public goods by

establishing what they would be willing to pay for specific improvements in them; thus

eliciting their willingness-to-pay (WTP) or willingness-to-accept (WTA) some loss in

dollar amounts (Mitchell and Carson 1989). If the study has been carefully designed and

pre-tested, the responses gathered should symbolize valid WTP responses (Mitchell and

Carson 1989). If the random sample gathered has a sufficiently high response rate and

appropriate measures are taken to adjust for non-respondents and poor quality responses,

the results can be generalized (with a known margin of error) to represent the population

from which the sample was taken (Mitchell and Carson 1989). The Carson et al. (1994)

bibliography lists more than 1600 studies and papers from more than 40 countries that

used CV on varied topics such as transportation, sanitation, health, the arts and education,

and the environment.

While there is no one standard for the design of contingent valuation surveys, it is

important for them to include several key elements, because the quality of responses is

directly related to the quality of the design of the survey. To begin, the survey must









contain a clear description of the policy/program that the respondent is valuing (Portney

1994). If a clear description is lacking, the respondent will likely be less able to

accurately value the situation in question. The survey must include a means for eliciting

a value or a choice from the respondent, through the use of tools such as referendum

formats, open-ended questions, or bidding games (Portney 1994). Finally, CV surveys

usually seek to gather the demographic information of the respondents along with their

attitudes toward the environment or a description of their recreational behavior for

environmental and/or natural resource studies (Portney 1994).

While the CVM is widely used around the world, the subj ect is not without debate

or its detractors. In 1992 a panel of experts, including Nobel laureates, was convened to

advise the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) if the "CVM was capable

of providing estimates of lost nonuse or existence values that were reliable enough to be

used in natural resource damage assessment" (Portney 1994, p.8). While the "bottom

line" of the panel report found that "CV studies can produce estimates reliable enough to

be the starting point of a judicial process of damage assessment, including lost existence

values," they also developed a strict and lengthy framework under which CV studies

should be conducted if they were to produce reliable estimates (Portney 1994, p. 8).

Among those guidelines, the panel stated that face-to-face interviews are preferred to

telephone surveys and telephone surveys are preferred to mail questionnaires, and that

studies should gather information on willingness to pay to prevent future incidents

instead of determining minimum compensation required for an event that has already

occurred. Additionally, studies using CV should implement the referendum format,

where respondents are asked how they would vote for a particular program that would









achieve some level of environmental benefit in exchange for higher taxes or commodity

prices. The panel offered that the reasoning behind this guideline is that these types of

decisions more accurately reflect the reality of real world decisions and would provide a

more accurate valuation than the typical open-ended question that seeks a maximum

willingness-to-pay value. The panel also stated that analyses using the CVM should open

with a scenario to accurately illustrate the anticipated effect of the program being

considered as well as a reminder that a willingness-to-pay amount for the proposed

policy/program would reduce their disposable income. Finally, follow-up questions

should be provided to ensure that the individual could comprehend the choice they were

being asked to make and to discover the reasoning behind their response.

Some economists critical of the CVM have charged that it is not useful because, in

their view, the resulting information is contrary to economic theory (Hanemann 1994).

To that end, critics have suggested that the CVM is insensitive to scope, thereby making

it an unreliable method for obtaining useful information regarding natural resource

damage estimates. Kahneman and Knetsch (1992) put forth that their study of WTP for

the clean-up of lakes in Ontario, Canada shows that respondents' WTP to clean up all of

the lakes in Ontario is less than the WTP for the clean up of lakes in a specific region.

Logic would suggest that an individual's WTP for cleaning up a larger number of lakes

would be higher than their WTP for cleaning up a smaller area of lakes. It has been

argued that this insensitivity to scope is unavoidable because "respondents are expressing

ideological values, receiving a warm glow, or purchasing moral satisfaction"

(Kahnemann and Knetsch 1992, p. 64). The NOAA panel also included a requirement

that studies using the CVM should test for the sensitivity of responses to the scope of the










damage described in the scenario. To address this issue the panel suggested that the

questionnaires should seek to determine whether or not the respondents were willing to

pay more to prevent more serious ecological accidents.

Previous Research on the Economic Impacts of Melaleuca

While the biological research on M~elaleuca is now quite extensive, there is a

noticeable paucity in the amount of economic research that has been conducted on this

invasive species. However, there are a few researchers who sought to analyze the

economic impacts that M~elaleuca has had in Florida relatively early in the eradication

program's life. Balciunas and Center (1991) discussed the prospects and dilemmas that

could arise if biological control is used in the fight against Melaleuca. Additionally, they

conducted a Benefit Cost Analysis under the assumption that M~elaleuca is allowed to

spread unchecked. Their research helped to provide a good starting point for the benefits

and costs to be enumerated. For the purpose of this research, however, the Balciunas and

Center research is used as a guide to show the worst case scenario for the negative

impacts of2~elaleuca.

Diamond, Davis, and Schmitz (1991) also provided additional research on the

economics of the M~elaleuca invasion. They specifically considered the economic impact

associated with the addition of2~elaleuca to the Florida Prohibited Aquatic Plant List and

provided a more extensive Benefit Cost Analysis of the spread of2~elaleuca. The

authors went into great detail considering possible effects of~elaleuca on Florida' s eco-

tourism, sport fishing and game hunting, as well as its effects on Florida agriculture and

the ecosystem in general. They also specifically provided useful cost figures for the

economic damages caused by wildfires fueled with M~elaleuca. Their research helps to

provide a checklist of sorts to ensure a thorough analysis. However, due to the fact that









both of the previously mentioned articles were written during the early stages of the

M~elaleuca eradication/treatment initiative, and the changes that have taken place since

then, they will have a rather limited application in this research.















CHAPTER 3
SURVEY DESIGN, CONTENT, AND ADMINISTRATION

Survey Methods

As discussed in the previous chapter, this research used mail surveys to gather part

of the information necessary to this proj ect. The quality of a survey's design is arguably

the deciding factor as to whether it will yield useful and reliable data. Over time,

research has been undertaken to try to devise a recipe, of sorts, that survey designers can

follow to help increase the likelihood that their surveys will yield their greatest potential.

This research uses Dillman's (1978) Total Design Method (TDM) as a guide for survey

design.

Survey Study Area, Target Populations, and Sampling

The study area for these surveys included the 10 southernmost counties in Florida:

Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and

Palm Beach. Just over 2.5 million households are located in these counties (BEBR,

2004).

For the residential survey, a randomly selected sample of 5,001 households, which

represented 0.2 percent of the population, was purchased from a market research firm

(MSG, Inc.). Due to the fact that many Hispanic non-English speaking individuals reside

in South Florida, a Spanish language version of the survey mirrored each page of the

English version.

Both agricultural owners/operators and managers of public parks/preserves were

targeted for the survey of professional land managers. Agricultural land owners were









selected from a list compiled from county property appraisers by the Florida Department

of Revenue in Tallahassee. A random sample of 2,000 landowners with property

classified for agricultural use was selected for the survey. This sample represented 17

percent of the population of about 1 1,500 landowners.

For public lands, a list of 285 names was obtained from the United States

Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) representing

managers of parks and preserves for local, state, and federal government agencies, and

managers of rights-of-ways for public utilities. Surveys were mailed to all managers on

this list.

Survey Content

Beginning in fall 2003, two separate questionnaires were developed for the

respective survey groups of residents and professional land managers. The content of

these questionnaires was developed in consultation with The Areawide Management

Evaluation of Melaleuca (TAME M~elaleuca) proj ect collaborators at the University of

Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS), USDA-ARS, and the

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The questionnaires and informed

consent protocol for the survey were reviewed and approved by the University of Florida

Institutional Review Board (UF-IRB) for compliance with ethical standards for human

subject research. Following the suggestions in Dillman's (1978) TDM, each survey had

an arrangement of various colored photographs on the front cover. Inside the front cover

included an introductory statement explaining who was conducting the study, the purpose

of the questionnaire, the importance of providing a response, general instructions for

completing and returning the questionnaire, the anticipated length of time for completion

of the survey, a guarantee of confidentiality, contact information should the participant









have any questions, and a statement of gratitude for participating in the study. The

residential survey was seven pages in length for each language, yielding 14 total pages,

inclusive of the opening instructions and areas provided for comments. The professional

land manager survey was a total of nine pages. Each survey concluded by thanking the

respondents for their participation and asking that they return the questionnaire in the

postage-paid envelope provided. Copies of the survey materials are provided in the

Appendix.

Residential Survey

The residential survey was designed to help provide some insight into attitudes,

opinions, and experiences with M~elaleuca by the general public. The survey

questionnaire focused on determining the extent of residents' knowledge and experience

with both invasive plants and M~elaleuca specifically. The content of the survey can be

broken down into three categories: (1) an introductory assessment of experience with

and knowledge of2~elaleuca, (2) an assessment of opinions and willingness-to-pay

information, and (3) demographic information. An introductory line of questions were

posed to determine the respondent' s level of awareness of invasive plants in the state.

Residents were asked to indicate if they could recognize M~elaleuca and if they were

aware of its non-native status. Then, respondents were asked to indicate how much, if

any, M~elaleuca was located on their property. The next questions in the survey sought to

determine what control methods residents were currently using or interested in learning

more about, along with any factors that limited their ability to control the plant.

Residents were also asked to indicate from which sources they received information

about Melaleuca. The first section ends by asking the respondent to estimate what range

of money they had spent (since 1990 or owning their property) specifically for the control









of Melaleuca on their property. If the amount was over $500 the respondents were asked

to write in the estimate.

The second section began by asking respondents to indicate whether they felt that

M~elaleuca had negatively affected their property value. If the respondent answered

"yes", they were asked to then indicate by what percentage it had negatively affected the

value. Residents were also asked to indicate how much they would be willing to pay to

remove/eradicate M~elaleuca on their property. If they were willing to pay more than

$500 they were asked to write in a specific amount. Respondents were then given a list

of outdoor activities and asked to indicate how many days they engage in those activities

on an annual basis. The respondent was provided with space to write-in an activity that

was not listed. Residents were asked if Melaleuca had in any way affected their

enj oyment of the outdoors. If the respondent answered yes, they were then asked to

specify if they had been negatively or positively affected. The second section concluded

by asking respondents to indicate how much they would be willing to pay, per visit, to

reduce M~elaleuca in the areas where they engage in outdoor recreational activities. If the

amount was more than $25 per visit, they were asked to write-in a specific amount.

The third and final section of the residential survey sought to gather demographic

information about the respondent. Information was gathered on the zip code in which

they resided, the duration of residence at their current location, and the ownership status

of their residence. Questions such as gender, year of birth, educational achievement,

ownership of 25 or more acres of land in Florida, participation in state/local elections,

household size, and pre-tax income (for 2003) were also asked. Space was also provided









for the respondents to add any comments they had as well as to indicate their name and

address if they wished to receive a summary of the survey results.

Professional Land Manager Survey

While there are some similar questions in the two surveys, the survey administered

to the professional land managers was intended to gather more technical information on

the level of infestation and practices used for the control of~elaleuca. Both professional

agricultural land managers and park/preserve managers received the same survey

questionnaire. The content of the manager' s surveys can be broken down into two

categories: (1) general descriptive information reflecting the management unit, and (2)

specific information on M~elaleuca control. In the first segment, managers were asked to

indicate their name followed by their organization's name, address, and telephone

number. They were then asked to specify in which counties their land holdings or

management units were located. In order to determine the ownership classification of

their land, managers were asked to indicate how much of their land was privately owned,

publicly owned, or privately leased. To gather more specific information on the land's

use, managers were asked to indicate how many acres of their land fell within certain

categories, such as cropland, commercial timberland, park/preserve, etc. In the hopes of

gaining some insight into the factors affecting land management decisions, respondents

were asked to indicate whether various factors exerted significant, moderate, or no

influence over their management choices. The managers were then asked to report how

many acres of exotic plants currently occupied their management area as well as indicate

how many acres of each plant had been treated from 1990-2003.

The section of the survey specifically designated to acquire information on

M~elaleuca began by asking managers to indicate what control methods they had used on









M~elaleuca. They were then asked to specify the area treated for each control used during

2003 and from 1990-2003. Managers were also asked to indicate if they had not used

any control measures for Melaleuca. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they

planned to continue using or to adopt specific control measures for M~elaleuca, and

indicate if they would like to receive more information on any of the control types listed,

as well as indicate the types of sources that provided M~elaleuca control information to

them. Managers were asked to indicate any reasons that limited their ability to control

M~elaleuca on their property. Additionally, the managers were asked to rate the

usefulness of the information in terms of "useful", "somewhat useful", or "not useful".

Respondents were asked to indicate the costs for control of2~elaleuca on their

management unit during 2003 as well as indicate the total expenses for any special

equipment or heavy machinery purchased specifically for the control of~elaleuca since

1990. The survey went on to ask respondents to indicate if the total costs of Melaleuca

control on their land had increased, decreased, or stayed about the same over the past five

years. Managers were also allowed to indicate that they "didn't know" the trend. If the

respondent indicated that the costs had increased or decreased they were asked to indicate

by what percentage. Respondents were also asked to indicate if they felt that M~elaleuca

had reduced their land's agricultural productivity, lowered its market value, impaired its

ecological function, or diminished its recreational use. If the respondent indicated that it

had negatively affected one of these aspects they were asked to provide the percentage

loss that Melaleuca had caused. Professional managers were also asked to indicate their

organization' s gross income or annual budget for land management from 2003.

Participants were given the option of writing in a specific amount, indicating a range, or









indicating that they did not know the amount. Finally, managers were given the option of

adding additional comments as well as indicating whether they would like a copy of the

results through the mail or e-mail.

Survey Administration

Survey administration was begun in June 2004 following the protocol of the TDM

(Dillman). An introductory letter was first mailed to all targeted respondents to notify

them that they had been selected for the survey, explaining the purpose of the survey, and

requesting their cooperation. Approximately one week later, questionnaires were mailed

along with a postage-paid return envelope and a cover letter restating the purpose of the

study. Reminder postcards were mailed one week later. A second complete mailing of

the survey and reminder postcard was repeated six weeks later.

After the completed surveys were received from respondents and categorized into

the appropriate group (i.e.-park/preserve managers, agricultural managers, and

homeowners) a code number was assigned to each completed questionnaire. The survey

responses were entered into an Excel worksheet and then verified for accuracy. If contact

information was provided in the response, follow up phone calls or emails were used for

verification or clarification as necessary.















CHAPTER 4
SURVEY RESULTS

Results for Professional Managers

Land Ownership Status

Land area owned and leased by professional managers responding to the survey is

summarized in Table 4-1. A total of 5.4 million acres were reported, which consisted of

about 5.1 million acres controlled by park managers and 317,000 acres controlled by

agricultural mangers. The vast maj ority of land managed by park/preserve managers was

publicly owned, although 86,372 acres were privately owned.

In contrast, most of the land managed by agricultural managers was privately

owned. Publicly owned landholdings managed as parks/preserves averaged 74,488 acres

per manager, and ranged in size from four acres to 1,400,000 acres. Privately owned

agricultural landholding averaged 775 acres per manager and ranged from less than 1

acre to 140,000 acres. A relatively small amount of land was being privately leased by

both park and agricultural managers. When these numbers are expanded to represent the

full population of agricultural managers in the 10 county study area of South Florida, an

estimated 1.74 million acres would fall under private ownership, 73,893 acres would be

privately leased, and 8,884 acres would be classified publicly owned.

Land Use

In terms of land use, some 6.94 million acres were reported managed by

park/preserve managers, and 319,771 acres were reported managed by agricultural

managers, giving a total of 7.26 million acres (Table 4-2).










Table 4-1. Land area managed by surveyed professional land managers in
Florida.
Sum Mean Minimum Maximum
Classification INumber
(Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres)
Park/Preserve
80 5,084,967
Managers
Privately Owned 10 86,372 8,637 7 70,000
Publicly Owned 67 4,990,670 74,488 4 1,400,000
Privately Leased 3 7,925 2642 105 7,500
Agricultural
Managers 431 316,528
Privately Owned 390 302, 132 775 0.3 140,000
Publicly Owned 3 1,545 515 5 1,380
Privately Leased 38 12,851 338 1 2,700
Overall Total 511 5,401,495 10,570 1 1,400,000

The largest type of land-use by area as reported by survey respondents was for

parks/preserves, comprising a total of 4.80 million acres, or 73,883 acres per manager.

The next largest land uses reported by park managers were right-of-ways totaling

871,483 acres, followed by lakeshore (508,272 acres), mitigation areas or constructed

wetlands (373,017 acres). Miscellaneous other uses totaling 356,262 acres included target

ranges, recreational areas, and office buildings. Some park/preserve managers indicated

that some of their land was used for pasture/range land, crop production, fruit/citrus

groves, and nurseries, but none indicated that their land was being used as forest for

commercial timber production.

The most commonly reported land use by agricultural land managers was

pasture/rangeland, with 38 percent of respondents reporting a total of 143,243 acres,

averaging 853 acres per respondent. Crop land was the next largest land use reported

totaling 116,388 acres, followed by fruit/citrus groves (34,275 acres), and right-of-ways

(4,547 acres). Miscellaneous other uses totaling 18,272 acres reported by agricultural

managers included residences, ponds, horse farms, and barns. When these numbers are









expanded to represent the population of agricultural managers in South Florida, it is

estimated that a total of 1.83 million acres were being managed, including 823,647 acres

for pasture/rangeland, 669,231 acres for crop land, 197,081 acres for fruit/citrus groves,

and 26,145 acres for right-of-ways, and 105,064 acres for miscellaneous other uses.


Table 4-2. Land use types and areas managed by p -ofessional land managers ir Florida.
All
Park Managers Agricultural Managers Managers
Land Use Type
Mean Sum Mean
# Sum (Ac) # Sum (Ac)
(Ac) (Ac) (Ac)
Park/Preserve 65 4,802,389 73,883 8 30 4 4,802,419
Right of Way 16 871,483 54,468 36 4,547 126 876,030
Lakeshore 6 508,272 84,712 7 19 3 508,291
Miti gati on/W etl and 14 373,017 26,644 9 25 1 28 373,268
Pasture/Range 4 25,210 6,303 168 143,243 853 168,453
Crop 2 900 450 50 116,388 2,328 117,288
Fruit/Citrus 3 1,908 636 98 34,275 350 36,183
Nursery 5 19 4 103 1,395 14 1,414
Forest 0 10 1,351 135 1,351
Other Use(s) 16 356,262 22,266 83 18,272 220 374,534
Total of all uses 6,939,460 319,771 7,259,231

Factors Affecting Land Management

Survey respondents were asked to rate various factors that influenced their land

management decisions as either "significant", "moderate", or "none" (Table 4-3). These

factors included agency funding, adverse weather conditions, availability of agricultural

land, encroachment of urban land uses, foreign or other state competition, cost of inputs

or supplies, prices for crops, fruit, or livestock, invasive plants, predators, insect pests,

and the ability to conduct prescribed burns. The average ratings for each of these factors

are summarized in Figure 4-1, where each respondent's rating was assigned a number

value: 0 for "none", 1 for "moderate", and 2 for "significant".










For park/preserve managers, agency funding was the most influential factor in land

management decisions; being rated as significant by 77% and moderate by 19%. Perhaps

this is not surprising since many of these respondents work for local, state, or federal

agencies. Invasive plants were rated as a significant factor by 73% of park managers,

while 25% rated them as a moderate influence. The ability to conduct prescribed burns

was rated as significant by 39% of park/preserve managers, and as moderate by 23%.

Input costs were considered significant by 36% and moderate by 53% of park/preserve

mangers. Urban encroachment was rated as a significant or moderate influence by 28%

and 40% of these respondents, respectively. Adverse weather was viewed as a moderate

influence (71%), although this may be considered more important after the 2004

hurricane season. Only 8% indicated that predators or insect pests were a significant

factor in their management, while 42% rated these pests as moderate, and 50% gave

considered it of no significance. Factors other than those listed in the survey (such as the

general public, staffing, and wildfires) were rated as significant by 38% of park/preserve

managers. Factors that were considered to have little or no affect on the park/preserve

management decisions were prices (99%), availability of agricultural land (93%), and

competition (86%).

For agricultural managers, factors influencing land management were rated lower

overall. Prices for crops, fruit and livestock was the most important factor, with 29%

indicating it was significant and 33% as moderate. The costs for inputs or supplies were

rated as a significant factor by 24% of agricultural managers and as moderate by 41%.

Adverse weather conditions were a significant factor for 23%, urban encroachment was

rated as significant by 23%, and availability of agricultural land was significant for 20%.









The latter finding may be due to the fact that most agricultural managers already

own/lease their land, so they aren't worried about acquiring any additional land, or it may

indicate that agricultural managers generally do not intend to expand their operations.

Some 19% of agricultural managers rated predators and insect pests as a significant

factor, with 46% rating them as moderate. Invasive plants were rated as significant by

16% and as a moderate influence by 43%. Foreign or other state competition was

generally not viewed as important, which is somewhat surprising given the significance

of commodity prices.

Table 4-3. Factors influencing management decisions by professional land managers in
Florida.
Park Managers Agricultural Managers
Factor None Moderate Significant None Moderate Significant
% % % % % %
Agency funding 4 19 77 91 7 2
Adverse weather 15 71 15 40 37 23
Availability of ag. land 93 7 0 51 30 20
Urban encroachment 33 40 27 50 27 23
Competition 86 13 1 73 15 12
Costs 12 53 36 35 41 24
Prices 99 1 0 39 33 29
Invasive plants 3 25 73 41 43 16
Predators/ Pests 50 42 8 36 46 19
Prescribed burns 38 23 39 66 26 8
Other factors 44 19 38 89 3 8






























0.7

0.7


M 0.2

0. 1.0

0.8


0.7 1 7

0.9


0.91
0.42


Other Factors affecting mgmt.

Ability to conduct prescribed burns

Predators/ Pests

Invasive Plants

Prices

Costs


Competition

Urban Encroachment


Availability of Ag. Land

Adverse Weather


MAgricultural Managers
0.9 H Park Managers




1.0


Agency Funding .

0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Average Significance


Figure 4-1. Average weighting of factors influencing management by professional land
managers .

Area Occupied By Invasive Plants and Area Treated

The importance of2~elaleuca as an invasive plant was assessed in relation to other


invasive plants, based on the area currently occupied in 2003, and the area treated during


the period 1990 to 2003. The area occupied was intended to represent the areas of

contiguous stands, not very small isolated patches and individual outlying trees. The ratio


of area treated since 1990 to the area occupied currently was also taken as a gauge of the


intensity of treatment by land managers.


For park/preserve managers, M~elaleuca was the invasive plant reported to occupy

the largest area (619,317 acres) in 2003. M~elaleuca also had the largest area treated


during 1990-2003 (402,088 acres), which represents 65% of the area currently occupied.









Brazilian Pepper was the second most common invasive plant, occupying 425,805 acres

in 2003, with 75,215 acres treated between 1990 and 2003. This represented 18% of the

area occupied in 2003. Among other species, Old World Climbing fern (Lygodium)

occupied 1 13,884 acres, and 49,213 acres were treated (43% of area occupied).

Australian Pine (Casuarina) occupied 111,782 acres, with 16,598 acres treated (15%),

Cogon grass (Imperata) occupied 20, 147 acres, with 6,527 acres treated (32%), Tropical

Soda Apple (Solan2um) occupied 15,418 acres, with 3,475 acres treated (23%), and

miscellaneous other plants occupied 11,433 acres, with 7,094 acres treated (62%). Some

of the other plants frequently listed were air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera), downy rose

myrtle (Rhodomytrus tomentosa), latherleaf (Colubrina a~siatica), carrot wood

(Cupaniopsis anacardioicles), and cattail (Typha).

For agricultural managers, 94 managers reported a total area of 2,134 acres

occupied by Melaleuca in 2003, and 57 managers reported treating a total of 1,460 acres

during 1990-2003. This represented 68 percent of area occupied. This suggests that

agricultural managers have treated M~elaleuca at similar rates as park managers have,

however other indicators in this survey and other research imply that park managers have

acted much more aggressively. Tropical Soda Apple (Solan2um) was reported by

agricultural managers to occur on 10,393 acres in 2003, and 7,855 acres (or 76% of this

area) were treated. Brazilian Pepper (Schinus) occupied 7,096 acres and 2,768 acres

(39%) were treated. Miscellaneous other invasive plants, including air potato, dog fennel,

and smut grass, occupied 2,561 acres, and 2,094 acres (82%) of those plants were treated.

When these numbers are expanded to represent the total population of agricultural

managers, Melaleuca is estimated to cover 12,271 acres in South Florida during 2003,









and 8,395 acres were treated between 1990 and 2003. The area infested by other invasive

plants on agricultural lands is estimated at 139,058 acres, including 59,760 acres for

Tropical Soda Apple, and 40,802 acres for Brazilian Pepper (Schinus).

Table 4-4. Land area infested with and treated for invasive species by professional managers
in Florida
Park/Preserve Managers Agricultural Managers
Area
Area Currently Area Treated Area Treated
SpeiesOccupied Since 1990 Crety Since 1990
Occupied
# Acres # Acres # Acres # Acres
Paper bark or Punk
tree (M~elaleuca) 59 619,317 54 402,088 94 2,134 57 1,460
Australian Pine
(Ca~suarina) 55 111,782 50 16,598 29 34 15 5
Brazilian Pepper
(Schinus) 68 425,805 65 75,215 146 7,096 104 2,768
Cogon grass
(Insperata) 33 20, 147 31 6,527 14 320 9 73
Old World Climbing
fern (Lygodium) 45 113,884 40 49,213 23 178 16 24
Torpedo grass
(Panicunt) 33 25,060 31 11,008 40 1,468 31 888
Tropical Soda Apple
(Solanunt) 32 15,418 25 3,475 37 10,393 32 7,855
Other plants 37 11,433 36 7,094 33 2,561 18 2,094
Total 362 1,342,846 332 571,218 416 24,184 282 15,167

Methods Used for Treating Melaleuca

Managers were asked indicate if they had used a specific method for controlling

M~elaleuca and then to indicate the area they treated with that method in 2003 and also

cumulatively from 1990 to 2003. Respondents were given a choice of several options:

Mechanical removal (felling, mowing, tilling, grubbing, disking, etc.)

Foliar or soil applied herbicides

Basal frill followed by herbicide treatment (also known as "hack and squirt")

Girdling followed by herbicide treatment (a ring of bark is removed from the base
of the tree and then treated with an herbicide)










* Felling followed by herbicide treatment on the cut stump ("stump treatment")

* Biological control with beneficial insects (natural enemies of the tree are released
which may cause stress in established trees and death of younger saplings)

* Biological controls combined with one or more other methods.


Since respondents were given the opportunity of indicating more than one control

method, a count was taken to see how many managers chose at least one control choice,

and this number was used to compute the percentage of managers responding in the

affirmative for using a particular control method.

Among park/preserve managers, 82% indicated they had employed the stump

treatment, 59% used hack and squirt, 51% used mechanical control methods, 28%

employed biological control, 21% used biological control combined with one or more

other form(s) of control, and 7% reported using some other method of control such as

fire.

Many agricultural managers did not have M~elaleuca on their property, and if they

did, many chose not treat it. So, it was not surprising that 71% of agricultural managers

had not used any particular control measures for Melaleuca. Among agricultural

managers who did use controls, 33% indicated they had employed mechanical methods

for control, 10% used foliar or soil applied herbicides, 8% reported using stump

treatment, and 4% used hack and squirt (Table 4-5).










Table 4-5. Methods used for treatment of2~elaleuca by professional land managers in
Florida.

Metho UsedPark Managers Agricultural Managers
Number Percent Number Percent
Mechanical 31 51 70 33
Foliar/Soil herbicides 22 36 20 10
Hack and Squirt 36 59 8 4
Felling and herbicide (stump treatment) 50 82 16 8
Biological Control 17 28 3 1
Biological control + other method 13 21 0 0
Other methods 3 74 2
No Controls 13 21 149 71

The area of2~elaleuca treated using various control methods in 2003 and

cumulatively during the period 1990-2003 is summarized in Table 4-6. The total area

treated in 2003 was 86,731 acres, and the total area treated since 1990 was 422,449 acres.

For park/preserve managers, the total area treated in 2003 was 84,740 acres, and the area

treated since 1990 was 419,741 acres. The stump treatment (felling + herbicide) was used

over the largest area (303,933 acres) since 1990, followed by hack and squirt (52,476

acres), foliar or soil applied herbicides (36,622 acres), mechanical methods (16,625

acres), and biological control (12,642 acres). Biological controls combined with one or

more other methods) were used on 80,575 acres, and together with the area treated

strictly by biological control represented 93,217 acres. For area treated in 2003, the most

important method used was stump treatment (46,958 acres), followed by foliar/soil

herbicides (15,987 acres), and hack and squirt (11,494 acres). In comparing the area

treated in 2003 with the average annual rates since 1990, it is apparent that the use of all

treatment methods has accelerated in 2003 for parks/preserves.

For agricultural managers, overall area of2~elaleuca treated by any particular

method since 1990 was significantly less than the park/preserve managers, at about 2,707









acres, including mechanical methods (1,957 acres), stump treatment (274 acres), and

foliar/soil-applied herbicides (3 55 acres). The smaller area treated for 1990-2003 than for

2003 in some cases was apparently due to reporting errors.


Table 4-6. Number of professional managers using various control methods and area of
M~elaleuca treated in Florida, 2003 and 1990-2003.
Park Managers Agricultural Managers Total Area
Area Treated Area Treated Area Treated Area Treated Treated
2003 1990-2003 2003 1990-2003 1990-2003
Method Used
# Acres # Acres # Acres # Acres (Acres)
Mechanical 20 4,592 22 14,669 43 1,367 37 1,957 16,625
Foliar/Soil
Herbicides 15 15,802 15 36,267 15 185 8 355 36,622
Hack and Squirt 23 11,454 28 52,437 7 40 5 39 52,476
Felling + Herbicide
(stump) 37 46,562 37 303,659 14 396 10 274 303,933
Biological Control 7 6,310 10 12,600 2 3 2 42 12,642
Biological + Other 4 4,242 6 80,575 0 0 0 0 80,575
Other Control 3 20 3 110 0 0 1 40 150
Total* 109 84,740 121 419,742 81 1,991 63 2,707 422,449
* Total area excludes biological plus other control methods, to avoid double counting.

Managers were also asked to indicate whether they planned to use or continue

using various control methods (Table 4-7). Among park/preserve managers who

answered this question, the largest share intended to use stump treatment (85%), followed

by hack and squirt (72%), mechanical control (50%), and biological control (45%), or

biological control combined with other methods (40%). For agricultural land managers,

the maj ority intended to use mechanical methods (79%), with much fewer intending to

use foliar/soil applied herbicides (29%), stump treatment (27%) or "hack and squirt"

(16%). Very few agricultural managers expressed interest in biological control.









Table 4-7. Intentions for future use of various M~elaleuca control
methods by professional managers in Florida.
MethodPark< Managers Agricultural Managers
Number Percent Number Percent
Mechanical 30 50 58 70
Foliar/Soil herbicides 23 38 24 29
Hack and Squirt 43 72 13 16
Felling + Herbicide 51 85 22 27
Biological Control 27 45 4 5
Biological + Other 24 40 3 4
Other Methods 3 5 6 7

Managers were also asked whether they were interested in receiving additional

information about any of the specific Melaleuca control methods (Table 4-8). Most

park/preserve managers were interested in learning more about biological control (74%),

but a maj ority was also interested in foliar/soil applied herbicides and stump treatment

(65%), hack and squirt (58%), and mechanical methods (52%). Among agricultural

managers who responded to this question, 40% to 50% wished to learn more about

biological control, stump treatment, soil/foliar herbicides and hack and squirt. The low

interest in learning more about mechanical control, at the same time this group expects to

continue using this method extensively, suggests that this method is well understood.

Table 4-8. Requests for more information on Melaleuca control methods by
professional managers in Florida.
Method Park Managers Agricultural Managers
Number Percent Number Percent
Mechanical 16 52 12 25
Foliar/Soil herbicides 20 65 22 45
Hack and Squirt 18 58 22 45
Felling + Herbicide 20 65 24 49
Biological Control 23 74 24 49
Biological + Other 16 52 17 35
Other Methods 5 16 3 6









Barriers to Controlling Melaleuca

Land managers were asked to choose from a list of factors that may have limited

their ability to control M~elaleuca (Table 4-9). Among park/preserve managers, the

biggest barriers identified were inaccessibility to infestations (22%), expense (18%),

excessive size of infestations (15%), lack of cost sharing programs (13%), and lack of

time (12%). However, a significant proportion of these respondents (32%) indicated they

encountered other types of barriers not specifically identified in the question. Some of

these other barriers included: infestations are too small, lack of needed equipment or

knowledge to use controls, fear of harming other beneficial plants, fear of or dislike for

using chemicals, and environmental regulations. Although they were listed in the

question, some respondents wrote-in that lack of money and lack of time were barriers to

implementing controls. Only 13% of park/preserve managers said that M~elaleuca was not

a problem for them.

Agricultural land mangers responded quite differently to the barriers to control

question. Seventy-four percent indicated that they did not have M~elaleuca on their

property and 3 1% reported that M~elaleuca was not a problem for them even it they did

have it. Some 9% of agricultural managers reported that their infestations were too small,

6% indicated that controls were too expensive, 5% indicated they lacked the necessary

equipment to carry out control measures, and 5% indicated a barrier other than those

listed in the survey. No particular barrier was mentioned more than any other; however,

some respondents stated that there were no economic incentives for removing M~elaleuca,

that licenses were needed for purchasing the necessary herbicides, and that some areas

required permits for removing the trees. It is interesting to note that one respondent










stated that Melaleuca trees provide shade in pastures, which suggests that there may be

some benefits of2~elaleuca for agricultural use.

Table 4-9. Barriers to controlling M~elaleuca by professional managers.
BaniersPark Managers Agricultural Managers
Number Percent* Number Percent*
No M~elaleuca on property 17 281 227 74
Not a problem 8 13 96 31
Don't care 0 01 13 4
Infestations too small 5 81 28 9
Infestations too large 9 15 8 3
Controls won't work 0 01 3 1
Don't know how to use controls 3 51 8 3
No time to use controls 7 121 3 1
Afraid of harm 3 51 5 2
Afraid oflDislike 3 5 13 4
Infestation inaccessible 13 221 6 2
Lack equipment 5 81 16 5
Environmental regulations 2 3 4 1
No cost sharing 8 13 12 4
Controls too expensive 11 181 19 6
Other reason 19 321 14 5
* Percent of respondents answering this question.

Sources and Usefulness of Information for Melaleuca Control

Professional land managers were asked if they had received information about

M~elaleuca from one or more of 13 possible sources (Table 4-10). These respondents

were also asked to classify the usefulness of these sources as either "useful", "somewhat

useful", or "not useful" (Table 4-11). These classifications were scored on a scale of 2, 1

or 0 respectively in order to compute a weighted average rating (Figure 4-2).

Park/preserve managers who responded to this question indicated that state and

federal agencies were their main source of information, with 83% indicating that they had

received information from these sources, followed by UF/IFAS extension (72%), land

managers' advice (67%), pamphlets or bulletins (60%), land managers' observations










(58%), and professional organizations (52%). Other information sources or media that

were received by less than 50 percent of respondents were weed professionals, area

demonstration plots, TAME M~elaleuca, video cassettes or CDs, internet websites,

computer software, and email. In terms of the usefulness of information from state and

federal agencies, 88% of park/preserve managers rated it as a useful source, 10% rated it

as somewhat useful, and 2% indicated it was not useful (Table 4-11), representing an

overall average score of 1.9 (Figure 4-2). Other information sources with high usefulness

ratings were UF/IFAS extension (1.9), manager observations (1.8), land manager advice

(1.8), weed professionals (1.8), professional organizations (1.7), internet websites (1.7),

pamphlets/bulletins (1.6), and the TAME proj ect (1.6).

Table 4-10. Information sources and types of media used by professional land
managers in Florida.
Sources Park Managers Agricultural Managers
Number Percent Number Percent
State and federal agencies 50 83 31 44
Professional organizations 31 52 16 23
Land manager observations 35 58 12 17
UJF/IFAS extension 43 72 33 47
Weed professionals 25 42 10 14
TAME M~elaleuca 22 37 5 7
Land manager advice 40 67 13 19
Pamphlets or bulletins 36 60 17 24
Video cassettes or CDs 9 15 4 6
Area demonstration plots 12 20 4 6
Computer software 3 5 4 6
Web site/Internet 21 35 14 20
E-mail/direct notification 15 25 4 6
Other information source 5 8 9 13

Among agricultural managers who responded to this question, 47% indicated they

had received information from UF/IFAS extension, followed by state and federal

agencies (44%), pamphlets/bulletins (24%) and professional organizations (23%) (Table

4-10). In terms of usefulness, the top rated sources were UF/IFAS extension (1.4),



























1.3

0.11.
.0
1.7
0.1
0.7

0.21.


0.4 1.2
09
1.6
1.1
1 R



1 9

11 R
.9 1.7

1.9


49



manager observations (1.1), state/federal agencies (1.1), weed professionals (1.1), land


manager advice (1.1), and internet websites (1.1) (Figure 4-2). None of the agricultural


managers indicated they considered area demonstration plots, computer software/decision


aids, or email/direct notifications as being useful sources.


Other media Specified

E-mail

Website/ Internet

Software Decision aids

Demonstration plots

VideolCD's

Pamphlets/ Bulletins

Land Manager's Advice



Weed Tprofe~ssironlst

UF/lFAS extension

Manager's Observations

Professional Organization

State & Federal Agencies


MAgricultural Managers
HPark Managers


0 0.5 1 1 .5 2 2.5
Average Rating


Figure 4-2. Usefulness rating of information sources and media by professional land
managers in Florida










Table 4-11. Usefulness of information received by professional land managers in South
Florida.
Park Managers Agricultural Managers
Source Somewhat Not Somewhat Not
Useful Useful
Useful Useful Useful Useful
Percent of Respondents
State/federal agencies 88 10 241 26 33
Professional organizations 77 19 5 37 20 43
Land mgr. observations 79 19 247 19 34
UF/IFAS extension 88 10 261 16 23
Weed professionals 79 18 3 52 4 44
TAME Melaleuca 63 30 713 7 80
Land mgr. advice 81 15 447 20 33
Pamphlets or bulletins 62 33 426 41 33
Video cassettes or CDs 43 36 21 14 7 79
Area demonstration plots 53 29 18 0 21 79
Computer software 14 43 43 0 14 86
Web site/Internet 79 15 640 16 44
E-mail/direct notification 47 37 15 0 14 86
Other information source 75 25 021 21 57

Costs for Melaleuca Control

Managers were asked to indicate the costs incurred during 2003 for the control of

M~elaleuca within the categories of contract services, labor (including wages and

benefits), equipment (fuel, maintenance, and rental), herbicides, and indirect costs (such

as administration and overhead). The total annual cost for controlling M~elaleuca for

surveyed park/preserve managers was $10.87 (Mn.). This included $8.07 Mn. for

contract services, $837,000 for labor costs, $796,000 for herbicides, $308,000 for

equipment, $330,000 for indirect costs, and $528,000 for costs miscellaneous other costs

(Table 4-12). Surveyed agricultural managers reported spending $205,000 in 2003 to

control M~elaleuca, with $130,000 for contract services, $29,000 for labor, $22,000 for

herbicides, $18,000 on equipment, and $5950 on indirect costs. If these numbers are









expanded to represent all agricultural managers in South Florida, a total of $1.18 Mn is

estimated to have been spent by these managers on controlling M~elaleuca in 2003.

Table 4-12. Costs for M~elaleuca control reported by professional land managers in
Florida, 2003.
Park Managers Agricultural Managers
Expense
# Sum ($) Mean ($) Max ($) # Sum ($) Mean ($) Max ($)
Contract services 34 8,066,544 237,251 4,060,00 8 129,900 16,238 100,000
Labor 29 837,470 28,878 400,00 17 28,975 1,704 20,000
Equipment 26 308,428 11,863 225,00 18 17,855 992 5,000
Herbicides 33 796,401 24,133 425,00 19 21,610 1,137 15,000
Indirect 19 329,770 17,356 110,00 5 5,950 1,190 5,000
Other 7 527,500 75,357 500,00 1 500 500 500
Total 10,8 66, 113 204,790

Managers were also asked to indicate expenses for any special equipment or heavy

machinery purchased since 1990 specifically to control M~elaleuca. It is important to note

that these expenses may be partly captured in the previous section under annual costs for

equipment expenditures. Among park/preserve managers surveyed, 28% reported

spending a total of $1.44 Mn for special equipment, with a maximum expenditure of

$1.20 Mn, as shown in Table 4-13. Some 7% of agricultural managers reported spending

$244,000 on special equipment, which would represent a total of $1.40 Mn when

expanded to represent the population in the region.

Table 4-13. Expenses for special equipment for Melaleuca control by
professional managers in Florida.
Category Number Mean ($) Sum ($) Maximum ($)
Park Managers 25 57,556 1,438,900 1,200,000
Agricultural Managers 33 7,390 243,879 130,000

Managers were asked about how costs for controlling M~elaleuca on their land had

changed over the past five years; whether they had increased, decreased or remained the

same. If there had been a change, they were asked to indicate the percentage change










(Table 4-14). Among park/preserve managers, 21% indicated that costs had increased,

26% indicated that costs decreased, and 32% indicated no change. Of those who

indicated that costs had increased, the average estimated change was 253 percent, while

for those who said costs had decreased, the estimated average decline was 117 percent.

For agricultural managers, 11% indicated the costs had increased, 9% indicated a

decrease and 41% indicated that costs had stayed about the same. For those indicating a

change in costs, the average increase was 81% and the average decrease was 87%.

These results suggest that costs for M~elaleuca control may be increasing more for

park/preserve managers than for agricultural land managers. A plausible explanation

could be the fact that most park/preserve managers are managing sensitive ecosystems

and are mandated to control invasive plants such as M~elaleuca in order to keep their

management area in a more naturally pristine state. Many agricultural managers do not

seem to think that M~elaleuca is much of a problem so they are probably less interested in

removing it, along with the fact that some mangers find that it sometimes provides

benefits for their operations.

Table 4-14. Melaleuca treatment cost trends reported by professional land
managers in Florida.
Park Managers Agricultural Managers
TrendAverage
TrendAverage
Number Percent Change Number Percent
Change (%)
Increased 13 21 2531 11 11 81
Decreased 16 26 1171 9 9 87
Unchanged 20 32 40 41
Don't know trend 13 21 37 38

Impacts of Melaleuca

Information was sought from managers regarding any negative impacts that

M~elaleuca had on their land and management over the past Hyve years. The first part of










the question provided the respondents with a list of options as well as giving them the

opportunity to specify any other adverse impacts. A second part of the question sought to

quantify the impact in terms of the percentage change in function. Among park/preserve

managers, 88 percent of those who indicated any impact reported that M~elaleuca had

impaired the ecological function of their management area, while 3 5 percent indicated a

reduction in the recreational use or value of their land (Table 4-15). A small number of

park/preserve managers reported other impacts such as increased fire danger, restriction

of necessary clearances, and smoke management issues with prescribed burns. Among

agricultural land managers who answered this question, 59% indicated that M~elaleuca

had reduced their land's agricultural productivity, while 39% said it impaired ecological

function of their land and diminished its recreational use, and 20% said that their land

market values were reduced (Table 4-15). Some of the other negative impacts listed

included allergies caused by pollen and various maintenance problems such as damage by

falling trees to fences.

Table 4-15. Negative impacts of2~elaleuca reported by professional
land managers in Florida.
Agricultural
Park Managers
Impact Managers
Number Percent Number Percent
Reduced Agricultural
Productivity 0 024 59
Lowered Market Value 0 0 8 20
Impaired ecological function 35 88 16 39
Diminished recreational use 14 35 16 39
Other impacts 4 10 8 20

As a follow-up, managers were asked to estimate the percentage change in value

or utility due to M~elaleuca infestation. Park/preserve managers estimated that the loss of

ecological function and recreational use averaged 23 %, while agricultural managers









estimated that M~elaleuca had caused an average loss of 25 % in recreational use and 24%

in agricultural productivity (Table 4-16).

Table 4-16. Reduction in utility due to M~elaleuca infestation reported by professional
land managers.
Park Managers Agricultural Managers
Impact Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Reduced Agricultural
Productivity 0 18 24 3 100
Lowered Market Value 0 6 11 5 20
Impaired Ecological Function 24 23 1 10 11 22 1 50
Diminished Recreational Use 8 23 1 10 12 25 5 100
Other Impact 1 30 30 30 3 43 5 100

Annual Income or Budget and Comparison of Reported Melaleuca Control
Expenses

Professional managers were asked to indicate their gross income from agricultural

operations or their agency's budget for land management activities for the year 2003, or

to indicate the appropriate range of values (Table 4-17). A small percentage of

park/preserve managers (16%) reported their actual budgets, which totaled $9. 1 Mn, and

averaged $650,000. Among park preserve managers, 30% indicated their budget was less

than $50,000, 7% said it was within the range of $50,001-$99,999, 11% indicated it was

$100,000 to $249,999, 9% said it was $250,000 to $499,999 range, 5% said it was

$500,000 to $999,999, and 29% indicated their annual income/budget was $1,000,000 or

more. Among agricultural managers, 10% reported actual income totaling $7.83 Mn.

Some 55% indicated their budget was less than $50,000, 6% had $50,001 to $99,999,

12% had $100,000 to $249,999, 2% had $250,000 to $499,999, 3% had $500,000 to

$999,999, and 6% had $1,000,000 or more.

Reported expenses for the control of~elaleuca were compared to reported income

or budget in order to gauge the relative level of effort allocated to this effort. If managers









chose to write in their income, that exact figure was used in the comparison., however, if

their income/budget was reported for a range of values, then the midpoint for that range

was used, and for the highest and lowest ranges (less than $50,000, $1 million or more)

$25,000 and $1.5 million were used, respectively. Only managers who reported both

expenses and budget/income information could be used for this analysis. The analysis

revealed that on average 38 % of park managers' budget was expended on control

measures for Melaleuca, as a weighted average. For some managers, reported expenses

were as much as 3 to 8 times more than their budget. A few of the respondents indicated

that less than 1% of their income/budget was used on controlling M~elaleuca. These

outliers may be due to reporting errors or may simply be due to the fact that some

agencies/operations are involved in deficit spending, i.e. spending more than their budget

provides.

Table 4-17. Annual income or budget for land management by south
Florida professional managers, 2003.
Agricultural
Park Managers
Income/Budget Range Managers
Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $50,000 17 30 105 55
$50,001--$99,999 4 7 12 6
$100,000--$249,999 6 11 22 12
$250,000--$499,999 5 9 3 2
$500,000--$999,999 3 5 5 3
$1,000,000 or more 16 29 12 6
Don't know 5 9 32 17

Appoxmae mont Number Mean Sum Max
Reported
Park Managers 14 650,386 9, 105,400 4,385,000
Agricultural Managers 46 170,213 7,829,795 2,450,000


For agricultural managers, an average of 4% of their income was spent controlling

M~elaleuca. The majority of these managers fell into the 1 to 5% range, and some










reported their control expenses were less than one percent, however, some indicated that

60 to 100% of their income went to controlling M~elaleuca.

Results for Residents

Invasive Plant Awareness

Citizen awareness of non-native flora and in the state of Florida is an important

issue for the management of invasive plants. In the resident survey, a series of questions

were included to gauge the public's level of knowledge about invasive plants generally,

and M~elaleuca in particular. The vast maj ority of the respondents (91%) indicated they

were aware that some plants and trees are not native to the State. Nearly as many (89%)

indicated they were aware that non-native plants could harm local indigenous plants. A

strong maj ority (71%) responded that they could recognize M~elaleuca, and an equal

percentage indicated that they were aware it was not native to Florida (Table 4-18).

Table 4-18. Awareness of2~elaleuca and invasive plants by Florida residents.
Number Percent
Awareness Issue
No Yes No Yes
Aware some plants are not native to Florida 85 898 9 91
Aware non-natives can cause harm 109 875 11 89
Can recognize M~elaleuca 288 689 30 71
Aware M~elaleuca isn't native to Florida 280 700 29 72
Currently have M~elaleuca on property 921 37 96 4

Amount of Melaleuca on Property

When residents were asked if they had any M~elaleuca on their property, only 4%

indicated in the affirmative. Of those who had M~elaleuca, 3 1% indicated they had only

one tree, 16% had two to five trees, and 31% had six to 20 trees. Three percent of

residents with Melaleuca had one-quarter to one-half of an acre of land infested, 9% had

one to four acres, and 6% indicated they had five or more acres of2~elaleuca on their

property (Table 4-19).










Table 4-19. Amount of2~elaleuca on
property of Florida residents.
Trees or acres Number Percent
One tree 10 31
Two-five trees 5 16
Six-20 trees 10 31
0.25 acre 1 3
0.5 acre 1 3
1-4 acres 3 9
5 + acres 2 6

Use of Control Methods for Melaleuca

The respondents who stated that they had M~elaleuca on their property were asked

to indicate which, if any, of the listed control methods they were currently using. Some

84% of residents indicated they had not used any control measures (Table 4-20).

Mechanical controls were used by 12 percent, foliar/soil-applied herbicides or stump

treatment were used by 3% each, while 1% indicated they had used hack and squirt,

biological control, or biological combined with some other control.

Table 4-20. Methods used for Melaleuca control by Florida residents,
and interest in more information about control methods.
Interested in Learning
Methods Used
Method About
Number Percent Number Percent
Mechanical 23 12 13 50
Foliar/Soil herbicides 5 3 18 69
Hack and Squirt 1 1 16 62
Felling + Herbicide 5 3 18 69
Biological Control 2 1 21 81
Biological + Other 2 1 16 62
Other Methods 0 08 31
No controls used 157 8


The respondents who had M~elaleuca were also questioned regarding control

methods they would be interested to learn more about. There was a very high level of

interest in learning more about biological controls, with 81% of respondents expressing










such an interest (Table 4-20). A maj ority of respondents were also interested in learning

more about foliar/soil-applied herbicides (69%), stump treatment (69%), hack and squirt

(62%), and biological control combined with other methods (62%). Interest was lower for

mechanical controls (50%). Some 31% indicated they were interested in some other

method of control, however, none specified what the other methods might be.

Barriers to Controlling Melaleuca

Residents were given a list of factors that potentially limit their ability to control

M~elaleuca and asked to indicate which of those factors applied in their case. Of those

respondents who indicated any barrier, 56% said that M~elaleuca was not a problem, 20%

did not care, 19% were afraid of or disliked using chemicals, 15% did not know how to

use controls, 13% lacked the necessary equipment, and 10 percent gave other reasons

(Table 4-21, Figure 4-3).

Table 4-21. Barriers to controlling M~elaleuca by Florida residents.
Barrier Number Percent
Not a problem 80 56
Don't care 29 20
Infestations too small 9 6
Infestations too large 12 8
Controls won't work 5 3
Don't know how to use controls 21 15
No time to use controls 9 6
Afraid of harm to other plants 6 4
Afraid of or dislike using chemicals 28 19
Infestation inaccessible 9 6
Lack equipment 18 13
Environmental regulations 3 2
No cost sharing 3 2
Controls too expensive 5 3
Other reason 15 10












Information Sources for Melaleuca Control

Residents were given a list and asked to indicate which sources and types of media

they had received information from or on the control of2~elaleuca (Table 4-22). The

most common source of information was newspaper, reported by 59% of those

responding to this question, followed by local/national news (47%), and state and federal

agencies (42%). Other sources were public television (29%), pamphlets/bulletins (28%),

UJF/IFAS extension (27%), weed professionals (17%), and professional organizations

(12%). Some miscellaneous other sources mentioned by 17% of respondents included

word of mouth, park or garden club tours, public speakers, personal research, or

educational classes. Finally, only 1% of respondents indicated that they had received

information from the TA1VE 2elaleuca proj ect.

Table 4-22. Sources of information on M~elaleuca received by Florida
residents .
Source Number Percent
State and federal agencies 152 42
Professional organizations 44 12
Land manger observations 20 6
UF/IFAS extension 96 27
Weed professionals 61 17
T AVE M~elaleuca 4 1
Land manager advice 23 6
Pamphlets or bulletins 166 28
Video cassettes or CDs 0 0
Area demonstration plots 20 3
Computer software 1 0
Web site/Internet 27 5
E-mail/direct notification 20 3
Local/national news 283 47
Newspapers 353 59
Public television 176 29
Other sources) 103 17










Expenses for Melaleuca Control

Residents were asked to indicate how much they had spent on controlling

M~elaleuca since owning their present property, or during the period 1990-2003, by

choosing the appropriate range of values or by estimating the amount if their

expenditures exceeded $500. As shown in Table 4-23, 93% of residents indicated they

had spent $0-$49, and it is most likely, given previous data, that the maj ority of

respondents in this category probably paid zero. One percent of respondents indicated

that they had spent $50 to $99. Nearly 2% spent $100 to $249 and the same number

spent between $250 and $500. Slightly over 2% of respondents spent more than $500 on

Melaleuca control. For those reporting expenses over $500, the average amount was

$1,992, representing a total of $1 1,950. If these numbers are expanded to represent the

entire population of households in South Florida, an estimated $15.3 million was spent on

M~elaleuca control.

Table 4-23. Expenses for M~elaleuca control
by Florida residents, 2003.
Expense Range Number Percent
$0-$49 380 93
$50-$99 4 1
$100-$249 7 2
$250-$500 7 2
$500+ 9 2

Impacts on Property Values

Residents were asked to indicate whether and by how much M~elaleuca had

negatively affected their property value. As shown in Table 4-24, 5% reported that

M~elaleuca had negatively affected their property value, and that values were reduced by

an average of 18 percent. However, the maj ority (95%) said it had not affected their

property value.










Table 4-24. Negative effect of2~elaleuca on property
value of Florida residents.
Effect Number Percent
140 440 95
Yes 24 5
Number 11
If Yes, amount
Mean (%) 18
specified (%)
Max (%) 50

Willingness to Pay for Melaleuca Removal/Eradication

Residents were also asked to indicate the dollar amount they would be willing to

pay to have M~elaleuca removed or eradicated from their property. If respondents

indicated they were willing to pay more than $500, then they were asked to estimate the

amount. As shown in Table 4-25, 74% of residents indicated they would be willing to

spend $0 to $49, however, since many residents previously indicated M~elaleuca was not

a problem for them, the maj ority of respondents for this category likely would choose $0.

Only 11% indicated they were willing to spend $50 to $99, 6% would pay $100 to $249,

7% would pay $250 to $500, and 2% would pay more than $500. Of those respondents in

the last category, the amount they would be willing to pay averaged $1,500. When these

numbers are expanded to represent the population of households in South Florida it is

estimated that residents would be willing to spend a total of $13.7 Mn to have M~elaleuca

removed from their property, which is similar to the estimated amount actually spent (see

above).










Table 4-25. Willingness to pay for removal of2~elaleuca
from property by Florida residents.
Expense Range Number Percent
$0-$49 224 74
$50-$99 34 11
$100-$249 19 6
$250-$500 20 7
$500+ 5 2
Number 3
If more than
Sum 4,500
$500, amount
Mean 1,500
specified
Max 2,500

Impacts of Melaleuca on Outdoor Enjoyment

Residents were asked about the number of days per year they spent in various

outdoor recreational activities, and how 2elaleuca has affected their enj oyment of the

outdoors. Residents reported a total of 8,790 days per year observing/photographing

wildlife, 8,132 days for boating or ATV activities, 6,263 days for freshwater fishing,

3,434 days for camping/hiking, 601 days for hunting, and 22,475 days for other activities

such as golf, jogging, cycling, walking, gardening, tennis, swimming, and saltwater

fishing (Table 4-26). When asked about how M~elaleuca had affected their enj oyment of

the outdoors, 77% indicated that it had not affected them and 23% said it had (Table 4-

27). Furthermore, 95% of those affected said it had negatively affected their enj oyment of

the outdoors, while only 5% indicated it had positively affected them.









Table 4-26. Days of annual outdoor recreation activity reported by
south Florida residents, 2003.
Activity Number Sum Mean Max
Wildlife observation/
photography 261 8,790 34 365
Boating/ ATV 304 8,132 27 200
Camping/ Hiking 242 3,434 14 150
Freshwater fishing 6,263
Hunting 49 601 12 75
Other Activity 207 22,874 111 1,000


Table 4-27. Effect of2~elaleuca on outdoor
enj oyment by Florida residents.
Response Number Percent
No 598 77
Yes 179 23
If Yes--Negative Effect 179 95
If Yes--Positive Effect 9 5


Willingness to Pay to Reduce Melaleuca in Outdoor Activity Areas

Residents were asked how much they would be willing to pay (per visit) to reduce

M~elaleuca in areas where they engaged in outdoor activities. They were given several

ranges of amounts, and if they were willing to pay more than $25 per visit were asked to

estimate the amount. Some 44% of respondents indicated they were willing to pay

nothing, 8% would pay something less than $1 per visit, 27% would pay $1 to $4, 9%

would pay $5 to $9, 7% would pay $10 to $15, 4% would pay $16 to $25, and 1% would

be willing to pay more than $25 (Table 4-28). When these numbers are expanded to

represent the population of households in South Florida, these residents would be willing

to pay an estimated total of $1.35 million to reduce Melaleuca in the areas where they

engage in outdoor activities.










Table 4-28. Willingness to pay per visit to reduce M~elaleuca
in recreational areas by Florida residents.
Expense Range Number Percent
$0 275 44
$0-$1 48 8
$1-$4 171 27
$5-$9 58 9
$10-$15 42 7
$16-$25 23 4
$25 + 9 1
Count 5
If more than $25 Sum $500
estimated amount Mean $100
Max $200

Respondent Demographics

Demographic information such as age, gender, property ownership, household size,

and income were collected as part of this survey, to help understand factors influencing

attitudes and behavior toward M~elaleuca and other invasive plants. This information is

summarized in Table 4-29. In regard to length of residency, 63% had lived in their

current location for more than five years, 33% had lived there for one to five years, and

4% had lived there less than one year. Regarding property ownership, 89% of

respondents indicated they owned their home, and 2% owned agricultural, forestry or

other natural land in Florida. Some 57% of residents were male and 43% were female.

The average year of birth was 1947, the oldest respondent' s year of birth was 1911 and

the youngest was 1985. Regarding education level, 14% had a high school diploma or its

equivalent, 11% had completed a technical/trade school, 26% had some college education

or an AA degree, 23% had a bachelor' s degree, and 23% had a graduate or professional

degree. Some 80% of respondents indicated they had voted in a state or local election in

the last three years. A household size of 2 people was reported by 91% of respondents.









Regarding household income before taxes, 5% made less than $10,000, 7% received

$10,000 to $19,999, 12% received $20,000 to $29,999, 8% received $30,000-$39,999,

16% received $40,000 to $49,999, 6% received $50,000 to $59,999, 15% received

$60,000 to $79,999, 12% received $80,000 to $99,999 range, and 20% indicated they

made $100,000 or more.











Table 4-29. Demographics characteristics of surveyed south Florida residents,
2003.


Variable
Residency duration


Residence ownership

Gender

Year of birth


Education level







Ownership of 25 or
more acres in Florida
Voted in state or local
Election in Past 2
Years
Number of people per
household
Household income
before Taxes


Level
Less than 1 year
1-5 years
5+ years
Lease
Own
Female
Male


Number
33
309
584
104
827
399
524
892
1947
1911/1985
26
132


Percent
4
33
63
11
89
43
57



3
14


Mean
Min/Max
Less than high school diploma
High school diploma or
equivalent
Some college or AA degree
Technical/Trade School
Bachelor' sDegree
Graduate/Professional Degree
No
Yes
No
Yes


Mean
Less than $10,000
$10,000-$19,999
$20,000-$29,999
$30,000-$39,999
$40,000-$49,999
$50,000-$59,999
$60,000-$79,999
$80,000-$99,999
$100,000+


241
102
214
210
926
19
183
757

921
2.4
37
52
89
60
121
47
116
89
149















CHAPTER 5
BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS

The primary data used for this analysis were gathered by the previously discussed

mail questionnaires; however, some additional data were gathered from other sources.

After the survey data and the additional data gathered were verified, analysis was

conducted to ascertain the benefits and costs of treating M~elaleuca in South Florida

during the year 2003.

This task included delineating the monetary values associated with a loss in

ecological function due to M~elaleuca infestation. Due to time constraints, monetary

values specific to South Florida ecosystems could not be generated by this research.

However, Constanza et al. (1997) provides the average global values of ecosystem

services based upon a synthesis of previous work. The analysis provides estimated

annual values for ecosystem services per unit area by ecosystem type. This research will

utilize these values assess a monetary value to ecosystem function gains from the

treatment of Melaleuca.

Due to the fact that park/preserve managers indicated that M~elaleuca diminished

the recreational use of the land they managed, a monetary value was assessed to the

losses in recreational value that were avoided by the treatment of the infested areas. The

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Division of Recreation and

Parks provided an estimate of the direct economic impact of the state park system

(Baxley, pers. comm.). The National Park Service and Florida State park's economic

impact of visitor spending at parks are based on the Money Generation Model 2 (MGM2)










developed at Michigan State University (MGM2 2003). The analysis provides

information as to the number of days visited by both local and non-local visitors, the

amount of money spent per day, the j obs created, tax revenue generated, the output

(revenue) generated by the parks, and other economic impacts generated by visitor

spending.

Calculation of Benefits

This analysis focuses on valuing benefits to ecological function, agricultural

productivity, agricultural land market value, and recreational benefits from M~elaletca

treatments on public and privately held lands. It is assumed that benefits can only accrue

in areas where M~elaletica has actually been killed and accrue immediately after treatment

and that a year of benefits accrues regardless of what time of the timing of treatment. In

addition it is important to note that just because an infestation of 2elaletica is treated

once does not mean that the j ob is done. Due to the tenacity of the species, multiple

follow up treatments are usually necessary for permanent control to be achieved. Annual

benefits may be diminished if sufficient follow up treatments are not implemented. A

model was developed that relates the areas of2~elaletica treated on specific categories of

land to a specific ecosystem value to calculate the benefits accruing to that land. The

equations used to determine the benefits of2~elaletica control are as follows:

90 10 445 10
(5-1) EB = RI le ((Aj/Mj)E(CjDx)) + R ItF C((Ak Mk) (xkDx))
j= 1 x= 1 k= 1 x= 1

445 6
(5-2) APB = RP Ib F C((Ak/Mk) C(xk)),
k= 1 x= 3

445 6
(5-3) MVB = RV Im F C((Ak/Mk) C(xk)),
k= 1 x= 3











(5-4) RB = R Y Ir C((Aj/Mj) (Cxij))/L,
j=1


where the dependent variable EB represents the ecosystem benefits, the dependent

variable APB represents the agricultural productivity benefits, the dependent variable

MVB represents the agricultural land market value benefits, and RB represents the

recreational benefits. Cx is the acreage of land classified for a specific use (xl...xio), as

reported by each individual park/preserve manager (j) or agricultural manager (k). Each

x value corresponds directly to the land use classification listing from the survey, where

xl represents land used as park/preserve, x2 TepreSents right of way, x3 TepreSents

pasture/rangeland, x4 is crop land, x5 is fruit/citrus grove, x6 is nursery, x7 is forest, xs is

wetlands, x9 is lakeshore, and xlo is other uses. The variable M represents the total

management acreage reported by each park/preserve manager (j) or agricultural manager

(k), A is the acreage of Melaleuca treated as reported by each park manager (j) or

agricultural manager (k), and R is the effective rate of treatment. The variable I,

represents the percentage reduction in value reported averaged across responding park

and agricultural managers to ecosystem services, agricultural productivity, land market

value or recreational use of land reported by park managers (noted by the subscripts e and

r) and agricultural managers (noted by subscripts t, b, and m) as matched to the

corresponding equation. The variable F is the expansion factor used to expand the

sample results of agricultural managers to represent the entire population, Dx is the

ecosystem value adjusted for inflation from Costanza et al. (1997), P represents the

average market value (cash receipts per acre of land in agricultural production) of

agricultural products produced in the 10 county survey region, V represents the average









market value of land and buildings per acre in agricultural production in the 10 county

survey region, Y represents the total economic output of all of the state parks, and two of

the maj or national parks in the survey area, and L represents the total area of

park/conservation land in the 10 county survey region as reported by the Florida Natural

Areas Inventory (FNAI 2005).

Ecosystem Benefits

In equation 5-1, the division of the Cx term by the M term yields the proportion

that indicates how much of the manager' s land area is devoted to particular uses. The

percentage this calculation yields is then multiplied by the acreage of2~elaletica treated,

represented by A, as reported by the park manager (j) and the agricultural manager (k).

This part of the equation is made necessary due to the fact that the professional managers

separately reported their land areas managed and the areas of2~elaletica that were

treated. That is to say, based upon the information gathered in the survey, there was no

delineation as to the land use classification of the infested area treated. Therefore, it

became necessary to make the assumption that the reported area of2~elaletica treated was

proportionally distributed among the nine possible land use designations reported by the

individual managers. For example, if a manager reported that they managed 120 acres of

pasture or rangeland and 30 acres of cropland, and that they treated 60 acres of2~elaletca

on their management site, then 48 acres of the M~elaletica was assumed to be treated on

rangeland while 12 acres was treated on cropland. This assumption allows for the areas

of~elaletica treated to be broken down by land use classification into the nine possible

classifications, which in turn, allows for an ecosystem function value to be properly

assigned to each land use classification. In equation 5-1 all land use classifications are

considered, due to the fact that most terrestrial areas provide some sort of ecological









function, even if it is somewhat diminished. The Costanza et al. value assigned to the

proper land use classification builds in an allowance for any diminished value in

ecological function. For example, the ecological function of cropland is only valued at

$108/hectare/year, while the function of wetlands is valued at $17,393/hectare/year.

As mentioned earlier, the tenacity of2~elaletica makes it difficult to kill. After

speaking with vegetation management experts from the South Florida Water

Management District and Everglades National Park, it was determined that the minimum

rate of kill to be reasonably expected after properly treating M~elaletica was

approximately 90 percent (Laroche and Taylor, pers. comm.). When contractors are

hired to go into an area and treat a Melaletica infestation, they are contractually obligated

to guarantee that the existing infestation will be reduced by at least 90 percent. Therefore

the R variable represents the effective rate of treatment and is a constant .90. This

adjustment is made to the area of2~elaletica treated, reported by managers, to allow for

the most realistic outcome of treatment to be represented within this benefit equation.

The variable Dx represents the ecosystem value described by Costanza et al.

(1997) that is assigned to the corresponding land use classification from the survey.

Costanza et al. report their values in 1994 U. S. dollars per hectare which were adjusted

for inflation to reflect current 2003 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator 1.176 as

provided by the United State Department of Commerce (USDOC 2006). Additionally,

the treatment area figures reported by the managers in acres were converted to hectares.

Costanza et al. provides a value for land generally classified as terrestrial, but also

provides values for specific subcategories of land such as, forest, grass/rangelands,

wetlands, lakes/rivers, and cropland. The land use categories from the survey were









matched up with a terrestrial biome value so as to provide a dollar value per hectare for

the function of that ecosystem. Table 5-1 shows the Costanza et al. values adjusted for

inflation and assigns those values with the corresponding land use classifications from the

survey. As shown below, there are six possible amounts and they are applied to the 10

particular land use classifications reported by managers.

Table 5-1. Ecosystem Values for Surveyed Land Use Classifications.
Ecosystem Value adjusted Corresponding Land Use from
Classification for Inflation using Survey
GDP Implicit
Price Deflator
($/ha/year)
Terrestrial 946 Right of way, Other
Forest 1,140 Park/preserve, Forest
Grass/rangelands 273 Pasture/rangeland
Wetlands 17,393 Mitigation area/constructed wetland
Lakes/rivers 9,997 Lakefront
Cropland 108 Crop, Fruit/citrus grove, Nursery

The next term, I (with the sub script e for park managers and t for agricultural

managers) represents the value for average negative impact to ecological function caused

by M~elaleuca as reported by professional land managers. In the surveys, managers were

asked to indicate how their operations had been negatively impacted in the areas of

agricultural productivity, land market value, ecological functions, and/or recreational use

as a result of~elaleuca infestations. None of the park/preserve respondents indicated

any negative impacts to the agricultural productivity or market value of their land.

Therefore, these negative impacts were not applied to any of the equations using their

information. The responses were then applied to the land use classifications and are

reflected in Table 5-2. Manager's perceptions are reflected by applying the average

negative impact percentage to the benefit gained by treatment of2~elaleuca on each land

use classification. This factor is an important addition because nobody knows the effect









M~elaleuca has on the land better than those who manage it and reflects the losses that can

be avoided by treating M~elaleuca.

Table 5-2. Average Negative Impact Values for Surveyed Land Use Classifieations.
Impact Average Average Reduction Corresponding
Reduction Park Agricultural Land Use
Managers (%) Managers (%) Classifieation
Reduced Agricultural N/A 24 Pasture, Crop,
Productivity Fruit, Nursery
Lowered Market N/A 11 Pasture, Crop,
Value Fruit, Nursery
Reduced Ecological 23 22 All Land
Function Classifieations
Diminished 23 25 Park/Preserve
Recreational Use

Finally, the equation for agricultural managers also includes the term F which is an

expansion factor used only when applying the data collected for agricultural managers to

the equation. Since only a sample of agricultural managers were surveyed, it was

necessary to expand the sample results to represent the population of agricultural

managers in South Florida. Expansion factors can be devised based on either the land

areas surveyed or the number of people surveyed. In this case it was based on the

number of managers surveyed. The population was 1 1,500 and the sample size was

2,000. Dividing the population size by the sample size yields an expansion factor of

5.75. This calculation assumes that the sample data gathered was representative of the

population.

Agricultural Land Productivity Benefits

Survey results indicated that only a small portion of the total area of2~elaleuca

treated occurs on agricultural land. However, in order to conduct a thorough analysis, as

many factors as possible are considered in calculating a benefit value. Equation 5-2 is

basically the same as the equation (5-1) used to calculate ecosystem benefits, with the










exception that the land areas reported and values applied are changed to reflect the effects

on agricultural productivity and not the ecological function and it only considers the data

gathered from agricultural managers. In essence the P variable replaces the value of the

ecological function seen in the ecosystem benefits equation and is equal to $1,034 per

acre as reported by the 2002 Agricultural Census data (USDA-NASS 2002).

Additionally, the average negative impact value, Ib, is reflective of the average

percentage reduction in agricultural productivity reported by agricultural managers

(24%), shown in Table 5-2. In this case only areas treated on agriculturally classified

land (range (x3), crop (x4), fruit (x5), or nursery (x6)) by agricultural managers are

considered since park/preserve managers reported that they managed very few acres of

land classified as being used for agricultural purposes.

Agricultural Land Market Value Benefits

A monetary value was estimated for the benefits accruing to agricultural land

market values due to the treatment of2~elaleuca on those agricultural lands. As is the

case with the previous equations (5-1 and 5-2) the variables in equation 5-3 are generally

the same; and this equation also considers only the data collected from agricultural

managers. Therefore, the areas reported for land uses Cxk, aCTOS ofhlelaleuca treated Ak,

total land management area Mk, and average negative impact value Im,(which is equal to

11% as shown in Table 5-2) are specific to agricultural managers and their perceptions of

the effects of2~elaleuca on land market values. Additionally, the variable V is equal to

$7,017 per acre, according the 2002 Agricultural Census data (USDA-NASS 2002).

Recreation Benefits

Not only does land set aside as parks or preserves play an invaluable role in

allowing vital ecological processes to be carried out, but it also provides natural areas that









allow for humans to interact with nature and gain some measure of satisfaction from

recreation. Many individuals would probably indicate that the enj oyment they gain from

outdoor recreation is not completely attributed to the ecological functions taking place on

the land, and that some measure of enj oyment is gained from the existence of the land

and the availability of the land to provide them with a place to experience the outdoors.

Therefore, it is imperative to find a way to measure the recreational value that would be

lost due to a Melaleuca infestation on a park or preserve.

Equation 5-4 shows that the rate of treatment is found by dividing Cxy by Mj then

multiplying that by Aj, and by the effective rate of treatment R (0.9). The Y variable

represents the total economic output for the year 2003 of all of the state parks and two of

the maj or national parks (Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve)

in the survey region as generated by the Money Generation Model 2 (MGM2) and is

equal to $305,670,188 (MGM2 2003). Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties with

the website that publishes this information, at the time of this publication, the economic

output of other federal parks and preserves could not be collected. It is important to note

that the inclusion of the economic outputs of these other parks would drive the

recreational benefit value higher. The equation accounts for the percentage loss in the

recreational value of park/preserve land due to M~elaeluca infestation as reported by

professional park/preserve managers, therefore, the variable Ir is equal to 23%. Finally,

the previously discussed variables are all divided by the variable L which represents the

total area of park/conservation lands in the 10 county region for 2003 (5,275,455 acres)

as reported by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) located at Florida State

University (FNAI 2005).









Additional Benefits

The issue of Gire danger associated with dense M~elaleuca stands has been

documented over the years. The fire danger is not only a serious concern for the Florida

ecosystem, but also for the lives and properties that are threatened when a M~elaleuca

fueled fire occurs. Fire-fighting cost estimates have been compiled through suppression

bills issued by the Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF). In 1985 and 1989 M~elaleuca

fueled fires burned nearly 12,000 acres adj acent to the Dade County Northwest well Hield

at a cost of $25,000 and $21,000, respectively, and a 1,000 acre fire in Broward County

cost approximately $10,000 (Diamond et al. 1991). Costs for municipal fire departments

are estimated to be three times that of the FDOF due to their greater manpower

requirements and equipment expenditures (Wasil and Lewis pers. comm.). These

estimates yield a per acre cost of $2 to $10 for the (FDOF) and $6 to $30 for local

municipalities. When the median of the estimated cost ranges ($6 and $16) are used, and

applied to an assumed 12,000 acre fire the calculations yield cost savings estimates

(adjusted for inflation using the GDP implicit price deflator) of $97,207 for wildland fire

control by the FDOF and $259,219 for local municipal fire departments. Table 5-3

shows that the total benefits gained from treating Melaleuca in 2003 were $31,742,298.

The benefits that apply to the areas of land reported by park/preserve managers

are ecosystem benefits, recreational values, and the benefits gained from avoidance of

increased fire damages, which are $13.14 million, $9.17 million, and $178,213,

respectively for a total of $22.49 million. The benefits of restored ecological function,

agricultural productivity, agricultural market value, and avoidance of fire damages apply

to M~elaleuca treatment areas as reported by agricultural managers in the amounts of

$236,866, $2.15 million, $6.68 million, and $178,213, respectively, and yield a total of










$9.24 million. Since there are two categories of managers being considered, the overall

avoidance of fire damages AB ($3 56,426) is divided between the two categories to yield

$178,213 for each managerial category. Finally, the total benefits are reached by adding

equations 5-1 through 5-4, along with the additional benefits of fire prevention, together

to yield:

(5-5) TB=EB + RB + APB + MVB + AB,

where TB stands for total benefits and AB stands for additional benefits due to fire

prevention.

Table 5-3. Total Benefits of2~elaleuca Control in 2003.
Benefit Value ($)
Agricultural Productivity 2, 146,228
Agricultural Land Market Value 6,675,569
Ecological Function 13,397,685
Recreational Value 703,313
Avoidance of Fire damages 356,426
Total 23,279,221

Calculation of Costs

The calculation of costs for this analysis is fairly straightforward since the cost

data were gathered by the survey. The following equations denote the different cost data

gathered :


(5-6) Cp= E Hj,
j=1

445
(5-7) Ca= F E Zk,
k= 1

1,015
(5-8) Cr= E Gi
i= 1

(5-9) Ct= (CO3 CO4)/2,









where, the variable C, represents park manager costs and is equal to the summation of the

responses (Hj) of those managers, Ca represents agricultural manager costs and is equal to

summation of those responses (Zk), the variable F represents the previously discussed

expansion factor, and C, are estimated residential costs for the year 2003 based upon the

survey responses (Gi). The methods for that estimation are discussed below. The

dependent variable Ct is the TAME Mlelaleuca budget and the variables CO3 and CO4

represent the budgets for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for TAME M~elaleuca.

When the survey responses for the cost Eigures of park/preserve managers were

summed it was calculated that they spent $10.87 million on M~elaleuca controls during

2003. The sample of agricultural managers surveyed indicated that they spent $204,790.

As mentioned earlier, assuming that the sample of agricultural managers is representative

of the population, this cost figure can be expanded to represent the whole population of

agricultural managers. This calculation reveals that the agricultural managers in South

Florida spent an estimated $1.18 million on M~elaleuca control in 2003. Additionally, the

TAME M~elaleuca program costs were reported as $820,000 for the 2003 Eiscal year

(October 1, 2002 to September 31, 2003) and $1,010,000 for the 2004 Eiscal year

(October 1, 2003 to September 31, 2004) (Silvers pers. com.). Since these fiscal years

divide up the calendar year 2003, half of each of the budgets was taken and added

together to yield $915,000 as the estimate for the 2003 TAME M~elaleuca budget.

Cost figures were also gathered from the residential surveys. However, the cost

data collected in this survey were gathered by asking respondents to indicate what range

of money they had spent on control measures from 1990 to 2003 or since owning their

property and were not as straightforward as the costs reported by the professional










managers. For example, instead of reporting that they spent $200 in 2003, residents

indicated that they spent an amount that fell within the range of $100 to $249 since

owning their property. These responses do not allow for a specific control cost figure to

be gathered for the year 2003 and require some additional assumptions and calculations

to be made. For the sake of clarity the two issues will be addressed separately.

Since the residential survey data was a sample gathered from the population the

sample data gathered needed to be expanded to represent the population of residents in

South Florida. The survey population was 2,511,141 and the sample size was 5,001.

Dividing the population size by the sample size yields an expansion factor of 502. 13. For

the sake of using a round number the expansion factor was rounded to 500 for the

residential data. Due to the fact that respondents indicated a range of money spent on

control efforts one specific Eigure could not be calculated. Instead three separate Eigures

were calculated to reflect a range of possibilities. Specifically, low, middle, and high

range estimates were calculated to demonstrate the possible outcomes for the responses

gathered. For example, if a respondent indicated that they qualified for the categorical

cost range of zero to $50, then the low, medium, and high range possibilities for that

respondent were zero, $24.50, or $49, respectively. Every person who responded to this

question was assigned a low, medium, and high range value. Each category's outcomes

were then summed together, thus allowing three different cost scenarios to be

demonstrated for residents.

These results indicate that $6,909, $31,029, and $68,808 were the raw results

from the estimation of the low, middle, and high range residential cost scenarios,

respectively. The low, middle, and high range numbers were then expanded to $3.45









million, $15.51 million, and 34.40 million, respectively, using the expansion factor of

500, as previously discussed. Due to the fact that the maj ority of residential respondents

responded that they did not have Melaleuca on their property the assumption was made

that most of the respondents who indicated the $0 to $49 range were most likely reporting

that they had spent $0 on control measures, so this analysis uses the low cost estimates.

Additionally, the cost figures must be adjusted to represent the time frame

addressed in this analysis. A value must be calculated from the data gathered to yield the

best estimate of the cost figures for 2003. Since the data reported were for a time span of

1990 to 2003 the figures computed above were averaged out over the 14 year period to

yield an average dollar amount spent per year. Using the low, middle and high range

scenarios as discussed above, residents are estimated to have spent $246,750, $1.11

million, and $2.46 million respectively on control measures during 2003.

Table 5-4 shows that an estimated total of $13,207,863 was spent on M~elaleuca

control measures in 2003. Therefore total costs (TC) are equal to the summation of

equations 5-6 through 5-9 and is demonstrated by:

(5-10) TC= C, + Ca + Cr + Ct.

Table 5-4. Cost Data for Melaleuca Control in 2003
Group Costs ($)
Park Managers 10,866,113
Agricultural Managers 1,180,000
Residents 246,750
TAME M~elaleuca 915,000
Total 13,207,863


Calculation of the Benefit-Cost Ratio

Given the previous equations and methodology, the task of calculating a BCR that

compares agricultural productivity, agricultural land market values, ecological function,









and recreation benefits to control and program costs is now very simple. Using the

general equation:

(5-11) BCR = TB/TC,

where the variable BCR represents the benefit-cost ratio and TB and TC represent the

total benefits and total costs, respectively, all that has to be done is to enter the

appropriate values into the equation to gain an overall BCR for treating Melaleuca. As

shown in the previous tables, the total benefits gained in the areas of agricultural

productivity, agricultural land market values, ecological function, and recreational

benefits from treating Melaleuca during the year 2003 equal $23,279,221 while the total

control and program costs from the same time period amount to $13,207,863. When

these values are applied to equation 5-11, the results yield a benefit-cost ratio of 1.76.

While the total benefit-cost ratio is useful in helping to determine the overall

success or failure of a program, the discussion of the benefit-cost ratios from the

subcategories considered in this analysis can also be useful. The categories of survey

respondents had very different results for the areas occupied by M~elaleuca and the areas

treated. When the same methodologies used for the overall benefit-cost ratio are applied

to the subcategories of data, separate benefit-cost ratios can be determined for

park/preserve managers and agricultural managers. The total benefits accruing to

park/preserve managers are $14.02 million, while the total costs park/preserve managers

reported in the survey were $10.87 million, thus, yielding a benefit-cost ratio of 1.29 for

park/preserve managers.

Total benefits accruing from treatment of2~elaleuca on agricultural land are

estimated to be $9.24 million. When the cost data reported by agricultural managers are










expanded to represent the population it is estimated that the total costs were $1.18

million. Using equation 5-1 1, the calculation reveals a benefit-cost ratio of 7.83. This

number is relatively high due to the fact that agricultural lands have multiple benefits

accruing to them. Agricultural managers also reported lower costs because they have not

been treating M~elaleuca as aggressively as park managers and therefore have a greater

marginal value response at this stage of their control efforts. If agricultural managers

pursue controls more assertively, it is expected that the marginal value of the benefits

from their control efforts will diminish with the greater treatment area. While

park/preserve lands also have the multiple benefits of ecological function and recreational

value, agricultural lands have agricultural productivity and land market values as well as

ecological function accruing to them. Even though the ecological benefits that accrue to

agricultural lands are greatly diminished as compared to lands held in a natural state, the

soil and bedrock contained in them still serve some water filtration purposes, however

minimal. Therefore, agricultural lands have a relatively larger amount of benefits

accruing to them than park/preserve. While the previous statement may be true for the

purposes of this analysis, it is imperative to not jump to the conclusion that agricultural

lands are simply more valuable than park/preserve lands. There are benefits such as

existence values for parks/preserves that are not considered in this particular analysis and

would undoubtedly drive the benefits accruing in those areas higher.















CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

This thesis seeks to characterize the current state of the management of2~elaleuca

in South Florida and determine the benefits and costs of controlling M~elaleuca for the

year 2003. Previous benefit-cost analyses have primarily focused on the possible benefits

and costs associated with the unfettered spread of2~elaleuca. That kind of research was

quite useful in helping to determine if the benefits to undertake control strategies would

outweigh the costs. This analysis differs in that it seeks to assign a monetary value to the

benefits actually gained on the areas of land invaded by Melaleuca which have been

successfully treated and the costs associated with that treatment. Instead of conducting

an analysis that assumes a hypothetical best or worst case scenario, this analysis seeks to

focus on the reality of what is actually happening with the spread and treatment of

M~elaleuca in South Florida and serves to evaluate policy and management decisions

made during this program.

After consultations between UF-IFAS, USDA-ARS, and TAME M~elaleuca,

surveys were developed and mailed to professional land managers and residents in the 10

southernmost counties of Florida during the summer of 2004. The surveys for the

professional managers were sent to individuals whose management areas were classified

as park/preserve or agricultural. A wealth of information was gathered to help gain

insight into the current status of the war against M~elaleuca. The benefit-cost analysis

specifically used the data that pertained to the land use classifications of the management










area, how much M~elaleuca was on the land, the area of2~elaleuca treated, the costs

associated with the treatment, and the negative impacts to the land caused by the

M~elaleuca infestations as estimated by managers. The response rates for park/preserve

and agricultural managers were 32% and 22%, respectively.

The responses from park/preserve managers revealed that 619,317 acres of

M~elaleuca inhabited their management areas, while they treated a total of 84,740 acres

during 2003. Based on the fact that control strategies are not completely effective, a 90%

rate of effective removal was applied to the treatment areas reported by park/preserve

managers to yield the estimated area of Melaleuca killed as 76,265 acres. The total costs

associated with these control methods were reported as $10.9 million. The park/preserve

managers felt that M~elaleuca impaired the ecological function and recreational use of the

land they managed by an average of 23%.

Agricultural managers indicated that a total of 2, 134 acres of~elaleuca occurred

on their land and that they treated approximately 1,991 acres during the year 2003. When

the assumed effective rate of treatment is used it is estimated that approximately 1,701

acres of Melaleuca were killed on agricultural lands during 2003. The total costs

associated with these treatments were approximately $204,790. It should be noted that

these figures collected from the sample of agricultural managers were expanded to reflect

the population for the calculation of the benefit cost ratio(s). The expanded figures

indicate that agricultural managers had an estimated total of 12,271 acres of2~elaleuca

occupying their land, while they treated an estimated 10,868 acres at an estimated cost of

$1,180,000 during 2003. Finally, the agricultural managers reported that the agricultural










productivity, market value, and ecological function of their land had been reduced by an

average of 24 percent, 11 percent, and 22 percent, respectively.

The maj ority of the data gathered by the residential survey was directed at

gathering information related to the awareness and perceptions of2~elaleuca by the

residents and therefore much of it was not used in this benefit-cost analysis. However,

the cost data collected from the residents was used. Residents had the lowest survey

response rate at 20 percent. Based on the data collected and the methods described in the

previous chapter, it was estimated that the residents of South Florida spent an estimated

$246,750 on Melaleuca control/removal in 2003.

Using the information gathered from the mail surveys and other relevant data

sources it was determined that the benefit-cost ratio for M~elaleuca control in the year

2003 was 1.76. The benefit portion of the ratio was computed by assessing monetary

values for the benefits that were gained due to the restored ecological function of

agricultural and park/preserve land, agricultural productivity and market value of

agricultural land, and the recreational use of park/preserve lands where M~elaleuca

controls had been implemented. The additional benefit of avoidance of costs connected

with M~elaleuca fueled fire control was also considered in the benefit equation. The costs

were derived from the residential and professional survey data along with the TAME

M~elaleuca program costs which include the costs associated with this research.

Conclusions, Implications, and Policy Recommendations

Based upon the results of the surveys it is quite apparent that the vast maj ority of

M~elaleuca control is still taking place on public land in South Florida. As stated in the

introduction of this thesis, this phenomenon is most likely due to the fact that a legal

mandate requires public agencies to remove invasive plants from their management areas.









It may be necessary for the legislature to make the current laws addressing the general

public more stringent so as to induce a greater number of private land managers and

homeowners to implement M~elaleuca controls on their properties. While making the

laws stricter is a step in the right direction, it will also be necessary for the lawmakers to

assign specific penalties for those in violation of the law and require a uniform

enforcement of the laws and penalties. This would require increased presence by the

enforcement agencies and would certainly require a greater amount of time and effort

from those agencies. A requirement similar to those municipalities that call for new

construction sites to have Melaleuca trees removed from the property before a certificate

of occupancy can be issued may be a useful tool in inducing Melaleuca removal.

The results of the benefit-cost analysis support the earlier hypothesis made that this

analysis would yield a benefit-cost ratio higher than one. When the benefits from

M~elaleuca control realized on park/preserve and agricultural land are compared to the

costs incurred by those land managers and private residents the analysis indicates that the

benefits are almost two times greater than the costs. It is important to keep in mind that

this is not even considering benefits that may be accruing to the private homeowners in

South Florida and would only serve to increase the benefits. Given the resulting cost-

benefit ratio of 1.76, it can be said that the current policy requiring M~elaleuca control is

providing a benefit to society in the year 2003. It is interesting to note that due to the

compound effect of having multiple values tied to their land (i.e.-the values gained from

the ecological functions, the actual production of agricultural commodities as well as the

market value of the land) this analysis indicates that agricultural lands have a higher

benefit-cost ratio than park/preserve lands for treating M~elaleuca (7.83 vs. 1.29). Even









without considering the benefits accruing to agricultural land market values, the ratio is

still greater for agricultural lands than park/preserve lands (2.17 vs. 1.29). Therefore it is

recommended that policymakers and public agencies continue to at least maintain the

current levels of funding and control efforts for M~elaleuca reduction. Not only should

they continue to maintain the current levels of funding, but they should also consider

increasing funds to help specifically target agricultural managers to persuade them to

control M~elaleuca on their property. This would serve to help solve the problem of

having M~elaleuca spread around private lands, while it is being controlled on public

lands, and would also help avoid cross contamination from the infested areas to the areas

under control.

A maj ority of residents who responded to the survey questions aimed at

determining their awareness of2~elaleuca indicated that they knew that M~elaleuca was

not native to Florida and that they knew non-native plants could be harmful (71% and

89%, respectively). However, when the residents were later asked to indicate if

M~elaleuca effected their enj oyment of the outdoors 77% of those who responded to the

question indicated that it did not. When residents were asked to indicate if they felt that

M~elaleuca negatively affected their property value 95% of those responding to the

question indicated that they felt it did not. There seems to be a gap between what people

know about M~elaleuca and how that knowledge affects their desire to take the actions

necessary to control it. According to the survey data the main sources that provide

information on M~elaleuca for residents were newspapers and local/national news (59%

and 47% of residents who responded to the question, respectively). These may be the

outlets that policy makers, environmental action groups, and public agencies should