<%BANNER%>

An Application of GIS in Visitor Experience Planning

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021811/00001

Material Information

Title: An Application of GIS in Visitor Experience Planning Examining Conflict and Tolerance among Off-Highway Vehicle Riders
Physical Description: 1 online resource (94 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Albritton, Rachel Rebe
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: conflict, gis, ohv, recreation, tolerance
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine perceived differences related to goal interference and tolerance for lifestyle diversity between and within all-terrain vehicle riders, off-highway motorcycle riders, and four-wheel drive operator groups, and to identify where conflict related to tolerance was most likely to occur. Data was collected using a combination of on-site surveys and mail back questionnaires. Social data referencing physical setting preferences were paired with GIS layers within ArcGIS 9.0 and mapped for each rider group, allowing for a comparison of physical setting preferences across groups in order to identify where conflict related to tolerance was most likely to occur. A total of 703 on-site surveys were conducted, and a total of 660 mail back questionnaires were distributed. A total of 295 mail back surveys were returned for a 44.7% response rate. The results indicate that conflict and tolerance does exist within and between rider groups however between group conflict is more prevalent than within-group conflict. In addition, the degree of tolerance tends to be higher toward in-group members than toward out-group members. Both of these results lend further support to the theory of goal interference, and provide an initial examination of possible perceived differences between OHV rider groups. When examining tolerance within a spatial context (GIS), the results showed that the potential for conflict could occur over large portions of the study area; however this knowledge could be beneficial to managers when creating new riding opportunities. Incorporating GIS into a planning process allows for a visual understanding of not only where potential conflict as a result of intolerance is most likely to occur, but also allows for the identification of areas that riders prefer based on physical landscape characteristics. Taking these preferences into consideration in conjunction with perceived differences between rider groups can help form on the ground solutions to minimizing conflict related to tolerance and promote quality visitor experiences.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rachel Rebe Albritton.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Stein, Taylor V.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021811:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021811/00001

Material Information

Title: An Application of GIS in Visitor Experience Planning Examining Conflict and Tolerance among Off-Highway Vehicle Riders
Physical Description: 1 online resource (94 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Albritton, Rachel Rebe
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: conflict, gis, ohv, recreation, tolerance
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine perceived differences related to goal interference and tolerance for lifestyle diversity between and within all-terrain vehicle riders, off-highway motorcycle riders, and four-wheel drive operator groups, and to identify where conflict related to tolerance was most likely to occur. Data was collected using a combination of on-site surveys and mail back questionnaires. Social data referencing physical setting preferences were paired with GIS layers within ArcGIS 9.0 and mapped for each rider group, allowing for a comparison of physical setting preferences across groups in order to identify where conflict related to tolerance was most likely to occur. A total of 703 on-site surveys were conducted, and a total of 660 mail back questionnaires were distributed. A total of 295 mail back surveys were returned for a 44.7% response rate. The results indicate that conflict and tolerance does exist within and between rider groups however between group conflict is more prevalent than within-group conflict. In addition, the degree of tolerance tends to be higher toward in-group members than toward out-group members. Both of these results lend further support to the theory of goal interference, and provide an initial examination of possible perceived differences between OHV rider groups. When examining tolerance within a spatial context (GIS), the results showed that the potential for conflict could occur over large portions of the study area; however this knowledge could be beneficial to managers when creating new riding opportunities. Incorporating GIS into a planning process allows for a visual understanding of not only where potential conflict as a result of intolerance is most likely to occur, but also allows for the identification of areas that riders prefer based on physical landscape characteristics. Taking these preferences into consideration in conjunction with perceived differences between rider groups can help form on the ground solutions to minimizing conflict related to tolerance and promote quality visitor experiences.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rachel Rebe Albritton.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Stein, Taylor V.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021811:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





AN APPLICATION OF GIS IN VISITOR EXPERIENCE PLANNING: EXAMINING
CONFLICT AND TOLERANCE AMONG OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE RIDERS




















By

RACHEL ALBRITTON


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

2007
































2007 Rachel Albritton



























To Cindi, for all the sacrifices you made in order to allow me to accomplish my goals. All the
nights I spent in front of the computer, reading materials, and writing papers instead of spending
time with our family have not gone unnoticed. Thank you for your continued support and
encouragement during this process and within my life.










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to my committee for their support throughout this research effort. In particular thank you

to my chair advisor, Taylor Stein for his continued mentorship, direction and support. Thank you to my

supervisory committee Brijesh Thapa, Wendell Cropper and Scot Smith all of whom were instrumental in

providing valuable insights and suggestions for this research project.

This project was made possible by funding through the T. Mark Schmidt Off-Highway Vehicle

Recreation and Safety Act through the Florida Division of Forestry Grant Program, and for that I am

forever grateful. I would also like to thank all of the Ocala National Forest managers and volunteers who

assisted with this project as well as upper division management officials in Tallahassee. In particular, Bret

Bush, Tiffany Williams, Jim Schmid, Will Ebaugh, and Mark Warren provided invaluable direction.

Numerous University of Florida researchers as well as U.S. Forest Service volunteers also assisted in this

study. Thank you to Lindsey Eidner, Sam Nagran, Julia Shrader, Vanessa O'quendo, Amanda Brinton,

Taylor Oxahart, Bin Wan, Linda and Larry Brugman, and Sarah Tobing for all the countless hours

assisting with the on-site interview process. I could have never been as successful without this help.

Thank you to all of the participants' who took time out of their trip and personal lives to speak with

interviewers and complete the mail back questionnaire. Without their cooperation this study would not

exist.

Finally, thank you my family; Cindi, mom, and dad. Your belief in me provided the foundation and

support that helped me succeed. Thank you for always being there for me, and never letting me give up. I

love you.









TABLE OF CONTENTS


A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

L IST O F T A B L E S ........ ...................................................................... ......... ............

LIST O F FIG U RE S ................................................................. 8

A B S T R A C T ......... ....................... ............................................................ 10

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ....................................................................................... .................... 12

2 EXPLORING CONFLICT AND TOLERANCE AMONG OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE
R ID E R S ............................................................................................. 16

Intro du action ... ............................... ............................................... .... ...... 16
T heoretical F ram ew ork ........... ........................................................................ ....... .. 18
G o al In terferen ce ................... .................................................. ................ 18
Tolerance for Lifestyle D diversity ............................................................................. 19
D efining C conflict and T olerance ......................................................................... .. .... 2 1
Methods ........................................ 22
S tu d y A re a .......................................................................................................................2 2
D ata C collection ................................................................................ 2 3
V ariables M measured ......................................................... .............. ... 24
G oal interference .................. .............................................. .. ...... 24
Tolerance for lifestyle diversity ........................................ .......... ............... 24
D ata A n a ly sis ...................................................................................................................2 5
R e su lts .................... .... .......................................................................2 5
Activity Group Socio-Demographics ........................................................................25
O ut-group C conflict ........................... ........................ .. ........... ........... 25
In-group C conflict ...................................... ............................................... 27
D isc u ssio n ............... ................................................................. ................2 7
C conceptual Im plications ............................................................................ ............ 28
M anagem ent Im plications ....................................................................... ..................29
C onclu sions.......... .......................................................... 3 1

3 PLANNING FOR VISITOR EXPERIENCES: A SPATIAL APPROACH TO
UNDERSTANDING TOLERANCE ............................................. ............................ 37

Introduction............... ...... ..... .................. ............................... .37
Understanding and Managing Recreation Conflict ..................................... ...............38
Methods ........................................ 42
S tu d y A re a .......................................................................................................................4 2
Collecting Social D ata .................................. .. ........ ... ................ .. 43
Evaluating tolerance for lifestyle diversity ................................... .................44










Evaluating resource preferences......................................... .......................... 45
A naly sis of Social D ata .............................. .......................... .... ........ .... ..... ...... 45
S p atia l A n a ly sis ......................................................................................................4 6
R e su lts ............... ................. ............................................................................................... 4 7
S o cio -D em o g rap h ic s ................................................................................................. 4 7
Tolerance for Lifestyle Diversity ................................................47
Preferences for Environmental Resources ............................................................. 48
M apping P potential C conflict ....................................................................................... 50
D isc u ssio n ............... ......... .. .................................................................................5 2
M anagem ent R ecom m endations ....................................................................................... 53
C onclu sions.......... ..........................................................55

4 C O N C L U SIO N S ................................................................65

APPENDIX

A O N -SIT E SU R V E Y .......................................................................................................... 67

B MAIL BACK QUESTIONAIRRE ............................... ........ ........................ 68

C A N A L Y SIS M A SK ............. ........... ........... ................ ........................................76

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ......... ......... ...................................... ........................................86

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH .............................................................................................94




























6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Conflict and tolerance index items and reliability .................................. ............... 34

2-2 A activity group socio-dem graphics ........................................................ .....................35

2-3 Out-group conflict and tolerance between ATVs and OHMs .......................................36

2-4 Out-group conflict and tolerance between ATVs and FWDs................ .............. ....36

2-5 Out-group conflict and tolerance between OHMs and FWDs...............................36

2-6 In-group conflict and tolerance ............................................. ......... ..............................36

3-1 Tolerance index item s and reliability.......................................... ........................... 57

3-2 Socio-dem ographics.......................................... .. .. .. .. ......... .... .... .. 57

3-3 Tolerance for lifestyle diversity between OHV rider groups......................................58

3-4 Principal component analysis results for vegetation preferences ....................................58

3-5. OH V riders resource preferences........... .................. .......... ............... ............... 58

3-6 Composition of preferred areas for OHV riders ...................................... .................. 62

3-7 Composition of potential conflict areas and lead preference areas............... .......... 62

C-l Buffer zones for biological considerations ............................................. ............... 82

C-2 Soils hydrological group and K -factor........................................ ........................... 82

C-3 Recreation opportunity spectrum zone descriptions ......... ...................................... 83

C-4 Composition of ROS zones found within Ocala National Forest............................. 84

C-5 Suitability classification of ROS zones.......... ....................................................84

C-6 Buffers assigned to management considerations .......... .............................. .........84









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Study area, Ocala National Forest .................................. .....................................33

3-1 ATV recreation terrain preference m odel ........................................ ....... ............... 59

3-2 OHM recreation terrain preference m odel.............................................. .................. 60

3-3 FW D recreation terrain preference m odel ............................................. ............... 61

3-4 Potential conflict map ................................. ..... .. ........... ......... 63

3-5 Areas of lead preference for rider groups ........................................ ....... ............... 64

C -l Suitability for O H V areas ......................................................................... ................... 85





































8









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ATV All-terrain vehicle

FWD Four-wheel drive vehicle

OHM Off-highway motorcycle

OHV Off-highway vehicle

ONF Ocala National Forest

USFS United States Forest Service









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

AN APPLICATION OF GIS IN VISITOR EXPERIENCE PLANNING: EXPLORING
CONFLICT AND TOLERANCE AMONG OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE RIDERS

By

Rachel Albritton

December 2007

Chair: Taylor V. Stein
Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology

The purpose of this study was to examine perceived differences related to goal interference

and tolerance for lifestyle diversity between and within all-terrain vehicle riders, off-highway

motorcycle riders, and four-wheel drive operator groups, and to identify where conflict related to

tolerance was most likely to occur. Data was collected using a combination of on-site surveys

and mail back questionnaires. Social data referencing physical setting preferences were paired

with GIS layers within ArcGIS 9.0 and mapped for each rider group, allowing for a comparison

of physical setting preferences across groups in order to identify where conflict related to

tolerance was most likely to occur. A total of 703 on-site surveys were conducted, and a total of

660 mail back questionnaires were distributed. A total of 295 mail back surveys were returned

for a 44.7% response rate.

The results indicate that conflict and tolerance does exist within and between rider groups

however between group conflict is more prevalent than within-group conflict. In addition, the

degree of tolerance tends to be higher toward in-group members than toward out-group

members. Both of these results lend further support to the theory of goal interference, and

provide an initial examination of possible perceived differences between OHV rider groups.









When examining tolerance within a spatial context (GIS), the results showed that the

potential for conflict could occur over large portions of the study area; however this knowledge

could be beneficial to managers when creating new riding opportunities. Incorporating GIS into a

planning process allows for a visual understanding of not only where potential conflict as a result

of intolerance is most likely to occur, but also allows for the identification of areas that riders

prefer based on physical landscape characteristics. Taking these preferences into consideration in

conjunction with perceived differences between rider groups can help form on the ground

solutions to minimizing conflict related to tolerance and promote quality visitor experiences.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Recreation on public lands is changing in many ways. One of the major changes is a rapid

shift from passive traditional activities to more mechanized and motorized recreation (Dolsch,

2004). From 1995 2003 the number of new retail sales and estimated total number of off-

highway vehicles (OHVs) in the U.S. has more than tripled with sales soaring from

approximately 386,000 to over 1.1 million (Cordell et al., 2005). In Florida, nearly 27,000 ATVs

and nearly 11,000 OHMs were sold in 2003 placing Florida as the 8th most popular state for

OHV ownership in the nation and the second most popular state in the southern region of the U.S

(USDA Forest Service, 2005a). On Forest Service lands, approximately 11 million out of 214

million visitors in 2002 were OHV recreationist. This increase in OHV recreation may be

attributed to increased population, increased non-obligated time, increased expendable income,

and increased technological capabilities (Fly et al., 2002). As the desired benefits of many

recreationist shift in conjunction with the advancement in technology, OHV recreation is

predicted to keep increasing; being noted as one of the fastest growing recreation activities

within the U.S. (Cordell et al., 2005).

Off-highway vehicle recreation on public lands is not new, however this sudden and rapid

growth over the past decade has brought it to the forefront of management efforts as well as raise

awareness of OHV participation among both motorized and non-motorized recreation visitors. In

2004, the former chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Dale Bosworth announced four major

threats to National Forests and Grasslands, one of which was unmanaged recreation.

Specifically, Bosworth discussed unmanaged OHV recreation, acknowledging that the lack of

management in conjunction with the current increase in OHV visitation to FS lands has caused

severe environmental degradation as well as decreased visitor experiences. He further stated that









"ninety-nine percent of [OHV] users are careful to protect the land. But with [over 36 million

users] even a tiny percentage of the problem use becomes relatively huge. We have to improve

the management so we get responsible recreational use based on sound outdoor ethics"

(Bosworth, 2004). This call for management is supported by The Federal Land Policy and

Management Act (1976), the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (1960), and Executive Order

11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands and amended by Carter (Executive Order

11989, 1977), all of which support the management of or detail the necessity for the management

of OHVs on Forest Service lands in a manner that conserves the resources and provides quality

visitor experiences, especially as it relates to visitor safety.

Shortly after Bosworth's speech, the Travel Management Rule (2005) was adopted by the

USFS. The new rule was similar to prior executive orders 11644 (1972) and 11989 (1977),

requiring that all National Forests manage for off-highway vehicle recreation by providing

quality recreation experiences for riders as well as manage for resource conservation. The Rule

differed from previous executive orders by specifying that certain roads, trails, and areas be

designated to motorized use as opposed to the designation of areas only (Department of

Agriculture, 2005). Within the rule many public comments were received regarding the need to

distinguish between the types of OHVs so that managers are more vigilant of different needs

among the different OHV rider groups. Since managers were required under the new rule to

designate roads, trails, and areas by class of vehicle, it was felt that the issue of managing for

possible differences would be adequately addressed (Department of Agriculture, 2005).

However, managing for quality recreation opportunities requires more knowledge and effort than

the designation of trails by vehicle class. Managers must also be knowledgeable about what

factors contribute to a quality visitor experience, what may threaten a quality visitor experience,









and whether or not all riders should be managed uniformly. Without this knowledge it is

difficult, if not impossible, to provide riding opportunities that meet the 2005 Travel

Management Rule objectives.

The lack of information on OHV riders is surprising given the history of mandates calling for

OHV recreation management (Executive Order 11644, 1972; Executive Order 11989, 1977) as

well as its presence on public lands (Havlick, 2002). Also, planning for recreation experiences is

the most fundamental objective for outdoor recreation managers (More and Buhyoff, 1979), and

has been a dominate focus in the research literature for nearly half a century. Much focus has

been dedicated to developing a solid understanding of what defines quality visitor experiences

such as feelings of solitude (Borrie et al., 2001; Dawson et al., 1998), desired social and

environmental conditions, and the perceptions of the presence of management (Stein and Lee,

1995). Existing research that has focused on other recreation groups has revealed that overall the

setting in which an activity occurs may have more influence on a quality experience than the

activity itself (Manfredo et al., 1983; Stein and Lee, 1995; Pierskalla et al. 2004). Also, offering

recreation opportunities that are diverse in these setting characteristics, as well as offering

opportunities for various skill levels have an ability to benefit more individuals over longer

periods of time (Manning and Lime, 1999).

Extensive examination has also been directed at defining elements that threaten or degrade

these experiences such as perceived conflict (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980; Devall and Harry, 1981;

Blahna et al. 1995; Vaske et al., 1995; and Gibbons and Ruddell, 1995) perceived environmental

impacts (Noe et al., 1997; Floyd et al., 1997), discrepancies between desired and actual

experiences (Moore, 1994), and crowding (Marion et al., 1993; Manning and Lime, 1996).

Overall, the majority of research has shown that most visitors are satisfied with their recreation









experiences (Moore, 1994; Manning, 1999), however, recreation conflict does exist and can have

serious consequences related to visitor safety, resource protection, and visitor experiences if left

unmanaged (Moore, 1994). Understanding threats such as conflict is important for managers, for

when acknowledged and coupled with well thought out and implemented solutions quality visitor

experiences are likely to result (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000).

Since the Travel Management Rule revealed a concern among the public about managing for

differences between OHV rider groups, the overall goal of this study was to examine perceived

differences among and between all-terrain vehicle (ATV), off-highway motorcycle (OHM), and

four-wheel drive (FWD) visitors within Ocala National Forest. Specifically, chapter two

examines potential threats related to conflict and tolerance for lifestyle diversity between all-

terrain, off-highway motorcycle, and four-wheel drive rider groups by examining both in-group

and out-group conflict and degree of tolerance. In chapter three conflict related to tolerance is

examined spatially in order to gain an understanding of where conflict is more likely to occur (if

at all), and address how managers can incorporate desired setting preferences relating to physical

landscape attributes and potential differences between rider groups into the planning process

thereby creating opportunities for quality visitor experiences.









CHAPTER 2
EXPLORING CONFLICT AND TOLERANCE AMONG OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE
RIDERS

Introduction

Technological advances within modern society have changed the way we perform our jobs,

maintain our homes, participate in education, and even the way we recreate (Stewart, 1995;

Moore and Driver, 2005). In the advance of technology within outdoor recreation, conflict

related to technology is expected to both continue within and between recreation groups

(Williams, 1993; Watson 1995). While conflict is inevitable (Manning, 1999), the identification

of conflict or its potential can be utilized to better manage for quality visitor experiences. It can

allow managers to identify areas that may need attention, and can identify knowledge gaps

within the system (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000). A review of conflict literature reveals that

much of the research has focused on recreation conflict between non-motorized groups such as

hikers and mountain bikers (Ramthun, 1995; Jacobi et al., 1996), hikers and stock users (Moore

and McClaran, 1991; Watson et al., 1994; Blahana et al., 1995), as well as non-motorized and

motorized groups such as canoers and motor-boats (Ivy et al., 1992) and OHV users and hikers

(Noe et al., 1981). In this advance of technology, the participation in off-highway vehicle

recreation has continued on an upward trend, and has been noted as one of the fastest growing

outdoor recreation activities (Cordell et al., 2005). National sales of all-terrain (ATVs) and off-

highway motorcycles (OHMs) have more than tripled over the last decade with sales increasing

from approximately 386,000 to over 1.1 million (Havlick, 2002), and four-wheel drive recreation

(FWD) has also had a steady increase in participation, with specific interests in rock crawling

and sand sports (Campbell, 2006).

Prior to this increase, OHV recreation was minimal on most Forest Service lands, and

managers could simply designate open and closed areas for OHV recreation (Executive Order









11644, 1972; Executive Order 11989, 1977). However, this increase in OHV recreation over the

last decade has led to an increased need to manage for OHV recreation opportunities within a

designated system of roads, trails, and areas that provides opportunities for quality visitor

experiences and conserves natural resources (Department of Agriculture, 2005). Following the

recognition of the need to further control and manage for OHV riding opportunities, research

was conducted that focused on OHV rider motivations (Sanyal, 2007) as well as possible

differences relating to recreation specialization within the ATV rider community (Shoenecker

and Schneider, 2007). A study of 6,000 ATV and snowmobilers in Pennsylvania also revealed

differences between the two OHV user groups (Elmendorf, 2007). Other information sources and

research described the activity styles of ATVs and OHMs as being focused on trail riding

enjoyment (Wernex, 1994) while FWD recreation tends to be focused on challenging ones

vehicle and overcoming obstacles (Neal, 1999; Kawaja, 2006). Despite this new information on

both rider motivations as well as some differences between user groups, there have been no

attempts to examine differences which may result in conflict between all-terrain vehicle (ATV),

off-highway motorcycle (OHM), and four-wheel drive (FWD) operators. If managers are to

successfully provide quality OHV riding opportunities while conserving natural resources they

must first understand if all OHV riders should be managed uniformly, or if conflict related to

perceived differences between rider groups exists.

In order to evaluate potential perceived differences among OHV rider groups, the purpose of

this study was to examine the potential for in-group and out-group recreation conflict and the

degree of tolerance related to goal interference between all-terrain (ATV), off-highway

motorcycle (OHM), and four-wheel drive (FWD) rider groups. Given that scare amount of









information on OHV recreation riders research took an exploratory approach, and was guided by

two specific research questions

1. What is the level of out-group conflict and tolerance between rider groups?

2. What is the level of in-group conflict and tolerance between rider groups?

Theoretical Framework

Goal Interference

Jacob and Schreyer's theory of goal interference (1980) has served as a dominate framework

for examining possible causes of conflict for almost 30 years (Noe et al., 1981; Ivy et al., 1992;

Graefe and Thapa, 2004). Conflict is defined as goal interference attributed to another's

behavior, suggesting that in order for contact to occur, either direct or indirect contact must be

made. Direct contact refers to face-to-face contact or encounters with another individual. Indirect

contact refers to seeing the presence of an individual in the form of vehicle tracks, litter, etc. In

order for conflict to occur, an individual must internalize this contact and evaluate its affect on

the recreation experience, which is typically based on previous social or physical contact (Jacob

and Schreyer, 1980).

Conflict related to goal interference has typically been shown to be asymmetrical, meaning

one party is usually more affected by conflict than another. Back country canoer's in Everglades

National Park experienced more conflict due to individuals operating motorboats (Ivy et al.,

1992). Likewise, hikers were more likely to report goal interference due to unacceptable

behavior of mountain bikers (Carothers et al., 2001). More recent studies have shown that higher

levels of conflict related to goal interference can sometimes be attributed to individuals within

the same recreation activity (in-group) rather than to individuals of a different recreation activity

(out-group). In a study of conflict between skiers and snowboarders, higher levels of conflict

were found between skiers than between skiers and snowboarders (Thapa and Graefe, 2004a).









Similar results were also found between canoeists on the Delaware River (Todd and Graefe,

1989).

The model of goal interference suggests four fundamental causes of conflict. Activity style

refers to the personal meanings given to the activity. Resource specificity refers to the meanings

attributed to a particular site that is often utilized to engage in recreation activities. Mode of

experience refers to how an individual interacts with and perceives the environment as it relates

to the level of individual focus. Tolerancefor lifestyle diversity refers to the ability of an

individual to perceive another as different from themselves, and to the ability to accept a lifestyle

that differs from his or her own. Although there are four factors that may contribute to conflict, a

single factor is sufficient to cause conflict (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). The present paper focuses

on the conflict related to goal interference, and the degree of tolerance that OHV riders perceive

with both in-group and out-group members.

Tolerance for Lifestyle Diversity

While the American society values individualism, it is human nature to seek out others who

are similar to ones self. By identifying with others who are perceived as being similar, the

individual becomes re-assured in his or her own world views (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980), which

can raise an individual's self-esteem (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Recreation is an important

component of people's lives and therefore identifying with those perceived as pursuing the same

recreation goals and recreation activities is also important in self-affirmation. As an individual

begins to identify with a particular group (in-group), those who do not fall within that group are

viewed as different (out-group), and possibly strange or inferior (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). By

categorizing individuals into identifiable groups an individual can begin to form opinions and

make statements about the individuals within those groups. Typically, comparisons are made

between in-group and out-group members wherein opinions toward in-group members tend to be









more positive promoting in-group favoritism while opinions about out-group members tend to be

more negative, promoting out-group discrimination (Turner, 1985) which can lead to conflict

(Jacob and Schreyer, 1980).

Additionally, the promotion of favoritism and discrimination often leads to the formation of a

stereotypical view of all in and out-group members (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Within

recreation and the theory of goal interference, this formation of stereotypes is typically based on

two influencing factors; technology and resource consumption, and prejudice. Technology and

resource consumption refers to how resources and the natural environment are manipulated by an

individual. For example, an individual who explores nature on foot may view those who explore

the environment with an ATV as exploitive (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980) or abusive (Teisel and

O'Brien, 2003) to the land. However for the individual on the ATV, the use of the machine

brought about by advances in technology allows them to escape in a way not previously provided

and is therefore valued (Jackson, 1957; Martin and Berry, 1974; Jacob and Schreyer, 1980).

Prejudicial views based on age, gender, ethnicity or social class can also lead to the formation of

stereotypes about both in and out group members (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Prejudicial views

are also often formulated through the categorization of the groups themselves, therefore

automatically allowing for the formation of negative views toward out-group members based

simply of the individuals group association. In such cases where prejudice exists contact is not

necessary in order for discrimination to occur (Tajfel, 1970).

Within the theory of goal interference Jacob and Schreyer state that the degree of tolerance

held by an individual consists of two main components. First, individuals perceive themselves as

part of an in-group, and those who are not within that group are different. Second, group

differences are evaluated. In instances where these differences are evaluated negatively, there









may be an inability to share resources. Furthermore, Jacob and Schreyer hypothesize that when

"group differences are evaluated as undesirable or a threat to ones recreation goals, conflict

results when members of the two groups confront each other" (pp. 377).

Defining Conflict and Tolerance

Despite the wealth of literature on recreation conflict and the dominate use of goal

interference as a guiding framework, conflict itself has been inconsistently defined and

evaluated. Several different quantitative approaches have been employed to examine goal

interference, specifically as it relates to behavioral approaches. From this approach, conflict has

been evaluated by examining the perception of others behavior as a problem (Moore et al., 1998;

Cressford, 2002; Thapa and Graefe, 2004a), evaluated the acceptability of certain behaviors

(Carothers et al., 2001), or evaluated potential problem behaviors based on the frequency of

occurrence (Vaske et al., 2000).

Tolerance has also been inconsistently measured. Based on Jacob and Schreyer's proposition

of tolerance, some studies have taken a more direct or norms approach and evaluated tolerance

based desirable and undesirable contact within and between activity groups (Vaske et al., 2000;

Thapa and Graefe, 2004a) or perceived compatibility between two activities (Ivy et al. 1992).

Other studies have assessed tolerance with a social values approach, examining beliefs and

attitudes between activity groups (Watson et al., 1991; Blahna et al., 1995; Carothers et al.,

2001). Alternatively, Williams et al. (1994) took a qualitative approach when examining

tolerance and conflict between skiers and snowboarders which was shown to be effective.

In addition to the inconsistent means of operationalizing tolerance, the internal reliability of

some of the scales used has also been problematic. In measuring tolerance levels between those

operating canoes and those operating motorboats, the reliability for each activity group's

tolerance index varied and overall was at lower than usually acceptable values (Ivy et al., 1992).









When assessing the degree of tolerance between skiers and snowboarders Vaske et al. (2000)

was more successful and achieving acceptable levels of reliability than previous tolerance studies

which focused on the same activity groups (Thapa and Graefe,1999). A potential cause of low

reliability and weak covariation between scale items may be attributed to the strength of in-group

identification (Ivy et al., 1992). In other words, an individual may be able to easily identify out-

group members, but may not classify themselves as an in-group member as easily (Tajfel and

Turner, 1986).

In order to allow comparison to previous studies as well as remain consistent with Jacob and

Schreyer's definition of conflict and their proposition of tolerance as contact being perceived as

undesirable and bothersome, this study took a direct approach at examining the degree of

tolerance between rider groups, utilizing previous recreation conflict and tolerance measures

relating to the perception of problematic behaviors (Vaske et al., 2000; Thapa and Graefe, 2003;

Thapa and Graefe, 2004a) affect on the user's enjoyment (Thapa and Graefe, 2004a), undesirable

encounters as well as a feelings of being bothered by activity groups (Thapa and Graefe, 2003;

Confer et al., 2005).

Methods

Study Area

Ocala National Forest (ONF) is located in North Central Florida, and is within a day's drive

of most Florida residents (Figure 2-1). The proximity of the forest to major urban cities such as

Orlando, Gainesville, and Jacksonville result in frequent visitation to engage in a variety of

recreation activities such as hiking, swimming, canoeing, camping, fishing, and off-highway

vehicle recreation. Of the four National Forests within Florida, ONF receives the highest number

of OHV visitors annually. Similar too many other national forests within the U.S., OHV

recreation was mostly unmanaged, allowing cross country travel uncontained to a trail system









until 1999. Recognizing the environmental and social impacts that were resulting from the lack

of management, the Land and Resource Management Plan was revised to state that all OHV

recreation must occur on existing user made trails within unrestricted areas (USDA Forest

Service, 1999) until an actual trail system could be designed and constructed. Although this

action was a step toward gaining control of OHV recreation within a currently unmanaged

system, it still was insufficient in reducing environmental and social impacts throughout the

forest. At the initiation of this research effort in 2005 managers were still in the trail designation

and planning phase, however temporary access points were designated and two campgrounds

were established as OHV recreation hub sites (USDA Forest Service, 2005) allowing for some

systematic surveying procedures to be implemented.

Data Collection

A stratified random sampling procedure based on day of the week (weekend and weekday)

and volume of use (low and high) was used to sample participants. Data collection was achieved

through the implementation of on-site interviews and mail back surveys. Trained interviewers

were strategically placed at major staging and camping areas. They randomly selected

individuals (at least 18 years of age) from each visitor group and asked them to complete a short

on-site interview. The on-site survey was meant to gather basic information on the respondent's

trip characteristics and provide them with information about the overall study. At the end of the

interview the researcher provided the participant with a nine-page mail back questionnaire which

contained a postage paid envelope. Using Dillman's Tailored Method Approach (Dillman, 2000),

a follow-up postcard was mailed one week after the original mail back was distributed. If the

mail back was not returned after another two weeks, a new mail back survey was sent to the

participant. From September 30, 2006 March 31, 2007 a total of 703 onsite interviews were

completed. Forty-three participants refused to take a mail back survey resulting in the









distribution of 660 mail back questionnaires. Of the mail back surveys given out 295 were

returned for a 44.7% response rate (ATV = 219, OHM = 37, 4x4 = 39).

Variables Measured

Goal interference

Goal interference was measured through two multi-scale items indices adapted from Thapa

and Graefe, (2003) and Confer et al., (2005). To be consistent with Jacob and Schreyer's

definition of goal inference attributed to other's behavior, a list of seven potential problem

behaviors were presented to the respondent in the form of a five-point Likert scale. The scale

items were repeated for each rider group in order to evaluate both in-group and out-group

conflict resulting in a total of three behavioral indices. Cronbach's alpha was used to evaluate the

reliability of each of index. All indices were highly reliable (Table 2-1).

In addition, Jacob and Schreyer (1980) state that in order for conflict to occur, contact must

be made and this contact must be interpreted and evaluated as having a negative affect on one's

recreation experience. To address this affect on the recreation experience, two statements

regarding the affect of seeing and encountering individuals were presented to respondents in the

form of a five-point likert scale. Like the previous index, statements were repeated for each rider

group. A cronbach alpha revealed that these three indices were also highly reliable (Table 2-1).

Tolerance for lifestyle diversity

A modified version of a tolerance index (Thapa and Graefe, 2003) was employed to assess

tolerance of lifestyle diversity between OHV user groups. Initially, the indices were composed of

three variables, however a reliability analysis of the index revealed that the statement "The forest

should only be open to X" did not show consistent internal reliability and was removed from the

final analysis. The final two statements used to compose the tolerance index were repeated for









each user group resulting in a total of three tolerance indices. The final cronbach alpha for each

indices was obtained. All indices were highly reliable (Table 2-1).

Data Analysis

A series oft-tests were used to assess out-group conflict and the degree of tolerance, and a

series of one-way ANOVA's were used to assess in-group conflict and degree of tolerance. In

both cases, the independent variable was the individuals activity group (ATV, OHM, or FWD),

and the dependent variable was the measure of recreation conflict and tolerance. To compensate

for unequal sample sizes between rider groups, the Welch statistic was used to evaluate mean

differences for both in and out-group differences (Algina et al., 1989; Turner and Thayer, 2001).

All data analysis was conducted using SPSS v 11.5.

Results

Activity Group Socio-Demographics

Overall, participants were Caucasian (95.3%), male (78.3%), and between the ages of 30-39

years old (34.6%). Individuals operating OHMs were more likely to be male (94.1%) compared

to those operating FWD vehicles (64.9%). Individuals operating FWD vehicles were also more

likely to be between the ages of 18-29 years old (32.4%) compared to those operating OHMs

who were more likely to be between the ages of 40-49 years old or ATV rider who were more

likely to be 30-39 years old. All respondents were educated receiving at least some college

education or beyond (52.9%), and received an annual household income of $90,000 or more

(Table 2-2).

Out-group Conflict

Those operating OHMs are more likely to view the behavior of those operating ATVs as a

somewhat serious problem (mean = 2.12) compared to ATV rider perception of OHM behavior

(mean = 1.76). However, the affect on both ATV riders and OHM riders experience was more









likely to be increased when seeing and encountering an out-group member. According to the

definition of goal interference set forth by Jacob and Schreyer (1980), in order for conflict to

occur, contact has to be made and that contact should negatively affect a users experience.

Therefore, it could be concluded that conflict related to goal interference between ATV and

OHM riders is low in its intensity since the behavior of ATVs does not have a negative affect on

OHM riders enjoyment, and the overall mean scores related to the perception of problem

behaviors are low. Also, those operating ATVs were slightly more tolerant of those operating

OHMs (mean = 1.61) than OHM riders were of ATV riders (mean = 1.96) (Table 2 -3).

Those operating FWD vehicles are more likely to view the behavior of those operating ATVs

(mean = 3.40) as a serious problem while those operating ATVs were more likely to view the

behavior of FWD operators as a somewhat serious problem (mean = 1.83). In addition, those

operating FWDs were more likely to experience decreased enjoyment as a result of seeing or

encountering those on ATVS (mean = 3.64), however those operating ATVs were likely to

experience increased enjoyment when seeing or encountering those operating FWDs (mean=

2.73). Likewise, those operating FWDs were more likely to show low-tolerance towards ATV

operators (mean = 3.24) while ATV operators showed a higher tolerance towards FWD operators

(mean = 1.67). As a result, conflict between ATV and FWD operators tends to be asymmetrical

with FWD operators experiencing more conflict as a result of goal interference and inability to

accept perceived differences of ATV riders (Table 2-4).

Similar to out-group conflict between ATV and FWD operators, FWD operators were also

more likely to view the behavior of OHM operators as a serious problem (mean = 3.25), and

indicated that seeing or encountering those operating OHMs would decrease their enjoyment

(mean = 3.56). Conversely, those operating OHMs were likely to view FWD behavior as a









somewhat serious problem (mean = 1.96), and seeing or encountering FWD operators was likely

to increase their enjoyment on the trails (mean = 2.82). Lastly, FWD operators showed less

tolerance toward OHM operators (mean = 3.34) than OHM operators showed toward FWD

operators (mean = 2.07). Therefore, it could be concluded that conflict between OHM and FWD

vehicles is also asymmetrical with FWD operators experiencing more conflict as a result of goal

interference and tolerance for life style diversity toward OHM operators. Also, the mean scores

representing the level of conflict are fairly low, indicating that although conflict is present, the

intensity of conflict is low (Table 2-5).

In-group Conflict

The second research question explored the level of in-group conflict and tolerance among all

three rider groups. No statistical significant differences were found between the perceptions of

in-group behavior or in-group experiences signifying a symmetrical perception of conflict. Mean

scores for each rider group are low, further suggesting that this symmetrical relationship

indicates that rider groups feel that the behavior of their own in-group members are not at all a

problem, and that that seeing or encountering members of an in-group member are likely to

increase their enjoyment. Lastly, statistical significant differences were found between in-group

tolerance levels between FWD operators (mean = 1.83) and ATV (mean = 1.37) and OHM

(mean = 1.46) rider groups. However, the associated mean scores suggest that all rider groups

have a high tolerance toward in-group members (Table 2-6).

Discussion

Overall, the results of this study support the theory of goal interference, as conflict attributed

to another's behavior (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980), and supports previous research demonstrating

that that conflict is likely to occur as a result of the behavior of others or low tolerance toward an

out-group member. Also similar to previous research, conflict tended to be asymmetrical with









individuals operating FWD vehicles experiencing the most conflict, as well as experiencing

decreased enjoyment during riding trips. Conversely, those operating ATVs reported the least

amount of conflict and held the highest tolerance for both in and out group members. These

results hold several conceptual and management implications and are further discussed below.

Conceptual Implications

Results of this study are generally supportive of previous research, however some differences

exist in relation to the current body of literature. First, regarding conflict relating to behavior;

within this study, conflict was more likely to be a result of direct or indirect contact with an out-

group member rather than an in-group member. Some research examining in-group and out-

group conflict has revealed that while conflict relating to out-group members was present,

conflict resulting from the behavior of in-group member's was more prevalent (Todd and Graefe,

1989; Thapa and Graefe, 2004). This was not the case within this study, however results reported

here appear to be more consistent with the existing knowledge relating to goal interference.

When reaching similar results in their study between skiers and snowboarders, Vaske et al.

(2000) noted that the prevalence of out-group conflict compared to in-group conflict lends

further support to the theory of goal interference as conflict occurring between activity groups

rather than within activity groups. Although conflict related to in-group member behavior may

be an issue for some visitors, overall conflict is more likely a result of an out-group member.

Second, significant differences in the degree of tolerance occurred both with out-groups as

well as with in-groups. Four-wheel drive operators tolerance toward out-group members were

comparatively low, suggesting that those who operate four-wheel drive vehicles perceive

themselves differently when comparing themselves to those who operate ATV and OHMs.

Overall, individuals operating FWD vehicles tended to be younger and were a more even mix of

males and females compared to other rider groups suggesting that the differences in tolerance









may be a function of age and/or gender. Other research has suggested that perceived differences

related to tolerance could be a result of negative encounters related to behavior. Depending on

the sensitivity of the affected visitor, one negative encounter could result in developing a

stereotypical view of an entire activity group (Kuss et al., 1990). This perception of differences

related to tolerance holds several management implications which are further discussed within

the next section.

Also, significant differences were found between OHM and ATV tolerance levels toward

each other. However the suggested meanings associated with the mean scores used to measure

tolerance suggests that these activity groups both disagree with the tolerance statements.

Therefore, it could be concluded that tolerance between OHM and ATV riders is relatively high.

Still, the fact that these differences exist should serve as a caution sign, and managers should

remain vigilant of changing or evolving attitudes toward the out-groups. If left unchecked, riders

who are more sensitive to conflict may begin or continue to have low quality visitor experiences

which may result in dissatisfaction and possible displacement (Manning, 1999).

Lastly, tolerance toward in-group members is typically high promoting in-group favoritism.

Although all rider groups disagree with in-group tolerance statements suggesting high tolerance

for in-group members, it's interesting to note that ATV and OHM groups are more likely to

strongly disagree, showing high in-group tolerance, and FWD operators are likely to just

disagree. Although this still shows tolerance toward in-group members, it still begs the question

as to why there may be some reservation about having complete tolerance with in-group

members similar to that of ATV and OHM riders.

Management Implications

Conflict resulting from the behavior of others can be addressed more directly by managers by

way of posting and monitoring speed limits, meeting with user groups, posting signs, utilizing









volunteers to help monitor and disseminate information, or provide a stronger presence of law

enforcement (Moore, 1994). Conflict resulting from intolerance toward other activity groups is

much more difficult for managers to resolve due to its abstract nature. Within the current

literature, there have been two main suggestions in aiding managers in reducing conflict relating

to tolerance, separate users (zoning) (Daniels and Krannich, 1990) and provide education

(Ramthum, 1995, Carothers et al., 2001).

Separating users through the practice of zoning for recreation opportunities is one of the most

common management actions taken to help reduce conflict between activity groups, typically

between motorized and non-motorized user groups (Manning, 1999). However, conflict often

occurs within the same activity group which is typically zoned for the same area and separating

users based on zoning strategies may not be a viable solution. Offering a diversity of trails

ranging in difficulty and settings may further help disperse and separate users. Planning and trail

design strategies such as single and multiple use trail systems can also be implemented to help

create quality recreation opportunities and aid in reducing conflict (Moore, 1994).

Education may also be another effective management for minimizing conflict related to

tolerance. Often, visitors are more similar then they perceive themselves to be, and it has been

suggested that promoting an understanding of other activity groups motivations, attire, and

techniques specific to the activity may help raise tolerance toward out-groups (Ranthum, 1995).

Overtime, this may help re-categorize an individual's definition of in-group and out-groups,

moving from the idea of"us" and "them" to simply "us" (Gaertner et al., 1993). Education may

also help promote an awareness of responsible and sustainable behavior by all recreation activity

groups, thereby reducing the overall impact to the resource (Manning, 1999).










Conclusions

The identification and acknowledgement of recreation conflict is important to managers since

it can be utilized to better understand visitors and manage for quality visitor experiences

(Hammitt and Schneider, 2000). Currently, many managers within the U.S. Forest Service

including Ocala National Forest, are in the planning phases of designing and constructing OHV

trail systems) in order to better manage for OHV recreation (Department of Agriculture, 2005).

The results of this study show that not all OHV riders perceive themselves as being part of the

same in-group, and therefore if managers were to manage all OHV riders uniformly their actions

may result in less then quality visitor experiences. These perceived differences should be

considered when planning for trail and riding opportunities; if ignored managers may loose

support from the riding community which may result in competition for trail space (MacDonald,

1992).

Prior to this research study, few studies have examined factors that could help manage for

quality visitor experiences for OHV visitors on multiple use lands. This research has taken one of

the first steps in understanding possible differences relating to conflict and tolerance for lifestyle

diversity in order to make proactive management decisions about how to best provide riding

opportunities that considers the perception and beliefs of the respective activity groups. In

addition, the results contribute to current knowledge of conflict by examining recreation conflict

in a new way with results indicating that conflict may also occur within motorized user groups.

In addition, strength lies in the strong reliability of the tolerance index used. As mentioned

previously, consistent internal reliability of tolerance indices used within previous research has

been somewhat problematic. Although unexplainable, some of those previous scales showed to

be reliable when used to be measure tolerance within the OHV riding population for this study.









Still, much is unknown about recreation preferences among and between OHV riders. Taking

perceived differences into account, future research should examine trail and setting preferences

to further aid managers in creating riding opportunities. Finally, results within this study suggest

that low tolerance within the FWD population may be a result of age and/or gender. Future

research should also work to address this question, and to examine other possible contributing

factors to low tolerance levels.

































Legend
Local cities County roads
I I County boundaries State roads
I I Water Interstate
Boundary



Figure 2-1. Study area, Ocala National Forest









Table 2-1. Conflict and tolerance index items and reliability
Index Cronbach Alpha
ATV OHM FWD
Behavioral Indexa .95 .96 .95
People on X are destructive
People on X ride unsafely
People on X are discourteous
People on X pass unsafely
People on X cut others off
People on X ride to fast
People on X are out of control


Affect on Experience Index b
Seeing People on X
Encountering People on X


.90 .92 .91


Tolerance Index c .87 .86 .86
I find it undesirable to meet people on X
People on X bother me
a Measured in a 5-point scale 1 = not at all a problem, 3 = neutral, 5 = serious problem
b Measured on a 5-point scale 1 = greatly increased my enjoyment, 3 = neutral, 5 = greatly
decreased my enjoyment
' Measured on a 5 point scale 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree









Table 2-2. Activity group socio-demographics
ATV (%) OHM (%) FWD (%) TOTAL (%)
Gender
Male 78.2 94.1 64.9 78.3
Female 21.8 5.9 35.1 21.7
Ageb
18 29 years old 14.9 17.1 32.4 17.5
30 39 years old 38.5 25.7 21.6 34.6
40 49 years old 32.7 45.7 16.2 32.1
50 59 years old 11.5 11.4 16.2 12.1
60 years or over 2.4 0.0 13.5 3.6
Income
$10,000 $19,999 1.0 3.0 6.3 1.9
$20,000 $29,999 5.5 9.1 6.3 6.0
$30,000 $39,999 7.0 3.0 15.6 7.5
$40,000 $49,999 9.0 0.0 18.8 9.1
$50,000 $59,999 10.0 3.0 6.3 8.7
$60,000 $69,999 7.5 15.2 12.5 9.1
$70,000 $79,999 12.5 15.2 6.3 12.1
$80,000 $89,999 11.0 6.1 3.1 9.4
$90,000 or more 36.5 45.4 25.1 36.2
Education
> Some high school 6.0 8.1 5.4 6.1
High school diploma 31.0 27.0 27.0 30.0
Some college 32.0 32.4 32.4 21.1
College graduate 20.7 24.3 24.3 21.7
Some graduate school 3.0 5.4 0.0 2.9
Graduate degree 7.4 2.7 10.8 7.2
Ethnicity
White 94.2 97.1 100.0 95.3
Hispanic or Latino 3.9 2.9 0.0 3.3
African American 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4
Asian American 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.7
a.X2=8.951 p<.01
b.X2=26.844 p<.001
c. X2=25.877 p =ns
d.X2 =7.708 p=ns
e.X2 =2.884 p=ns









Table 2-3. Out-group conflict and tolerance between ATVs and OHMs
Out-Group Conflict ATVc OHMc W-Stat
Behavior Index 1.76 2.12 4.89a
Experience Index 2.55 2.62 0.18
Tolerance Index 1.61 1.96 5.07a
ap < .05 c mean

Table. 2-4. Out-group conflict and tolerance between ATVs and FWDs
Out-Group Conflict ATVc FWDc W-Stat
Behavior Index 1.83 3.40 57.58b
Experience Index 2.73 3.64 52.23b
Tolerance Index 1.67 3.24 73.75 b
p < .01 mean score

Table 2-5. Out-group conflict and tolerance between OHMs and FWDs
Out-Group Conflict OHM c FWD c W-Stat
Behavior Index 1.96 3.25 28.54
Experience Index 2.82 3.56 11.37 b
Tolerance Index 2.07 3.34 26.61 b
p < .01 mean score


Table 2-6. In-group conflict and tolerance
Index ATV (1) OHM' (2) FWD' (3) Welch Stat Post-Hoc
Conflict Measures
Behavior Index 1.61 1.44 1.68 1.36 ---
Experience Index 2.30 2.13 2.39 1.10 ---
Tolerance Measures
Tolerance Index 1.37 1.46 1.83 63.47b 1, 2 < 3
p < .01 mean score









CHAPTER 3
PLANNING FOR VISITOR EXPERIENCES: A SPATIAL APPROACH TO
UNDERSTANDING TOLERANCE

Introduction

Managing recreation conflict is often an inherent aspect of outdoor recreation management

(Daniels and Krannich, 1990), and managers are often faced with the challenges of minimizing

recreation conflict in order to promote quality visitor experiences, visitor safety, and ensure

resource protection (Moore, 1994). Jacob and Schreyer's (1980) theory of goal interference

provided an initial examination at the causes of conflict, and has remained the dominate

framework for researching and understanding recreation conflict today (Confer et al., 2005).

Within the theory of goal interference, tolerance for lifestyle diversity is offered as a possible

cause for recreation conflict. Under this construct, it is suggested that when individuals perceive

themselves as different from another, an encounter with those perceived as different is likely to

result in conflict. It is further suggested that the presence of tolerance may result in an inability to

share resources. While some researchers have empirically examined conflict related to tolerance

as well as a perceived ability to share resources with other activity groups, none have taken a

spatial approach to examine where this inability to share resources may exist, and hence

understand where conflict is more likely to occur. Understanding conflict potential within a

spatial context can allow both managers and the affected activity groups to look beyond

perceived differences that result in conflict and bring focus to planning efforts that are aimed at

providing desired recreation opportunities (Gimblett and Guisse, 1997).

The purpose of this study was to identify areas best suited for off-highway vehicle (OHV)

recreation based on conflict potential between OHV rider groups, and rider group's resource

preferences. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to (1) examine the degree of tolerance

between all-terrain vehicle (ATV), off-highway motorcycle (OHM), and four-wheel drive









(FWD) operators, (2) examine riders preferred resources when operating an OHV, and (3)

examine where conflict related to tolerance is likely to occur based on shared resource

preferences. Although tolerance itself can not be directly linked to landscape attributes, resources

that are highly favored when engaged in a specific recreation activity can be identified. These

preferred resources can be mapped for each activity group and then compared across activity

groups allowing for the identification of where conflict is most likely to occur based on the

assumption that riders will choose areas that are best suited to meet their recreation needs

(Kliskey, 2000). The outcome of the process provides managers with a set of maps that can be

incorporated into the recreation planning process and aid managers in deciding where to

implement single and multiple use trail systems within areas that are preferred by specific rider

groups.

Understanding and Managing Recreation Conflict

The study of recreation conflict has evolved over time, shifting from a descriptive nature of

addressing incompatible activity groups to providing more meaningful explanations as to the

causes of recreation conflict. The advance of Jacob and Schreyer's theoretical framework of goal

interference has provided the clearest definition of conflict (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000), and

has been the standard framework in examining conflict over the past three decades (Confer et al.,

2005). Conflict is defined as goal interference attributed to another's behavior, suggesting that in

order for conflict to occur, either direct or indirect contact must be made. Direct contact refers to

face-to-face contact or encounters with another individual. Indirect contact refers to seeing the

presence of an individual in the form of vehicle tracks, litter, etc. One must then internalize this

contact and evaluate its affect on the recreation experience, which is typically based on previous

social or physical contact (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980).









Conflict resulting as goal interference due to others behavior can be addressed more directly

by managers by way of posting and monitoring speed limits, meeting with user groups, posting

signs, utilizing volunteers to help monitor and disseminate information, or provide a stronger

presence of law enforcement (Moore, 1994). However, addressing behavioral issues may ignore

other underlying causes of recreation conflict which must also be addressed if conflict

management is to be effective (Manning, 1999). The model of goal interference further suggests

four fundamental causes of conflict, one of which is tolerance for lifestyle diversity.

Tolerance for lifestyle diversity refers to the ability to accept or reject a lifestyle that is

perceived as different from ones own (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Within the theory of goal

interference Jacob and Schreyer (1980) state that the degree of tolerance held by an individual

consists of two main components. First, individuals perceive themselves as part of a group, and

those who are not within that group are different. Second, group differences are evaluated. In

instances where these differences are evaluated negatively, there may be an inability to share

resources. Furthermore, Jacob and Schreyer (1980) hypothesize that when "group differences are

evaluated as undesirable or a threat to ones recreation goals, conflict results when members of

the two groups confront each other" (p. 377).

It has long been noted that conflict due to tolerance cannot be eliminated. Rather, managers

must seek to understand intolerance as it relates to providing recreation opportunities and try to

minimize conflict occurrences (Jacob, 1977). More recent studies have also echoed this notion,

suggesting that managers seek to separate activity groups who are intolerant of each other (Vaske

et al., 2000; Thapa and Graefe, 2003). Recreation management frameworks such as the

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) can aid managers in minimizing recreation conflict









through the implementation of zoning strategies, and assist in promoting quality visitor

experiences through offering diversity (Clark and Stankey, 1979; Daniels and Krannich, 1990).

Although the concept of zoning may work to help minimize motorized vs. non-motorized

conflicts, it is not a universal remedy for resolving all recreation conflict issues (Daniels and

Krannich, 1990). Often times, recreation conflict occurs within similar activity groups which

may occur within the same zone (Todd and Graefe, 1989; Watson et al., 1994; Vaske et al.,

2000). In such cases, zoning may be ineffective and other tactics must be implemented in order

to help minimize conflict. Planning and trail design strategies such single and multiple use trail

designs and varying trail difficulty can also be implemented to help disperse recreation visitors

and help create quality recreation opportunities while reducing conflict (Moore, 1994). Although

these tactics have been extensively discussed within the current body of literature, few have

looked at conflict spatially in order to help identify how to best separate users that are sensitive

to conflict in a manner that best utilized available resources.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a tool that can help managers begin to evaluate

potential recreation conflict within a spatial context. Representation of various recreation

opportunities for various user groups within a single managed area allows for a range of potential

opportunities to be compared and assessed simultaneously which may lead to the development of

management solutions for otherwise contentious activities (Kilskey, 2000). This often involves

the need to assess large amounts of information related to user preferences, user perceptions of

conflict, and biological and physical constraints. GIS provides managers with the appropriate

tools to evaluate this large amount of information as well as the ability to ask geographic

questions about possible management actions (Falbo, Queen & Blinn, 1991). By doing so,

managers can begin to evaluate how potential actions could help enhance user experiences,









minimize user conflicts, and preserve environmental integrity before any actual decisions are

implemented on the ground. As a result, accuracy and long-term cost efficiency of managing an

area are increased (Naber and Leung, 2006). Recent advances within GIS and recreation research

has began to link visitor preferences (Kilskey, 2000) and values (Brown, 2005; Reed and Brown,

2003) to resource attributes, allowing managers to identify areas of potential conflict as well as

potential use. Other studies have examined visitor use and travel patterns in order to identify

areas of heavy use, and discuss management strategies to help reduce resource impacts and

minimize potential user conflicts (Wing and Shelby, 1999).

Developing an understanding of visitor use levels, travel patterns, and preferences spatially

can not only help identify areas in need of management focus to reduce conflict potential, but

can also assist managers in understanding where to concentrate management efforts to help

provide quality recreation opportunities. In the Netherlands, researchers recognized the social

benefits of forests, and created a regional model that depicted visitor volume and visitor

preference. The model itself can be useful in assessing how to plan for the volume of individual

use within a given area, and to some extent assess the quality of an experience based on the

visual attraction (de Vries and Goossen, 2002). In Yellowstone National Park, GIS was used to

help create and map indicators and standards as it related to providing quality visitor

experiences. Recognizing that quality trails lead to quality recreation opportunities, Xiang (1996)

developed a method for trail alignment to evaluate the most suitable areas for trail construction

based on ecological, biological, and economical constraints.

Managers are also often faced with the conflicting dual mission of preserving ecological

integrity of an area while providing quality recreation opportunities within those areas. In order

to help balance between resource use and resource preservation, GIS, global positioning systems









(GPS), and remote sensing (RS) tools have been utilized to help plan and manage for sustainable

opportunities. In Gwaii Haanas National Park, researchers built a GIS database incorporating

ecological, archeological, and levels of visitor use data to establish baseline levels of visitor

impacts. Data was evaluated independently and in conjunction within each other in order to

evaluate areas sensitive to impacts and determine where management efforts should be focused

(Gajda et al., 2000). A similar study conducted at Boston Harbor integrated resource information

and visitor carrying capacity data in order to help monitor recreation impacts (Leung et al.,

2002). Data collected with GPS units in conjunction with GIS information has been used to

evaluate campsite impacts and develop management strategies to help restore areas receiving

unacceptable impacts. Remote Sensing techniques have also shown to be valuable in identifying

and monitoring recreation impacts, specifically within coastal recreation areas (Ingle et al.,

2003).

Methods

Study Area

Ocala National Forest (ONF) is located in North Central Florida, and is within a day's drive

of most Florida residents. Of the four National Forests within Florida, ONF receives the highest

number of OHV visitors annually. Similar too many other National Forests within the U.S., OHV

recreation went unmanaged, allowing cross country travel uncontained to a trail system until

1999. Recognizing the environmental and social impacts that were resulting from miss

management, the forests Land and Resource Management Plan was revised to state that all OHV

recreation must occur on existing user made trails within unrestricted areas (USDA Forest

Service, 1999) until an actual trail system could be designed and constructed. Although this

action was a step toward gaining control of OHV recreation within a currently unmanaged

system, it still was insufficient in reducing environmental and social impacts throughout the









forest. At the initiation of this research effort in 2005 managers were still in the trail designation

and planning phase. As a result research efforts and analysis were all aimed to aid managers

within this recreation planning process.

Ocala National Forest is composed of approximately 157,422 hectares and is mostly known

for its pine-scrub habitat, which composes over 50% of the forest (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

The sand pine scrub is a fire dependent community, characterized by a closed canopy of sand

pines (Pinus clausa) and a thick under-story of scrub live oak (Quercus geminate), myrtle oak

(Quercus myrtifolia), chapman oak (Quercus chapmanii) and saw palmetto's (Serenoa repens)

(FNAI and FDNR, 1990). Due to the ecosystem's isolation, many endemic and endangered

species live within the habitat including the Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), scrub

buckwheat (Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium), and Lewton's milkwort (Polygala

lewtonii) (Wildlaw, 2006). Long leaf pine ecosystems, characterized by open over-story, widely

spaces trees and a dense ground cover of wiregrass and forbs is also prevalent throughout the

forest (FNAI and FDNR, 1990). Small pockets of hardwood hammocks can be found near the

forest boundaries. In addition, ONF contains several smaller parcels of land located on the south

east of the forests larger boundary. Due to the small size of these parcels as well as their distance

from the main forest, these parcels were not considered in the spatial analysis.

Collecting Social Data

Data collection was achieved through the implementation of on-site interviews and mail-back

surveys. The on-site survey was meant to gather basic information on the respondent trip

characteristics and provide them information about the overall study. At the end of the interview

the researcher provided the participant with a nine-page mail back questionnaire which contained

a postage paid envelope. Using Dillman's (2000) Tailored Method Approach, a follow-up

postcard was mailed one week after the original mail-back was distributed. If the mail back was









not returned after another two weeks, a new mail-back survey was sent to the participant. From

September 30, 2006 March 31, 2007 a total of 703 onsite interviews have been completed.

Forty-three participants refused to take a mail back survey resulting in the distribution of 660

mail back questionnaires. Of the mail back surveys given out 295 were returned for a 44.7%

response rate (ATV = 219, OHM = 37, 4x4 = 39).

Evaluating tolerance for lifestyle diversity

Tolerance for lifestyle diversity has been measured in with a variety of techniques within the

literature. Based on Jacob and Schreyer's proposition of tolerance, some studies have taken a

more direct or norms approach and evaluated tolerance based desirable and undesirable contact

within and between activity groups (Vaske et al., 2000; Thapa and Graefe, 2004a) or perceived

compatibility between two activities (Ivy et al. 1992). Other studies have assessed tolerance with

a social values approach, examining beliefs and attitudes between activity groups (Watson et al.,

1991; Blahna et al., 1995; Carothers et al., 2001). Also, the internal reliability of some of the

scales used to measure tolerance has been problematic. In measuring tolerance levels between

those operating canoes and those operating motorboats, the reliability for each activity group's

tolerance index varied and overall was at lower than usually acceptable values (Ivy et al., 1992).

When assessing the degree of tolerance between skiers and snowboarders Vaske et al. (2000)

was more successful and achieving acceptable levels of internal validity and reliability than

previous tolerance studies which focused on the same activity groups (Thapa and Graefe, 1999).

Jacob and Schreyer (1980) proposed that when group differences were evaluated as

undesirable or a potential threat to recreation goals, then conflict is likely to occur. In order to be

consistent with this statement as well as maintain the ability to compare tolerance results to

previous studies, this study utilized a two item index measuring the extent of agreement to

which the presence of other OHV activity groups were bothersome and undesirable. The









statements used to compose the tolerance index were repeated for each user group resulting in a

total of three tolerance indices. The final cronbach alpha for each index indicated all three where

reliable (Table 3-1).

Evaluating resource preferences

In order to define which areas of the forest riders found to be the most desirable for OHV

recreation as well as to examine the potential inability to share the same resources, riders were

presented with a list of 13 spatial descriptions of physical settings (8 vegetation, 2 soil, and 3

water) that were found within the study area. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which

they liked or disliked each of the physical settings when operating an OHV specifically within

Ocala National Forest.

Analysis of Social Data

A series of t-tests were used to assess perceived differences relating to tolerance for lifestyle

diversity where the independent variable was the individuals activity group (ATV, OHM, or

FWD), and the dependent variable was the tolerance index. To compensate for unequal sample

sizes between rider groups, the Welch statistic was used to evaluate mean differences (Algina et

al., 1989; Turner and Thayer, 2001).

A principle component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was used to further examine the

eight vegetation physical setting variables in order to see if there were any underlying

dimensions for desired vegetation attributes, and to examine the potential of reducing the number

of variables being mapped. Due to the small number of soil and water variables as well as the

desire to incorporate different spatial layers within the GIS spatial analysis the other variables

were left as is and mean scores for each attribute were obtained.

All social data analysis was conducted using SPSS v 11.5.









Spatial Analysis

Once the social data was analyzed, a four-step spatial analysis process was carried out. First a

data inventory was completed to help assess where OHV recreation could potentially take place

within the study area. This entailed gathering all available spatial information on threatened and

endangered species, sensitive habitats, cultural resources, and existing recreation opportunities.

The final data inventory was developed into a single map through an overlay process, and

utilized as an analysis mask later in the spatial analysis procedure (Appendix C).

Second, the 13 physical resource variables were grouped into 3 main categories; vegetation,

soil, and water. Each of these three physical setting categories were then paired with an

appropriate GIS layer. Each attribute within each GIS layer was then reclassified into new

attributes to reflect social data results. Lastly, these newly reclassified categories were assigned

new values according to the mean of each rider group within each GIS layer.

Third, each GIS layer for each activity group was combined through an overlay process in

order to create a recreation terrain preference map for each rider group (Kliskey, 2000). The

analysis mask created in step one was also combined with the other three existing layers within

this step so only areas that could actually be used to create OHV riding opportunities were

considered in the final analysis. Once the four layers were combined, each activity group's

recreation terrain preference map was collapsed into three ranges of high, medium, and low

preference (Carr and Zwick, 2005) according to the maps standard deviation. Standard deviation

reclassification usually results in fairly equal intervals, allowing for a fair comparison between

layers (Carr and Zwick, 2007). The final recreation terrain preference maps were meant to model

preference only, and were not necessarily representative of actual use. The individual models

assume that riders will choose terrain with physical landscape resources that are best suited to









meet their riding needs, and that the higher the preference for an area the more likely they are to

want to ride within that area to achieve some desired goals) (Kliskey, 2000).

Fourth, the three recreation terrain preference models were combined in an overlay process

creating a single potential conflict map that could represent all possible combinations of conflict

between the three activity groups (Carr and Zwick, 2005). Conflict potential was noted to occur

anytime at least two user groups were shown to have significant different tolerance levels toward

one and other and shared the highest preference for a given resource. When only one activity

group had the highest preference for a resource the area was given lead preference to that activity

group.

All GIS layers with the exception of one were initially in vector format, however all final

spatial results were converted to raster, with a grid size of 50 meters during spatial analysis. All

spatial analysis was conducted within ArcGIS 9.0.

Results

Socio-Demographics

Overall, participants tended to be white (95.3%), male (78.3%), and between the ages of 30-

39 years old (34.6%). Individuals operating OHMs were more likely to be male (94.1%)

compared to those operating FWD vehicles (64.9%). Individuals operating FWD vehicles were

also more likely to be younger (32.4%) compared to other rider groups. All respondents were

highly educated receiving at least some college education or beyond (52.9%), and received an

annual household income of $90,000 or more. (Table 3-2).

Tolerance for Lifestyle Diversity

Riders operating FWD vehicles were the least tolerant of both ATV and OHM riders.

Specifically, individuals operating FWD vehicles were significantly less tolerant of ATV riders

(mean = 3.24), than ATV riders were of FWD operators (mean = 1.66). Four-wheel drive









operators were also significantly less tolerant of those operating OHMs (mean = 3.34) compared

to OHM operators tolerance towards FWD operators (mean = 2.08). Lastly, there were

statistically significant differences between ATV and OHM tolerance levels toward each other.

However, reviews of the rider groups mean scores reveal that both rider groups disagree with the

index statements. Therefore, it can be concluded that although significant differences exist

between ATV and OHM rider groups, the differences hold little practical meaning for managers,

and more focus should be placed on the intolerance of FWD operators toward ATV and OHM

rider groups where intolerance was slightly more intense (Table 3-3).

Preferences for Environmental Resources

The principle component analysis of the eight vegetation variables revealed two components

explaining 68.8% of the variance, and each component had a cronbach alpha value above .70 and

could therefore be considered reliable (Table 3-4). The first component represented those who

had a desire to ride in areas with dense vegetation, and the second component represented those

who had a desire to ride in more open settings. Neither component showed a preference for any

particular ecosystem type, rather the overall preference was focused on vegetation density.

Overall, all rider groups shared the same preferences for open habitats. Those who operated

ATVs and OHMs shared similar preference for dense habitats, while those who operated FWD

vehicles held a slightly lower preference (mean = 3.30) Those who operated FWD vehicles were

also more likely to place a higher preference on sandy soils compared to other rider groups who

placed higher preferences on compact soils, particularly for those operating OHMs (mean =

4.59). The ability to see water at least some of the time was the most preferred scenic attribute

for all three groups in comparison to the desire to not see water at all (Table 3-5).

Areas where ATV riders had the highest preference for resources tended to occur around the

western and eastern boundaries of the forest (Figure 3-1), and made up 6.57% of the total









suitable area. These areas are mostly composed of compact soils, and tend to be where water

could be seen at least some of the time. Vegetation is more likely to be dense, being composed

mostly of hardwoods and are within close proximity to wetlands. Areas of medium preference

are found in close proximity to highly preferred areas and make up 36.75% of the suitable area.

Lastly, areas of the lowest preference made up the majority of the suitable area (56.59%) and are

located throughout the central portions of the forest where soils tend to be dry and sand and

water is less likely to be visible. Vegetation is mixed between open and dense habitats, but is

mostly composed of pine scrub habitat (Table 3-6).

Similar to ATV riders, OHM riders have the highest preference for resources that occur on

the eastern border and some high preference areas on the western border composing 9.15% of the

total suitable area (Figure 3-2). Likewise, areas of medium preference occur in close proximity to

high preference areas and account for 30.83% of the area. Low preference areas account for

60.01% of the total area, and are mostly located within the central region of the forest (Table 3-

6).

Four-wheel drive operators have more high preference areas in comparison to the other rider

groups (31.69%), and can be found in the northeast, southeast, and southwestern areas of the

forest (Table 3-6). These areas tend to occur in close proximity to water, on drier soils, and in

dense vegetation. Medium preference areas are also more scattered about, but can be found

mostly within the south central region of the forest. These areas are also more likely to be

composed of drier soils and within more open habitats. The ability to see water is also more

limited. Similar to the other rider groups, areas of low preference are mostly located within the

central region of the forest (Figure 3-3).









Mapping Potential Conflict

Each of the resource variables were paired with an appropriate GIS layer. First, the

vegetation variables were paired with a forest density layer. Within the forest density layer each

cell contained a percentage value between 0-100%, representing the amount of tree canopy cover

modeled within each cell. The Forest Service Southern Research Station, National Park Service

and other state and federal agencies use the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS)

when conducting land cover/land class classifications. Under NVCS, areas containing 60% or

more canopy cover are noted as areas dominated by vegetation. Areas containing 25%-60%

canopy cover are defined as more open areas where crown canopy is not touching. Therefore,

areas of dense forest were classified as having 60% closed canopy cover within each cell (Nature

Conservancy, 1994; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1997).

Soils were paired with a soils layer and were reclassified into compact and sandy soils

according to soil drainage. Soil drainage is closely correlated with soil texture, allowing for the

assessment of potential soil compaction. Soils with larger pore space, generally sandy soils, are

well drained whereas soils containing smaller pore spaces, generally clay soils containing at least

20% clay or more, are much more compact (Whiting et al., 2006). Soils that were classified as

excessively well to moderately well drained were considered to be sandy soils. Soils that were

classified as somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained were classified as compact soils.

Lastly, a water surface layer was paired with the variable relating to the ability to see water.

First, a view-shed analysis was performed to identify where water could be seen all of the time,

and where water could not be seen at all. Assessing the ability to see water at least some of the

time was a three step process. Initially, a straight line distance analysis from all surface water

was conducted. Then, zonal statistics were conducted using the view-shed analysis as an input

layer, and the straight line distance analysis as the value raster. Zonal statistics produce an output









table that computes central tendency values for each defined zone within the specified layer

based on values within the input layer (ESRI, 2002). Results indicated that the mean distance

within areas that water could be seen at least some of the time was 969.69 meters. Therefore it

could be concluded that in areas 0-969 meters away from water, a rider would be more likely to

see water than areas 970.0 meters or further away. As a result, areas within 969 meters were

defined as areas where water could be seen some of the time, and all other distance were

reclassified as areas where water could not be seen.

Since the results of potential conflict related to tolerance among the three rider groups

revealed that individuals operating FWD vehicles were more likely to experience conflict as a

result of low tolerance compared to those operating OHMs and ATVs, conflict was noted to

occur when those operating FWD vehicles and at least one other rider group shared the highest

preference for an area. An area was given preference to a rider group when they were the only

group to have the highest preference for the area. Conflict as a result of low tolerance could

potentially occur between FWD operators and other rider groups on approximately 39% of the

forest (Figure 3-4), however the majority (36.94%) of that potential would occur in areas of low

preference. Conflict between FWDs and ATVs are also likely to occur in just over 9% (9.47%)

of the area, 4.07% of which both groups share high resource preferences (Table 3-7).

Not all areas showed the potential for conflict to occur (Figure 3-5). For those who operated

FWD vehicles, just over 25% (25.03%) of high preference areas showed less potential for

conflict since these are areas that FWD operators preferred more than any other rider group.

Similar to the FWD recreation terrain preference maps, these areas occur in the northeast,

southeast, and southwestern portions of the area. Likewise, 17.67% of areas given medium

preference by FWD operators are also less likely to experience conflict since these are areas of









low preference for other rider groups (Table 3-7). Medium preference areas tend to mostly occur

in the south central region of the forest, with a few scattered areas in the north central region.

In addition, OHM operators had some areas where conflict potential was less likely since this

group help higher preferences for resources than other rider groups within these areas. These

areas tended to be more spread out along the eastern and western borders of the forest accounting

for 6.56% of the areas (Table 3-7), and tended to occur in the northeast, southeast, and west

central portions of the forest. Area's where medium preference was given was most likely to

exist within the southeastern portion of the forest, and accounted for 1.51% of the area.

Discussion

The social data collected allowed for the identification of potential conflict as a result of

tolerance, and the spatial analysis provided further insight as to where this conflict related to

tolerance is most likely to occur based on shared resource preferences. Survey results were

reflective of similar conflict studies and further supports that conflict tends to be asymmetrical.

Significant differences in the degree of tolerance occurred between all rider groups. As stated

previously, the statistically significant differences between ATVs and OHMs hold little practical

value for managers. A review of the mean scores indicates that those operating ATVs "strongly

disagree" while those operating OHMs "disagree". Therefore, it could be concluded that while

some differences exist, overall tolerance levels between ATVs and OHMs are fairly high.

However, managers should continue to monitor for conflict between these rider groups in order

to evaluate changing or evolving perceptions of conflict over time.

Four-wheel drive operators tolerance toward out-group members was significant and

comparatively low to ATV and OHM rider groups, suggesting that those who operate four-wheel

drive vehicles perceive themselves differently and find it undesirable to encounter those

operating ATV and OHMs. The differences in tolerance levels between FWD operators and









other rider groups may also result in an inability to share resources (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980).

Implications and solutions for this are discussed further under management implications.

According to the theory of goal interference, tolerance for lifestyle diversity is generally

affected by an individuals view of technology and resource consumption as well as prejudice

(Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Previous research on OHV visitors and comments from members of

the OHV community has shown that ATV and OHM riders typically desire trail riding

opportunities (Wernex, 1994; Crimmins and NOHVCC, 2006) while FWD operators tend to

desire more technical challenges for their vehicle (Kawaja, 2006; Neal, 1999). As a result the

way in which the various groups of OHVs manipulate the environment may be viewed

differently by those who operate FWD vehicles thereby contributing to different levels of

tolerance toward other riding groups. Prejudice and stereotypical views can be influenced by

ethnicity, gender, age, and social class (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). A review of socio-

demographics between rider groups shows that individuals operating FWD vehicles tended to be

younger and were a more even mix of males and females compared to other rider groups

suggesting that the differences in tolerance may be a function of age and/or gender.

Management Recommendations

For this study, analysis focused on planning efforts. This has several benefits and

implications for managers. By understanding and acknowledging that OHV rider groups,

particularly those operating FWD vehicles, perceive themselves as different from one and other,

managers can plan accordingly to help minimize conflict that may later result in unsafe trail

conditions due to unacceptable behavior (Dolesh, 2004). As mentioned earlier, many studies that

have taken a more direct approach at examining conflict related to tolerance, and they have

found tolerance to exist between activity groups and have suggested spatial separation. This

recommendation is also suggested here; however, not all riders will have the desire to be









separated from other rider groups. Although conflict exists, conflict itself is never rampant

(Graefe and Thapa, 2004). Rather, it tends to affect a small percentage of the population and the

majority of visitors are generally satisfied (Manning, 1999). Therefore, a greater majority of

users may be managed within a multiple use setting, and it is suggested that managers also

provide for single use trails in order to provide opportunities for those who are more likely to

experience conflict. The results from the spatial analysis can aid managers in the decision

making process of how to best achieve the single and multiple use separation between activity

groups while still providing opportunities within areas riders may find desirable.

Looking at the potential conflict map, areas noted as "potential conflict" may be better suited

for multiple use areas since these are areas that all riders groups prefer. Areas that had "lead

preference" for a specific rider group may be best suited for single use areas. Given that the

recreation terrain preference models assumed that riders would chose areas that best suit his or

her needs, then opportunities could be planned in areas of high preference. However, the

majority of areas that were all in potential conflict were areas of low preferences and found

within the central region of the forest while areas of higher preference were around the forest

boundaries. In addition, areas of high preference for both ATV and OHM riders also tended to

occur around the forest outer boundaries. This proximity to residential and/or commercial areas

may pose an additional challenge to managers seeking to maximize opportunities within

preferred settings that also help minimize conflict, indicating that what may be desired is not

always possible. Both visitors and managers must be flexible and willing to compromise if

quality opportunities are to be created within the resources available (Moore, 1994).

Also, OHV recreation is a dispersed activity requiring large areas for trail riding

opportunities. Creating trails within appropriate riding areas that consider riders physical setting









preferences and allows for dispersed use will help minimize conflict as a result of less social

contact. Dispersing use may also result in more sustainable trails in the long run, allowing for

continued quality recreation opportunities (Crimmins and NOHVCC, 2006). It is often thought

that dispersing use over large areas will create larger and more frequent resource impacts (both

ecological and biological). However, dispersing use so that riders are more spread out along a

trail system will have neither a positive or negative effect on the environment assuming that the

number of places through which the trail traverses is the same as if use were concentrated

(Hammitt and Cole, 1998). Results from the spatial analysis can help define specific areas in

which a diverse trail system could be created. Referring back to the potential conflict map and

considering the need to provide diversity, areas containing the greatest, continuous mix of

opportunities would be the most suitable areas to disperse use over a large area.

Lastly, managers can provide education in order promote tolerance between rider groups.

Often, visitors are more similar than they perceive themselves to be, and it has been suggested

that promoting an understanding of other activity groups motivations, attire, and techniques

specific to the activity may help raise tolerance toward out-groups (Ranthum, 1995). Education

may also help promote an awareness of responsible and sustainable behavior by all recreation

activity groups, thereby reducing the overall impact to the resource (Manning, 1999). Using a

combination of spatial separation and education can help create opportunities for those who are

more sensitive to experiencing conflict while providing information to users who may help build

tolerance between rider groups over time.

Conclusions

This study adds to the existing body of knowledge in several ways. First, it examines

perceived differences related to tolerance within the OHV visitor community, a group not yet

previously studied within this context. Results indicate that not all OHV riders perceive









themselves the same, and managers should take that into consideration when creating riding

opportunities. If these differences are ignored, negative consequences that affect visitor safety,

visitor experiences, and resource protection may occur (Moore, 1994). This study also took a

new approach at examining the spatial context of conflict related to tolerance in order to help

identify where conflict was most likely to occur. The spatial identification of conflict can help

managers identify where to concentrate management efforts to minimize recreation conflict as

well as help plan for new recreation opportunities that consider rider group preferences as well as

rider group differences. Although this study took a planning approach, the methods could be

adapted to assess conflict potential related to tolerance on existing trail systems. Specifically, this

study used a management mask so that only areas suitable for riding were evaluated. For an

existing trail system, a trails layer would be used instead of a mask, thereby containing all

evaluations to the trail system.









Table 3-1. Tolerance index items and reliability
Tolerance Index a ATV OHM FWD
I find it undesirable to meet people on X7 6
People on X bother me86
People on X bother me


a Measured on a 5 point scale 1 = strongly d


isagree


3 = neutral


5 = strongly agree


Table 3-2. Socio-demographics
ATV (%) OHM (%) FWD (%) TOTAL (%)
Gender"


Male
Female
Ageb
18 29 years old
30 39 years old
40 49 years old
50 59 years old
60 years or over
Income
$10,000 $19,999
$20,000 $29,999
$30,000 $39,999
$40,000 $49,999
$50,000 $59,999
$60,000 $69,999
$70,000 $79,999
$80,000 $89,999
$90,000 or more
Education
> Some high school
High school diploma
Some college
College graduate
Some graduate school
Graduate degree
Ethnicity
White
Hispanic or Latino
African American
Asian American
a.X= 8.951 p<.01
b.2 =26.844 p<.001
c.X2=25.877 p =ns
d.X2 =7.708 p=ns
e.X= 2.884 p=ns


78.2
21.8

14.9
38.5
32.7
11.5
2.4

1.0
5.5
7.0
9.0
10.0
7.5
12.5
11.0
36.5

6.0
31.0
32.0
20.7
3.0
7.4

94.2
3.9
0.5
1.0


94.1
5.9

17.1
25.7
45.7
11.4
0.0

3.0
9.1
3.0
0.0
3.0
15.2
15.2
6.1
45.4

8.1
27.0
32.4
24.3
5.4
2.7

97.1
2.9
0.0
1.0


64.9
35.1

32.4
21.6
16.2
16.2
13.5

6.3
6.3
15.6
18.8
6.3
12.5
6.3
3.1
25.1

5.4
27.0
32.4
24.3
0.0
10.8

100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


78.3
21.7

17.5
34.6
32.1
12.1
3.6

1.9
6.0
7.5
9.1
8.7
9.1
12.1
9.4
36.2

6.1
30.0
21.1
21.7
2.9
7.2

95.3
3.3
0.4
0.7









Table 3-3. Tolerance for lifestyle diversity between OHV rider groups
Tolerance Measures ATV OHM FWD Welch Stat
Tolerance between ATV and OHM 1.62 1.96 --- 5.07a
Tolerance between ATV and FWD 1.66 --- 3.24 73.75b
Tolerance between OHM and FWD --- 2.08 3.34 26.61b


ap < .05 bp < .01


Table 3-4. Principal component analysis results for vegetation preferences
Variable Component 1 Component 2
Dominated by pine trees and wire grass .837
Dominated by hardwoods and shrubs .913
Dominated by a mix of pine trees and hardwoods .900


Scrub
A mix of pine trees and open spaces
A mix of hardwood trees and open spaces
A mix of pine trees and hardwoods and open spaces
Open with no presence of vegetation

Percent of variance explained


.418


.860
.835
.796
.575


36.1%


32.7%


Cronbach Alpha .82 .73


Table 3-5 OHV riders resource preferences
Variable ATV OHM FWD
Vegetation
Open Habitats 3.63 3.79 3.64
Dense Habitats 3.70 3.62 3.30
Soils
Compact Soils 4.00 4.59 3.11
Dry/Sandy Soils 3.34 2.89 3.62
Scenic Attributes
Where water can not be seen 2.37 2.51 2.75
Where water can be seen some of the time 3.95 3.81 3.76
Where water can be seen all of the time 3.51 3.38 3.19











PALATKA


ATV Preference


OCALA


0 33756750 13500 20 250 27 P00
S I Meters


Legend

SLocal Cities
WIldernessAreas
MilitaryAreas
S'Water


Low Preference
SMedium Preference
High Preference
I County Boundaries


Figure 3-1. ATV recreation terrain preference model











PALATKA



OHM Preference


OCALA
*


0 3,375 6,750 13,500 20,250 27,000
Meters


Legend
Local Cities
MilitaryAreas
Wilderness Areas
Water


Low Preference
SMedium Preference
SHigh Preference
I | County Boundaries


Figure 3-2. OHM recreation terrain preference model











PALATKA

D Preference

FWD Preference


0 3,375 6,750 13,500 20,250 27,000
Meters


Legend
SLocal Cities
SMilitary Areas
SWilderness Areas
| Water


LowP reference
| Medium Preference
High Preference
SCounty Boundaries


Figure 3-3. FWD recreation terrain preference model


OCALA
*









Table 3-6. Composition of preferred areas for OHV riders
Rider Group Composition of Preferred Areas (%)
High Medium Low
ATV 6.57 36.75 56.59
OHM 9.15 30.83 60.01
FWD 31.69 29.38 38.92


Table 3-7. Composition of potential conflict areas and lead preference areas
Percentage
Potential Conflict Pixel Count Perentage
of Area (%)
All in potential conflict, all low preference 1,374,945 36.94

All in potential conflict, all medium preference 7,858 0.21

All in potential conflict, all high preference 96,191 2.58
Potential conflict between ATV and FWDs, 211 4
medium preference
Potential conflict between ATV and FWDs, 151,606 4.07
S. 151,606 4.07
high preference
OHM riders have lead preference 56,288 1.51
,. 56,288 1.51
(medium preference)
OHM riders have lead preference 244,625 6.56
244,625 6.56
(high preference)
FWD riders have lead preference 657,753 17.67
b657,753 17.67
Medium over low
FWD riders have lead preference 932,5
High over Medium


























































Legend
Local Cities All in potential conflict, all high preference
SAll in potential conflict, all medium preference
SMilitary Areas All in potential conflict, all low preference
VWlderness Areas = Potential conflict between FWDs and ATVs, high preference
I Water b Potential conflict between FWDs and ATVs, medium preference

Figure 3-4. Potential conflict map





63


I County Boundaries

























































Legend

Local cities
Wilderness areas
I Water
OHM high preference leads


OHM medium preference leads County boundaries
SFWD high preference leads Military areas
m FWD medium preference leads


Figure 3-5. Areas of lead preference for rider groups





64










CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence and continued growth of off-highway vehicle recreation on America's public

lands is presenting new challenges for recreation managers. Currently, managers within the

USFS have been tasked to develop OHV trail systems and riding areas that provide for quality

visitor experiences, ensure visitor safety, and protect natural resources. Although this should be

an inherent aspect of any outdoor recreation manager's job, many have been struggling with how

to best meet this task. Until recently, little information had been empirically documented about

who OHV riders were, what they wanted out of a recreation experience, and if differences

between OHV rider groups needed to be considered when creating riding opportunities. This

basic information is necessary if quality opportunities are to be created.

The overall goal of this study was to examine perceived differences between ATV, OHM,

and FWD riders. Specifically, the studies first objective was to examine potential conflict and the

degree of tolerance within and between OHV rider groups. The results indicate that conflict and

tolerance does exist toward both in-groups and out-groups however, out-group conflict is more

prevalent than in-group conflict. In addition, the degree of tolerance tends to be higher toward in-

group members than toward out-group members. Both of these results lend further support to the

theory of goal interference, and provide an initial examination of possible perceived differences

between OHV rider groups. This study also lends further support to the understanding that

conflict tends to be asymmetrical, with those operating FWD vehicle reporting a greater chance

at experiencing conflict and having a lower degree of tolerance toward ATV and OHM

operators. However, asymmetrical conflict can become symmetrical overtime and managers

should be aware of conflict potential between groups.









When examining tolerance within a spatial context, the results showed that the potential for

conflict could occur over large areas of the forest, however this knowledge could be beneficial to

managers when creating riding opportunities. Incorporating GIS into a planning process allows

for a visual understanding of not only where potential conflict as a result of low tolerance is most

likely to occur, but also allows for the identification of areas that riders prefer based on physical

landscape characteristics. Taking these preferences into consideration in conjunction with

perceived differences between rider groups can help form on the ground solutions to minimizing

conflict and promoting quality visitor experiences. This process can also help managers make the

best use of available resources to help minimize recreation impacts by identifying areas of

adequate size, areas that are environmentally more resistant to impact, and areas that offer the

most diversity based on rider preferences. As a result, managers are more likely to be successful

at meeting the travel management rule's objectives of providing for visitor safety, providing for

quality visitor experiences, and ensuring resource protection.

Lastly, OHV recreation may offer a unique challenge for managers regarding conflict, in that

for most areas this will be the first era of OHV management. Until now those operating ATVs,

OHMs and FWD vehicles were able to ride cross-country, and as a result, the chances of an

encounter with another vehicle were reduced. Placing riders within a trail system may increase

encounters with other users which may increase the likelihood of a negative encounter with out-

group members. As a result, these increased encounters may lead to goal interference and/or the

development of stereotypes about out-group members. Offering diverse opportunities, dispersing

those riding opportunities over large areas, and careful monitoring will be a necessary part of

successful OHV management.









APPENDIX A
ON-SITE SURVEY

Surveyor Name: Date: Access Point: OHV:

1. Is this your first time riding in Ocala NF? [] Yes question 3 [] No question 2

2. How many times Have you operated an OHV within Ocala NF within the past year?
[] one other time [] 8-14 [] 21-30 [] 41-50
[]2-7 [] 15 20 [] 31-40 [] 5o times or more ( # of times)

3. Have you ridden or plan to ride in other areas of the forest on this trip?
[] Yes: (Where) [] No

4. How long did you spend riding on this trip?
[] Less then an hour [] A few hours [] half day [] whole day [] overnight (#: _

5. If riding more then a day, where did you camp overnight?
[] Campground within the forest [] Friend or families home nearby
[] Private campground outside the forest [] Other:

6. When riding in Ocala, do you primarily ride on:
[] designated marked trail [] mixed-use roads [] open "scramble" ares

7a. Including yourself, how many people are you traveling with on this trip? #:

7b. Of the people you are traveling with, how many are:
Male over 16 yrs. old: Females over 16 yrs. old:
Males under 16 years old: Females under 16 years old:

8. What type of group are you traveling with?
[] Family [] Family & Friends [] Organized Group:
[] Friends [] Alone [] Other:

9. How would you rate your trip today on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being a perfect experience?

10. Did you participate in any other recreation activities during this trip?
[] Yes: [] No

11. What year were you born? 19 12. Ethnicity (indicate don't ask):

Mail Back Questionnaire #:

Name: City: St.

Address: Zip Code:










APPENDIX B
MAIL BACK QUESTIONAIRRE

Off-Highway Vehicle Visitor Recreation Study: Ocala National Forest

For purposes of this survey off-highway vehicles are defined as all ATV's, all off-road motorcycles,
4x4's (licensed vehicles), unlicensed vehicles, sand rails, and utility vehicles.

Section 1: Off-highway vehicle riding experience and preferences

1. Please indicate the type of off-highway vehicle you were riding during your trip to Ocala National
Forest when given this survey:
[] ATV [] 4x4 (licensed vehicle)
[] Off-Highway Motorcycle [] Other:


2. Other than this vehicle, do you operate other type's of off-highway vehicles?
[] Yes If yes, what other types of off-road vehicles do you ride?
[]ATV
[] Off-road motorcycle
[]4x4
[] Other:
[ No


3. About how many times have you operated each of the following off-highway vehicles for recreational
purposes during the past twelve months within Ocala National Forest?


Vehicle Type Number of Times Driven
Off-Highway Motorcycle
ATV
4x4/Jeep
Other:


4. How many times have you operated each of the following off-highway vehicles for recreational
purposes during that past twelve months outside of Ocala National Forest?


Vehicle Type Number of Times Driven
Off-Highway Motorcycle
ATV
4x4/Jeep
Other:


5. How many years have you participated in off-highway vehicle riding?



6. How would you rate your OHV skill level?


years


months











1 2 3 4 5


Beginner


Novice


Intermediate


Advanced


Expert


7. Are you a member of an OHV club or organization?
[] Yes If yes, what club(s) or organizations) are you a member of?
[ No

8. Do you subscribe to any OHV magazines or electronic newsletters?
[] Yes If yes, what magazines) or electronic news letters) do you receive?


[] No


9. Have you completed a safety program on OHV operation?
[] Yes If yes, what programs) did you complete?
Date(s):
[ No

10. People go to particular areas and participate in recreation activities for any number of reasons. Listed
below are some possible reasons you might have had for recreating in the forest during your most
recent OHV trip. Please indicate in column A how important each experience was for you during
your visit. In column B, indicate how much you were able to attain this experience during your visit.

(A) Importance (B) Attainment



Experiences



Learn about history and culture of the area 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Promote physical fitness 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Reduce tensions and stress from everyday life 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Escape noise/crowds 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Learn about the natural environment of the area 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Be with friends and family 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Feel a sense of independence 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Take risks 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Engage in personal/spiritual reflection 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Explore the area and natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Challenge myself and achieve personal goals 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Depend on my skills and abilities 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Enjoy nature 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Strengthen family kinship 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Be in an area where I feel secure and safe 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Meet new people 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4










11. Please indicate the degree to which you like or dislike the following environmental characteristics
when operating your OHV.
Strongly Strongly
Environmental Conditions Strgly Dislike Neutral Like Stro
Dislike Like
Compact soils 1 2 3 4 5
Dry sandy soils (i.e. sugar sand) 1 2 3 4 5
Dominated by pine trees and wire grass 1 2 3 4 5
Dominated by hardwoods and shrubs 1 2 3 4 5
Dominated by a mix of pine trees and hardwoods 1 2 3 4 5
A mix of pine trees and open spaces 1 2 3 4 5
A mix of hardwood trees and open spaces 1 2 3 4 5
A mix of pine trees and hardwoods and open spaces 1 2 3 4 5
Open with no presence of vegetation 1 2 3 4 5
Scrub 1 2 3 4 5
Where I can see water all of the time 1 2 3 4 5
Where I can see water some of the time 1 2 3 4 5
Where I can not see water at all 1 2 3 4 5

12. Which of the following social encounters would you most prefer during your riding experience within
Ocala National Forest?
[] I would prefer to have very little contact with people outside my travel group (fewer then 6
people).
[] I would prefer to have little contact with people outside my travel group (6-15 groups per day)
[] I would prefer to have moderate contact with other people outside my travel group (30+ groups
per day).
[] I would prefer to have constant contact with other people (large numbers of users on-site and in
nearby areas).

13. Which of the following trail opportunities would you most prefer while operating your OHV?
[] I would most prefer to ride on designated, marked trails
[] I would most prefer to ride on mixed use roads
[] I would most prefer to ride in scramble areas

14. When riding on trails, which of the following types of trails do you most prefer?
[] I prefer to ride on tight "technical" trails
[] I prefer to ride on wide meandering trails

15. When riding on trails, what type of trails do you most prefer?
[] I prefer riding on loop trails
[] I prefer riding on linear trails
[] A series of connecting linear trails


16. How long would you prefer an OHV trail to be?


miles










17. Please indicate how important you feel that each of the following amenities are at day-use trailheads.
Statement Not at all Not very Very Most
Statement Neither
Important Important Important Important
Restrooms 1 2 3 4 5
Picnic Tables 1 2 3 4 5
Pavilion/Shaded areas 1 2 3 4 5
Water Fountains 1 2 3 4 5

18. When camping with your OHV do you prefer to stay in:
[] Primitive (tent camping only) campsites
[] Developed campsites

19. When camping with your OHV, which of the following would you most prefer?
[] Camping in a site for smaller groups (4 or fewer)
[] Camping at a site for medium size groups (5-10 people)
[] Camping at a large group site (11-20) people


20. When camping with your OHV, which of the following accommodations would you most prefer?
[] A camp site with restrooms only
[] A camp site with restrooms and showers
[] A camp site with electrical hook-ups


21. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
Strongly e N A Strongly
Statement DisagreeDisagree Neutral Agree Agree
Disagree Agree
People on ATV's bother me 1 2 3 4 5
People on off-road motorcycles bother me 1 2 3 4 5
People in 4x4's bother me 1 2 3 4 5
I find it undesirable to meet people on ATV's 1 2 3 4 5
I find it undesirable to meet people on off-road motorcycles 1 2 3 4 5
I find it undesirable to meet people in 4x4's 1 2 3 4 5
Parts of the forest should be open to ATV's only 1 2 3 4 5
Parts of the forest should be open to motorcycles only 1 2 3 4 5
Parts of the forest should be open to 4x4's only 1 2 3 4 5










22. Please rate the extent to which each of the following reduced or increased your riding enjoyment in
Ocala.
Neither G
Greatly
Greatly Reduced/ Increased Increased
Stteen RedReduced nrIncreased
Statement Reduced enjoyment Increased My
Enjoyment My Enjoyment Enjoyment
EnjoEnjoyment
Seeing people on1 2 3 4 Enjoyment
Seeing people on ATV's 1 2 3 4 5
Seeing people on motorcycles 1 2 3 4 5
Seeing people in 4x4's 1 2 3 4 5
Encountering people on ATV's 1 2 3 4 5
Encountering people on motorcycles 1 2 3 4 5
Encountering people in 4x4's 1 2 3 4 5


23. Please rate the extent to which you view the following as a problem in Ocala National Forest.






People on ATV's are to destructive 1 2 3 4 5
People on ATV's ride unsafely 1 2 3 4 5
People on ATV's behave in a discourteous manner 1 2 3 4 5
People on ATV's pass unsafely 1 2 3 4 5
People on ATV's cut others off 1 2 3 4 5
People on ATV's are out of control 1 2 3 4 5

People on ATV's ride to fast 1 2 3 4 5
People on motorcycles are to destructive 1 2 3 4 5
People on motorcycles ride unsafely 1 2 3 4 5
People on motorcycles behave in a discourteous manner 1 2 3 4 5
People on motorcycles pass unsafely 1 2 3 4 5
People on motorcycles cut others off 1 2 3 4 5
People on motorcycles are out of control 1 2 3 4 5
People on motorcycles ride to fast 1 2 3 4 5
People on 4x4's are to destructive 1 2 3 4 5
People on 4x4's ride unsafely 1 2 3 4 5
People on 4x4's behave in a discourteous manner 1 2 3 4 5
People on 4x4's pass unsafely 1 2 3 4 5
People on 4x4's s cut others off 1 2 3 4 5
People on 4x4's are out of control 1 2 3 4 5
People on 4x4's s ride to fast 1 2 3 4 5
People on 4x4's s ride to fast 1 2 3 4 5










24. National Forests throughout the United States are being required to provide for managed OHV trail
systems. However, the U.S. Forest Service also faces declining budgets, which forces managers to
either find new funding to provide OHV recreation opportunities, or to potentially limit and restrict
OHV riding on the forests. To ensure OHV users have the ability to ride in national forests, many
forests have begun to charge an annual fee in order to obtain a reliable funding source devoted to the
continual provision of quality OHV recreation.

If such a fee were required on the Ocala National Forest, would you be willing to pay $X each year
for a permit?


[] Yes


[] No


Section 2: Off-Highway Vehicle Management


25. The following is a list of potential management actions that could be taken to improve the OHV
riding experience within Ocala National Forest. Please indicate the extent to which you would support
each item with (1) indicating that you strongly oppose and (5) indicating that you strongly support the
potential action.

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Potential Management Action Oppose Oppose Neutral Support Support

Provide signs at trailheads and trail junctions 1 2 3 4 5
indicating trail length
Provide children riding areas 1 2 3 4 5

Provide an annual fee system 1 2 3 4 5

Provide detailed maps of riding areas 1 2 3 4 5

Provide more ranger patrols 1 2 3 4 5

Improve maintenance of OHV areas and trails 1 2 3 4 5
Take measures to protect/improve the natural 1 2 3 4 5
environment
Provide more parking space for OHV support 1 2 3 4 5
vehicles
Provide primitive camping at appropriate places for 1 2 3 4 5
OHV riders
Provide more safety education 1 2 3 4 5

Provide environmental ethic training 1 2 3 4 5

Provide warm up areas 1 2 3 4 5

Provide trail to destination areas 1 2 3 4 5

Other: 1 2 3 4 5










26. To what extent do you perceive the following conditions to be a problem in Ocala National Forest?
Not at Somewhat s Very
Serious
Statement all a of a Neutral Problem Serious
problem Problem Problem
Litter 1 2 3 4 5

Overcrowding 1 2 3 4 5
Lack of proper safety equipment worn by other OHV 1 2 3 4 5
riders 1 _2 3 4 5
riders
Environmental degradation within riding areas 1 2 3 4 5

Lack of safety and environmental ethic training 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5

Too many rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5

Poor enforcement of rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5

Lack of knowledge by riders of rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5

Lack of riding information 1 2 3 4 5

Lack of marked trails 1 2 3 4 5

Not enough children and family riding areas 1 2 3 4 5

Inadequate trail maintenance 1 2 3 4 5

Lack of parking for support vehicles 1 2 3 4 5

Lack of adequate campground sites 1 2 3 4 5

Other: 1 2 3 4 5



Section 3: Socio-Demographics

We would like to ask you a few questions about yourself and your background. This information is for
statistical purposes only and all information will remain strictly confidential.

27. What is your gender?
[] Male
[] Female

28. What year were you bor? 19

29. Which of the following best describes your status?
[] Married [] Divorced
[] Single [] Widowed









30. How many children currently reside in your household?


31. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
[] Eighth grade or less [] College Graduate
[] Some High School [] Some Graduate School
[] High School Graduate or GED [] Graduate Degree or beyond
[] Some College


32. Are you presently...
[] Employed Full Time
[] Employed Part Time
[] Retired
[] Unemployed


[] Full Time Student
[] Part Time Student
[] Full Time Homemaker


33. What race or ethnic group would you place yourself in?
[] White [] Hispanic or Latino
[]African American [] American Indian or Alaskan Native
[] Asian American []Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

34. What was your approximate total household income, before taxes this past year?
[] Less the $10,000 [] $60,000 to $69,999
[] $10,001 to $19,999 [] $70,000 to $79,999
[] $20,000 to $29,999 [] $80,000 to $89,999
[] $30,000 to $39,999 [] $90,000 to $99,999
[] $40,000 to $49,999 [] $100,000 or More
[] $50,000 to $59,999

35. What county do you live in?

If you have any questions or comments please write them in the space below.
Thank you for your help with this study!









APPENDIX C
ANALYSIS MASK

The development of the suitability mask accounted for biological, ecological, and

management considerations each of which is discussed in detail below. A nine-point scale is

typically used within a suitability analysis, however there was a need to stay consistent between

management and visitor scale values used within the visitor survey. Therefore, a five-point scale

was chosen where a five represented the most suitable and one represented the least suitable. In

most cases, current guidelines for buffered areas existed and therefore areas could be ranked as

suitable or non-suitable. In these cases a value of five was given to suitable areas, and one was

given to unsuitable areas. In cases where specific buffer areas were not already in place (i.e.

appropriate soil types) the full scale of values was assigned.

Biological Considerations

The Endangered Species Act and Forest Service policies direct Forest Service to

protect and improve habitat for threatened and endangered species in corporation with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. In doing so, designated buffer distances are required to be

implemented and maintained to assist in the species recovery process. Ocala National Forest is

home to five threatened or endangered wildlife species and two threatened or endangered plant

species (USDA Forest Service, 2005).Where spatial data was available, these guidelines were

implemented in the development of appropriate buffer (Table C-1).

Scrub-jay's (Aphelocoma coerulescens) also reside within Ocala National Forest. Currently,

there is no information that exists on noise impacts and scrub jays, and no standard buffer areas

are set. In addition, scrub jays live within fire dependent communities, therefore scrub-jay

populations will be moving into appropriate habitats as new areas are burned, making buffer









areas difficult to enforce (USDA Forest Service, 2005). As a result, scrub-jays were not

considered within this analysis.

Gopher tortoises (Gopheruspolyphemus) also reside within ONF. The USFWS and USFS

guidelines state that a 15.24 meter buffer zone should be implemented when planning for new

trails. All efforts were made to obtain information on active burrows within the forest, however

no information could be obtained. As a result the final analysis mask does not account for current

gopher tortoise populations.

The eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) and sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi)

can also be found within Ocala National Forest. In both cases it is not possible to specify

locations of each individual species residing within the forest, or quantify the number of each

species that could be impacted and therefore can not be considered within this analysis (USDA

Forest Service, 2005).

Ecological Considerations

Soils

OHV recreation results in severe soil degradation, specifically as it relates to loss of organic

matter, soil compaction, and soil erosion. Vehicle weight, vehicle volume and frequency of

vehicles riding in the area, vehicle tire width and air pressure, in conjunction with soil type (wet

or dry) all contribute to soil impacts (Havlick, 2002). Impacts such as soil compaction and loss

of organic matter along trails are expected, and can not be prevented, only managed (Hammitt

and Cole, 1998). Soil erosion in considered to be the most serious recreation impact to soils

(Kuss et al., 1990; Hammitt and Cole, 1998), and once it begins it is much harder for managers to

control (Kuss et al., 1990). However, the recreation activity itself is not considered to be the

main cause of erosion. Rather, recreation activity is only one of several elements that aid to









erosion, and other natural factors such as wind and rainfall are the continuing driving factors of

the erosion process (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). In general, soils that contain high amounts of silt

and fine sand, or are more homogenous in composition are more susceptible to erosion compared

to soils containing high amounts of clay or a mixture of various sand classifications (i.e. course

sand, loam, and clay). However, clay soils are still susceptible to erosion when the organic layer

has been removed therefore allowing soil particles to be more easily detached and moved from

the surface (Florida DEP, 2007).

A widely accepted measure of soil erodibility is the soils computed K-factor, which is a

measure a soils susceptibility to erosion by natural forces, mainly water (Florida DEP, 2007). K-

factors within Florida and within Ocala National Forest range from .10 -. 67, with lower values

representing lower potential for soil erosion (FDOF, 2005). Approximately 72% of Ocala

National Forest is composed of Astatula-Paola or Astatula soil associations which are defined by

low soil fertility and organic topsoil and are extremely dry and well drained (USDA Forest

Service, 2005). Soils within these associations tend to be predominately composed of sand, with

a small percentage of silt and clay (Obreza and Collins, 2002). The remaining soils within Ocala

are composed of Immokallee-Sellers soil associations which are defined as having moderate

levels of organic matter, are poorly drained, and can be typically found in flatwoods and marsh

areas (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

Considering Florida's relatively flat topography, erosion impacts as a result of OHV

recreation are not thought to be a serious threat to the resource (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

Suitability of appropriate soils were ranked according to potential for erosion with k-factors

ranging from .10-.20 being the most suitable and k-factors .44-.69 being the least suitable.

Although K-factor values are low, and therefore chances for erosion are low, a review of the









literature on recreation impacts also indicates that homogenous, sandy soils are the most

susceptible to soil compaction. Since ONF is predominately composed of this loose sandy soil it

is still highly vulnerable to impacts. Therefore, the highest suitability rating of four (as opposed

to a five), was given to k-Factors. 10-.20 and a suitability rating of one was given K-factors .44-

.69 (Table C-2).

Wetlands

Wetlands and ephemeral ponds are home to many sensitive species and can be easily affected

by motorized recreation. Current OHV monitoring guidelines state that trails should not be

within 60.96 meters of lakes, ponds or wetlands (USDA Forest Service, 2005); therefore, a 60.96

meter buffer was applied to these areas. In addition, there are several geologically unique

sinkholes within Ocala. According the Land and Resource Management Plan for National

Forests of Florida (USDA Forest Service, 1999) a 10.67 meter buffer area should be placed

around these areas.

Management Considerations

Appropriate recreation zone

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a recreation management framework that

designates a diverse setting of potential recreation opportunities ranging from primitive

experiences where the sights and sound of humans are almost non existent to more urbanized

experiences where development is present and constant contact with other visitor groups is

likely. It was developed to aid managers in zoning for recreation opportunities and to reduce

conflicts between motorized and non-motorized visitors (Manning, 1999). Each zone is guided

by specific guidelines relating to access, other non recreational uses, onsite management, social

interaction, acceptability of visitor impacts, and acceptable level of regimentation (Clark and









Stankey, 1979) (Table C-3). In doing so, ROS allows for the identification of zones appropriate

for OHV recreation. Within Ocala National Forest, almost 80% of the forest is classified as

roaded natural and just over 7% (7.3%) is classified as semi-primitive motorized resulting in

nearly 90% of the forest being designated as suitable for motorized recreation opportunities

(Table C-4). Suitability ratings were assigned to each recreation zone found within Ocala

according to the areas ability to provided motorized recreation (Table C-5).

Existing facilities and trails

Ocala National Forests currently contains approximately 250 miles of existing user trails,

excluding user made trails and new OHV trails that have been developed since this projects

initiation. The Forest Service Trails Management Handbook does not specify appropriate buffer

distances for existing trails and facilities when planning for new recreation opportunities.

However, the new Travel Management Rule, requires that "agency officials consider

minimization of conflicts among uses of FS lands. In designating trails and areas, local agency

officials must consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated

areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors."

In addition to the language in the new rule, existing literature on conflict between motorized

and non-motorized activities further supports the need to reduce contact between these activity

groups to reduce conflict potential. Considering that approximately 87% of ONF is designated as

appropriate for motorized recreation, and therefore sound and visual contact with other user

groups is acceptable but not necessarily common, a 402.34 meter (one-quarter mile) buffer was

placed around existing trails (Harrison, 1975; USDA Forest Service, 1992).

Existing facilities may be utilized as destination areas by OHV operators either for camping

or to pursue other recreation opportunities (USDA Forest Service, 2006), therefore, a 200 foot









buffer was assigned to all existing facilities. A two hundred foot buffer was chosen because it's

far enough away from a facility to not create addition impact but close enough that riders could

walk to the facility assuming that appropriate parking is provided.

Cultural resources

The protection of cultural resources should also be considered within the planning process,

however, these resources may also be utilized to develop recreation opportunities. According the

Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests in Florida, Cultural resources "when

ground-disturbing activities are planned within 60.96 meters outside of site boundaries, clearly

mark site boundaries so site can be seen and avoided" (USDA Forest Service, 1999 pp. 3-6).

Considering that OHV recreation is a ground disturbing activity, a 60.96 meter buffer zone was

applied to all known historical and cultural sites within the forest. The buffer zone is large

enough to protect resources but short enough to allow interpretation of resources that may be of

interest.

The results of the analysis shows that the majority of the study area is of high suitability for

OHV recreation planning (Figure C-2). Only areas rated "high suitability" were used as a

management mask in the overall analysis.









Table C-1. Buffer zones for biological considerations
Species Buffer (m) Suitability Ranking
Within Buffer: 1
Threatened Plant Species 60.96 t Bu :
Outside Buffer: 5
Within Buffer: 1
Endangered Plant Species 152.40 W n B
Outside Buffer: 5
Within Buffer: 1
Red cockaded Woodpecker 60.96 t Bu :
Outside Buffer: 5

Table C-2. Soils hydrological group and K-factor
Hydrologic K-Factor Suitability
Grouping Rating
A .10-.20 4
B .21-.24 3
C .25-.43 2
D .44-.69 1










Table C-3. Recreation opportunity spectrum zone descriptions
Opportunity Class Physical, Social, and Managerial Setting
Primitive (P): Area is characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment of
fairly large size. Concentration of users is fairly low and evidence of other
area users is minimal. The area is managed to essentially be free from
evidence of human induced restrictions and controls. Only essential
facilities are used and are constructed of on-site materials. No facilities for
comfort or convenience of the users are provided. Spacing groups is
informal and dispersed to minimize contacts with other groups or
individuals. Motorized use within the area is not permitted.
Semi-Primitive, Area is characterized by a predominately unmodified natural environment
Non-Motorized (SPNM): of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often
evidence of other area users. The area is managed in such a way that
minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle.
Facilities are primarily provided for the protection of resource values and
safety of users. On-site materials are used where possible. Spacing of
groups may be formalized to disperse use and provide low-to-moderate
contacts with other groups or individuals. Motorized use is not permitted.
Semi-Primitive Motorized Area is characterized by a predominately unmodified natural environment
(SPM): to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of
other area users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site
controls and restrictions may be present, but is subtle. Facilities are
primarily provided for protection of resource values and safety of users.
On-site materials are used when possible. Spacing of groups may be
formalized to disperse use and provide low to moderate contacts with other
groups or individuals. Motorized use is permitted.
Roaded Natural (RN): Area is characterized by predominately naturally-appearing environments
with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of humans. Such
evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction
between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users
prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but
harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is
provided for in construction standards and design of facilities.
Rural (R): Area is characterized by substantially modified natural environment.
Resource modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific
recreation activities and to maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and
sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is
often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for
use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided for special
activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites.
Facilities intensified motorized use and parking are available.
Urban (U): Area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although
the background may have natural appearing elements. Renewable resource
modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation
activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and manicured. Sights and
sounds of humans, on-site are predominate. Large numbers of users can be
expected, both on-site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified
motor use are available, with forms of mass transit often available to carry
people throughout the site.
Source: USDA Forest Service, 1982. ROS Users Guide.









Table C-4. Composition of ROS zones found within Ocala National Forest
ROS Zone Pixel Count Percentage of
suitable area (%)
Primitive 1,064,144,096 6.26
Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized 569,849,817 3.35
Semi-Primitive, Motorized 1,242,760,609 7.32
Roaded Natural 13,504,774,437 79.51
Rural 62,807,639 0.369
No Zone Assigned 289,506,466 1.70
Bombing Range 251,803,369 1.48


Table C-5. Suitability classification of ROS zones
ROS Zone Suitability
Primitive Not Appropriate
Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized Not Appropriate
Semi-Primitive, Motorized Appropriate Zone
Roaded Natural Appropriate Zone


Table C-6. Buffers assigned to management considerations
Management Consideration Buffer (m) Suitability Rating
Non Appropriate Zones: 1
Appropriate ROS Zone 0
Appropriate Zones: 5
Within Buffer: 1
Existing trails 402.34 W n B :
Outside Buffer: 5
Within Buffer: 1
Existing Recreation Facilities 60.96 W n B :
Outside Buffer: 5
Within buffer: 1
Cultural and historical resources 60.96 uff:
Outside Buffer: 5














PALATKA


Suitable OHV Areas


\:.

"a~~

4,


OCALA
0


0 3,350 6700 13,400 20,100 26,800
SMeters


Legend
* Local Cities
Military_Areas
Water
i Widerness Areas


Low Suitability
Medium Suitability
High Suitability
County Boundaries


Figure C-1. Suitability for OHV areas


A~p-
,, S









LIST OF REFERENCES


Algina, J., Olejnik, S., and Ocanto, R. (1989). Type I error and power estimations for
selected two-sample tests of scale. Journal of Educational Statistics, 14, 373-384.

Blahna, D., Smith, K., and Anderson., J. (1995). Backcountry llama packing: Visitor
perceptions of acceptability and conflict. Leisure Sciences, 17, 185-204.

Borrie, William T.; Birzell, Robert M. (2001). Approaches to measuring quality of the
wilderness experience. In Proceedings: Visitor Use Density (RMRS-P-20). Ogden, UT:
USDA Forest Service.

Bosworth, D. (2004). Four threats to the national forests and grasslands. Idaho environmental
forum, Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service.

Brown, G. (2005). Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource
management. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 17-39.

Campbell, S. (2006). Ten trends companies believe are hot and growing hotter. HSPN
global news. Retrieved online from http://news.hspn.com/articles/440/1/10-Trends-
Companies-Believe-Are-Hot-And-Growing-Hotter/Pagel.html on July 24, 2007.

Carothers, P., Vaske, J.J., and Donnelly, M.P. (2001). Social values vs. interpersonal conflict
among hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 23, 47-61.

Carr, M.H. and Zwick, P. (2005). Using GIS suitability analysis to identify potential future
land use conflicts in North Central Florida. Journal of Conservation Planning, 1,
89-105.

Carr, M.H. and Zwick, P. (2007). Smart land-use analysis: The LUCIS model. Redlands, CA.

Clark R.N. and Stankey G.H. (1979). The recreation opportunity spectrum: A frameworkfor
planning, management, and research. (Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-98). USDA. Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest Research Station.

Confer, J.J., Thapa, B., and Mendelsohn, J.L. (2005). Exploring a typology of recreation
conflict in outdoor recreation. World Leisure 1, 12-23.

Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J., Green, G., and Owens, M. (2005). Off-highway vehicle recreation
in the Untied States, regions and states: A national report from the national survey on
recreation and the environment (NSRE). USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Cressford, G. (2002). Perception and reality of conflict: Walkers and mountain bikes on Queen
Charlotte track in New Zealand. In Proceedings of the Monitoring and Management of
Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas (pp. 102-108). Vienna, Austria:
Bodenkultur University.









Crimmins, T.M and the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (2006).
Management guidelines for OHVrecreation. Great Falls, MT.

Daniels, S.E. and Krannich, R.S. (1990). The recreational opportunity spectrum as a conflict
management tool. In Vining, J.(Ed). Social Science and Natural Resource Management (pp.
165-179). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Dawson, C.; Newman, P.; Watson, A.. (1998). Cognitive dimensions of recreational
user experiences in wilderness: an exploratory study in Adirondack Wilderness areas. In
Proceedings of the 1997 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Gen. Tech. Rep.
NE-241, pp. 257-260). Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment
Station.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2005). 36 CFR part 212, 251, 261, and 295 travel
management; designated routes and areas for motor vehicle use: Final rule.
Retrieved January 30, 2006 online from
http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf.

Devall, B. and Harry, J. (1981). Who hates whom in the great outdoors: The impact of
recreational specialization and technologies of play. Leisure Sciences, 4, 399-418.

de Vries, S. and Goossen, M. (2002). Modeling recreational visits to forests and nature areas.
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1, 5-14.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: J.
Wiley.

Dolesh, R.J. (2004). Tough terrain: The Conflicts associated with multiple-use trails. Parks and
Recreation, 39, 56-63.

Elmendorf, W.F. (2007). ATVs and Snowmobiles: Comparisons from a Survey of 6,000
Pennsylvania Owners. Abstract Proceedings for the 13th International Symposium on
Society and Resource Management: Landscape Continuity and Change Social Science
Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Contributions. Park City, UT.

Environmental Systems Research Institute. (2002). Using spatial analyst. Redlands, CA.

Executive Order 11644 (1972). Use of off-road vehicles on the public lands.

Executive Order 11989 (1977). Off-road vehicles on public lands.

Falbo, D., Queen, L. and Blinn, C. (1991) Introduction to data analysis using a geographic
information system. Minnesota Extension Service Publication, NR-FO-5740-E.

Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee (1997). Vegetation
classification standard. Retrieved on April 30, 2006 from
http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/vegetation/indexhtml.









Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2007). The Florida stormwater,
erosion, and sedimentation control inspectors manual. Tallahassee, FL.

Florida Department of Forestry (2005). Silviculture best management practices: Appendix 2
soils. Retrieved on April 25, 2006 from
http://www.fl-dof com/forest management/bmp/page_58.html.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources (1990). Guide to
the natural communities ofFlorida. Tallahassee, FL.

Floyd, M.F., Jang, H., and Noe F.P. (1997). The relationship between environmental concern
and acceptability of environmental impacts among two national parks. Journal of
Environmental Management, 51, 391-412.

Fly, J.M., Stephens, B., Askins, L., and Hodges, D. (2002). Tennessee OHV user survey.
Human Dimensions Lab; Division of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The
common in-group identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias.
European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1-26.

Gajda, A. Brown, J., Peregoodoff, G., and BArtier, P. (2000). Managing coastal recreation
impacts and visitor experience using GIS. In Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern
Recreation Research Symposium (GTR-NE-326, pp. 115-123). U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service.

Gibbons, S. and Ruddell, J.E. (1995). The effect of goal orientation and place dependence on
select goal interference among winter backcountry users. Leisure Sciences, 17, 171- 181.

Gimblett, H.R. and Guisse, A.W. (1997). Assessing and mapping conflicting recreation values
in state park settings using neural networks. AIApplications, 11, 79-89.

Graefe, A.R. and Thapa, B. (2004). Conflict in natural resource recreation. In (eds). Manfredo,
M.J., Vaske, J.J., Bruyere, B.L., Field, D.R., and Brown, P.J. Society andNatural
Resources A Summary of Knowledge (pp.209-224). University Park, PA.

Hammitt, W.E. and Cole, D.N. (1998). Wildlandrecreation: ecology and management second
edition. New York, NY.

Hammitt, W.E. and Schneider, I.E. (2000). Recreation conflict management. In (Eds.) Gartner,
W.C. and Lime, D.W. Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism (pp. 347-356).
CAB International Publishing.

Harrison, R. T. (1975). Impact of off-road vehicle noise on a national forest. San Dimas,
California: USDA, Forest Service Equipment Development Center.









Havlick, D. (2002). No place distant: Roads and motorized recreation on America's public
lands. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Ingles, C., Leung, Y., Monz, C., Bauman, H. (2003). Monitoring visitor impacts in coastal
national parks: A review of techniques. In Proceedings of the George Wright Society and
National Park Service Joint Conference (pp. 228-233). Hancock, Michigan: The George
Wright Society.

Ivy, M.I., Stewart, W.P., and Lue, C. (1992). Exploring the role of tolerance in recreation
conflict. Journal of Leisure Research 24, 348-360.

Jackson, J.B. 1957. The abstract world of the hot-rodder, Landscape, 7, 22-27.

Jacob, G.R. (1977). Conflict in outdoor recreation the search for understanding. Utah
Tourism and Recreation Review, 6, 1-5.

Jacob, G.R. and Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflicts in outdoor recreation: A theoretical
perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 368-380.

Jacobi, C., Manning, R., Valliere, W., and Negra, C. (1996). Visitor Use and Conflict on the
Carriage Roads of Arcadia National Park. In Proceeding of the 1995 Northeastern
Recreation Research Symposium, (Gen. Tech. Rep. NE- 218, 228-233). USDA Forest
Service.

Kawaja, J. (2006). Comments of the route designation in the sand pine scrub ecosystem.
Retrieved on January 2, 2007 from http://www.fl4wda.com/pdf/phase2_comments.pdf.

Kliskey, A.D. (2000). Recreation terrain suitability mapping: A spatially explicitly
methodology for determining recreation potential for resource use assessment. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 52, 33-43.

Kuss, F. R., Graefe, A.R. and Vaske, J.J. (1990). Visitor impact management: A review of
research. Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association.

Leung, Y., Shaw, N. Johnson, K., and Duhaime, R. (2002). More than a database: Integrating
GIS data with the Boston Harbour islands visitor carrying capacity study. George Wright
Forum, 19, 69-79.

Macdonald, S. (1992). Forging alliances among trails users. In Proceedings llth National Trails
Symposium (pp. 18-21). American Trails, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT.

Manfredo, M.J., Driver, B.L., and Brown, P.J. (1983). A test of concepts inherent in experience
based setting management for outdoor recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 15,
263-283.

Manning, R.E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction
second edition. Corvallis, OR.









Manning, R.E. and Lime, D.W. (1996). Crowding and carrying capacity in the national park
system: Toward a social science research agenda. In Crowding and Congestion in the
National Park System: Guidelines for Management and Research. St. Paul, MN: University
of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Publication 86, 27-65.

Manning, R.E. and Lime, D.W. (1999). Defining and managing the quality of wilderness
recreation experiences. In Proceeding Wilderness science in a time of change conference:
Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management (RMRS-P-15-VOL-4, 23-27).
Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Marion, J., Roggenbuck, J., and Manning, R.E. (1993). Problems and practices in backcountry
recreation management: A survey of national park service managers. U.S. National Park
Service Natural Resources report NPS/NRVT/NRR-93112, Denver, CO.

Martin, T.W. and Berry, K.J. 1974. Competitive sports in post industrial society: The case of
the motorcross racer. Journal ofPopular Culture, 8, 107-120.

More, T.A. and Buhyoff, G.J. (1979). Managing recreation area for quality visitor
experiences: A theoretical framework. Research Report NE-432, USDA Forest Service.

Moore, R. L. (1994). Conflict on multiple-use trails: ) u//Ihei\ of the literature and state of
practice. Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031, Federal Highway Administration.

Moore, R.L. and Driver, B.L. (2005). Introduction to outdoor recreation: Providing and
managing natural resource based opportunities. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Moore, R.L., Scott, D., and Graefe, A.R. (1998). The effects of activity differences on
recreational experience along a suburban greenway trail. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 16, 35-53.

Moore, S. and McClaran, M. (1991). Symbolic dimensions of the packstock debate. Leisure
Sciences, 13, 221-237.

Naber, M.D. and Leung, Y. (2006). Technology lends a helping hand: Recreation managers are
learning the benefits of using geospatial technologies in resource management. Parks and
Recreation, 41, 24-29.

Neal, D. (1999). Life on the rocks: Environmental perceptions of the rock crawlers, a western
American recreational community. PhD Dissertation, Memorial University of
Newfoundland.

Noe, F., Wellman, J., and Buhyoff, J. (1981). Perception of conflict between off-road vehicle
users in a leisure setting. Journal ofEnvironmental Systems, 11, 243-253.









Noe, F.P., Hammitt, W.E., and Bixler, R.D. (1997). Park user perceptions of resource and use
impacts under varied situations in three national parks. Journal ofEnvironmental
Management, 49, 323-336.

Obreza, T.A. and Collins, M.E. (2002). Common soils used for citrus Production in Florida.
Document SL 193, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
Retrieved on July 31, 2007 online from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SS403#TABLE_3.

Pierskalla, C.D., Lee, M.E., Stein, T.V., Anderson, D.H., and Nickerson, R. (2004).
Understanding relationships among recreation opportunities: A meta-analysis of nine studies.
Leisure Sciences, 26, 163-180.

Ramthun, R. (1995). Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers.
Leisure Sciences, 17, 159-169.

Reed, P. and Brown, G. (2003). Values suitability analysis: A methodology for identifying
and integrating public perceptions of ecosystem values in forest planning. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 46, 643-658.

Sanyal, N. (2007). Using Segmentation to Develop an Off-Highway Vehicle Route System in the
Colville National Forest. Abstract Proceedings for the 13th International Symposium on
Society and Resource Management: Landscape Continuity and Change Social Science
Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Contributions. Park City, UT.

Schoenecker, A.H. and Schneider, I.E. (2007). Describing and Differentiating Recreational ATV
Rider Preferences. In Abstract Proceedingsfor the 13th International Symposium on Society
and Resource Management: Landscape Continuity and Change Social Science Perspectives
and Interdisciplinary Contributions. Park City, UT.

Stein, T.V.and Lee, M.E. (1995). Managing Recreation Resources for Positive Outcomes: An
Application of Benefits-based Management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
13, 52-70.

Stewart, S.I. (1995). The convergence of recreation and tourism. In Proceedings of the
Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995
National Recreation Resource Planning Conference. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota,
College of natural Resources and Minnesota Extension Service.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.

Tajfel, H.and Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory and inter-group behavior.
In (eds.) Worchel, S. and Austin, L.W.Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.

Teisl, M.F. and O'Brien, K. (2003). Who cares and who acts? Outdoor recreationist exhibit
different levels of environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 35,
506-522.









Thapa, B. and Graefe, A.R. (1999). Gender and age group differences in recreation conflict
and tolerance among adult skiers and snowboarders. In Proceedings of the 1998
Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium 1998 (Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-255, 219-226).
Radnor, PA: USDA, Forest Service.

Thapa, B. and Graefe, A.R. (2003). Level of skill and its relationship to recreation conflict
and tolerance among adult skiers and snowboarders. WorldLeisure, 1, 13-25.

Thapa, B. and Graefe, A.R. (2004a). Recreation conflict and tolerance among skiers and
snowboarders. Journal ofPark and Recreation Administration, 22, 37-52.

The Nature Conservancy (1994). Standardized national vegetation classification system.
Retrieved online on April 16 from http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/classification/index.html.

Todd, S. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1989). Level of experience and perception of conflict among
canoeists on the Delaware River. In Northeast Proceedings of the 1989 Northeastern
Recreation Research Symposium (Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-132, pp. 147-156). Burlington, VT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: a social cognitive theory
group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (ed.), Advances in group processes: theory and research
(Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Turner, J. Rick and Julian Thayer (2001). Introduction to analysis of variance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications. Focus on explaining different types of designs.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service (1982). ROS users guide.

U. S.D.A Forest Service (1999). Revised land and resource management plan for national
forests in Florida. Tallahassee, FL.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. (2005). Final environmental impact statement for the access
designation on the Ocala national forest. Volume 1: FEIS and appendices. Tallahassee, FL.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service (2005a). Record of decision for access designation in restricted areas
on the Ocala national forest: Lake, Marion, and Putnam counties Florida. Tallahassee,
FL.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service (2006). Route designation in the sand pine scrub ecosystem of Ocala
national forest. Tallahassee, FL.

Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., Wittmann, K., and Laidlaw, S. (1995). Interpersonal versus social-
values conflict. Leisure Sciences, 17, 205-222.

Vaske,, J.J., Carothers, P., Donnelly, M.P., and Baird, B. (2000). Recreation conflict among
skiers and snowboarders. Leisure Sciences, 22, 297-313.









Watson, A., Williams, D., and Daigle, J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers and
mountain bikers in Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9,
59-71.

Watson, A., Niccolucci, M., and Williams, D. (1994). The nature of conflict between hikers
and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research, 26,
372-385.

Watson, A. (1995). An analysis of recent progress in recreation conflict research and
perceptions of future challenges and opportunities. Leisure Sciences, 17, 235-238.

Wernex, J. (1994). Off-Highway Motorcycle andA TV Trails Guidelines for Design,
Construction, Maintenance and User Satisfaction, Second Edition. American Motorcycle
Association. Pickerington, OH.

Whiting, D.,Card, A., and Wilson, C. 2006. Soil drainage. Document 217. Colorado State
University Extension. Retrieved online on April 15. 2007 from
http://cmg.colostate.edu/gardennotes/217.pdf.

Wildlaw (2006). Undesignated OHV routes in the Apalachicola and Ocala national forests:
Inventory, maps, and recommendations. Tallahassee, FL.

Williams, D. (1993). Conflict in the great outdoors. Parks and Recreation, 28, 28-34.

Williams, D. W., Dossa, K.B., and Fulton, A. (1994). Tension on the slopes: Managing conflict
between skiers and snowboarders. Journal ofApplied Recreation Research, 19, 191-213.

Wing, M. and B. Shelby. 1999. Using GIS to integrate information on forest recreation. Journal
of Forestry 97(1):12-16.

Xiang, W. (1996) A GIS based method for trail alignment planning. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 35, 11-23.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Rachel Albritton was born in Valrico, Florida, and spent much of her childhood in the

great outdoors. In 2004, she graduated with a bachelor's degree in recreation, parks, and tourism

with a concentration in natural resource management and ecotourism from the University of

Florida. After graduation she continued to work for the University as a research assistant where

she became an integral part of various outdoor recreation and tourism projects throughout the

state. Her time spent working in research inspired her to pursue a masters degree, and she began

working toward her Master of Science in the fall of 2005. While pursuing her Master of

Science in interdisciplinary ecology, Rachel continued her involvement of past research projects

including an extended state-wide visitor monitoring of the Florida National Scenic Trail.





PAGE 1

1 AN APPLICATION OF GIS IN VISITO R EXPERIENCE PLANNING: EXAMINING CONFLICT AND TOLERANCE AMONG OF F-HIGHWAY VEHICLE RIDERS By RACHEL ALBRITTON 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 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Rachel Albritton

PAGE 3

3 To Cindi, for all the sacrifices you made in or der to allow me to acco mplish my goals. All the nights I spent in front of the computer, reading materials, and writing pape rs instead of spending time with our family have not gone unnoticed. Thank you for your continued support and encouragement during this proc ess and within my life.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to my committee for their support throughout this research effort. In particular thank you to my chair advisor, Taylor Stein for his continue d mentorship, direction and support. Thank you to my supervisory committee Brijesh Thapa, Wendell Cropper and Scot Smith all of whom were instrumental in providing valuable insights and suggesti ons for this research project. This project was made possible by funding thr ough the T. Mark Schmidt Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation and Safety Act through the Florida Division of Forestry Grant Program, and for that I am forever grateful. I would also like to thank all of the Ocala National Forest managers and volunteers who assisted with this project as well as upper division manage ment officials in Tallahassee. In particular, Bret Bush, Tiffany Williams, Jim Schmid, Will Ebaugh, a nd Mark Warren provided in valuable direction. Numerous University of Florida researchers as well as U. S. Forest Service volunteers also assisted in this study. Thank you to Lindsey Eidner, Sam Nagran, Julia Shrader, Vanessa Oquendo, Amanda Brinton, Taylor Oxahart, Bin Wan, Linda and Larry Brug man, and Sarah Tobing for all the countless hours assisting with the on-site interview process. I could have never been as successful without this help. Thank you to all of the participants who took time out of their trip and personal lives to speak with interviewers and complete the ma il back questionnaire. Without their cooperation this study would not exist. Finally, thank you my family; Cindi, mom, and dad. Your belief in me provided the foundation and support that helped me succeed. Thank you for always being there for me, and never letting me give up. I love you.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 2 EXPLORING CONFLICT AND TOLERANC E AMONG OFF-HI GHWAY VEHICLE RIDERS......................................................................................................................... .........16 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........16 Theoretical Framework.......................................................................................................... .18 Goal Interference.............................................................................................................18 Tolerance for Lifestyle Diversity....................................................................................19 Defining Conflict and Tolerance.....................................................................................21 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........22 Study Area..................................................................................................................... ..22 Data Collection................................................................................................................23 Variables Measured.........................................................................................................24 Goal interference......................................................................................................24 Tolerance for lifestyle diversity...............................................................................24 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. .25 Results........................................................................................................................ .............25 Activity Group Socio-Demographics..............................................................................25 Out-group Conflict..........................................................................................................25 In-group Conflict.............................................................................................................27 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........27 Conceptual Implications..................................................................................................28 Management Implications...............................................................................................29 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........31 3 PLANNING FOR VISITOR EXPERIEN CES: A SPATIAL APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING TOLERANCE.....................................................................................37 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........37 Understanding and Managing Recreation Conflict................................................................38 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........42 Study Area..................................................................................................................... ..42 Collecting Social Data.....................................................................................................43 Evaluating tolerance for lifestyle diversity..............................................................44

PAGE 6

6 Evaluating resource preferences...............................................................................45 Analysis of Social Data...................................................................................................45 Spatial Analysis...............................................................................................................46 Results........................................................................................................................ .............47 Socio-Demographics.......................................................................................................47 Tolerance for Lifestyle Diversity....................................................................................47 Preferences for Environmental Resources.......................................................................48 Mapping Potential Conflict.............................................................................................50 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........52 Management Recommendations.............................................................................................53 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........55 4 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................65 APPENDIX A ON-SITE SURVEY................................................................................................................67 B MAIL BACK QUESTIONAIRRE.........................................................................................68 C ANALYSIS MASK................................................................................................................76 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..86 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................94

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Conflict and tolerance index items and reliability.............................................................342-2 Activity group socio-demographics...................................................................................352-3 Out-group conflict and tolera nce between ATVs and OHMs...........................................362-4 Out-group conflict and tolera nce between ATVs and FWDs............................................362-5 Out-group conflict and tole rance between OHMs and FWDs...........................................362-6 In-group conflict and tolerance..........................................................................................363-1 Tolerance index items and reliability.................................................................................573-2 Socio-demographics....................................................................................................... ....573-3 Tolerance for lifestyle diversity between OHV rider groups.............................................583-4 Principal component analysis results for vegeta tion preferences......................................583-5. OHV riders resource preferences.......................................................................................583-6 Composition of prefe rred areas for OHV riders................................................................623-7 Composition of potential conflic t areas and lead preference areas....................................62C-1 Buffer zones for biological considerations........................................................................82C-2 Soils hydrological group and K-factor...............................................................................82C-3 Recreation opportunity spectrum zone descriptions..........................................................83C-4 Composition of ROS zones f ound within Ocala National Forest......................................84C-5 Suitability classi fication of ROS zones..............................................................................84C-6 Buffers assigned to management considerations...............................................................84

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Study area, Ocala National Forest.....................................................................................333-1 ATV recreation terrain preference model..........................................................................593-2 OHM recreation te rrain preference model........................................................................603-3 FWD recreation terr ain preference model........................................................................613-4 Potential conflict map.................................................................................................... ....633-5 Areas of lead preference for rider groups..........................................................................64C-1 Suitability for OHV areas..................................................................................................85

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ATV All-terrain vehicle FWD Four-wheel drive vehicle OHM Off-highway motorcycle OHV Off-highway vehicle ONF Ocala National Forest USFS United States Forest Service

PAGE 10

10 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 AN APPLICATION OF GIS IN VISITO R EXPERIENCE PLANNING: EXPLORING CONFLICT AND TOLERANCE AMONG OF F-HIGHWAY VEHICLE RIDERS By Rachel Albritton December 2007 Chair: Taylor V. Stein Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology The purpose of this study was to examine per ceived differences related to goal interference and tolerance for lifestyle divers ity between and within all-terra in vehicle riders, off-highway motorcycle riders, and four-wheel drive operator groups, and to identify wher e conflict related to tolerance was most likely to occur. Data was co llected using a combina tion of on-site surveys and mail back questionnaires. Social data refere ncing physical setting preferences were paired with GIS layers within ArcGIS 9.0 and mappe d for each rider group, allowing for a comparison of physical setting preferences across groups in order to iden tify where conflict related to tolerance was most likely to occu r. A total of 703 on-site survey s were conducted, and a total of 660 mail back questionnaires were distributed. A total of 295 mail back surveys were returned for a 44.7% response rate. The results indicate that conflict and toleran ce does exist within a nd between rider groups however between group conflict is more prevalen t than within-group conf lict. In addition, the degree of tolerance tends to be higher towa rd in-group members than toward out-group members. Both of these results lend further s upport to the theory of goal interference, and provide an initial examination of possible perceived differences between OHV rider groups.

PAGE 11

11 When examining tolerance within a spatial context (GIS), the results showed that the potential for conflict could occur over large por tions of the study area; however this knowledge could be beneficial to managers when creating new riding opportuni ties. Incorporating GIS into a planning process allows for a visu al understanding of not only wher e potential conflict as a result of intolerance is most likely to occur, but also allows for the id entification of areas that riders prefer based on physical landscape ch aracteristics. Taking these pref erences into co nsideration in conjunction with perceived differences between rider groups can help form on the ground solutions to minimizing conflict related to tole rance and promote quality visitor experiences.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Recreation on public lands is changing in ma ny ways. One of the major changes is a rapid shift from passive traditional activities to mo re mechanized and motorized recreation (Dolsch, 2004). From 1995 2003 the number of new retail sales and estimated to tal number of offhighway vehicles (OHVs) in the U.S. has mo re than tripled with sales soaring from approximately 386,000 to over 1.1 million (Cordell et al., 2005). In Florida, nearly 27,000 ATVs and nearly 11,000 OHMs were sold in 2003 placing Florida as the 8th most popular state for OHV ownership in the nation and the second most popul ar state in the southern region of the U.S (USDA Forest Service, 2005a). On Forest Se rvice lands, approximately 11 million out of 214 million visitors in 2002 were OHV recreationist This increase in OHV recreation may be attributed to increased population, increased non -obligated time, increased expendable income, and increased technologi cal capabilities (Fly et al ., 2002). As the desired benefits of many recreationist shift in conj unction with the advancement in technology, OHV recreation is predicted to keep increasing; being noted as one of the fastest grow ing recreation activities within the U.S. (Cordell et al., 2005). Off-highway vehicle recreation on public lands is not new, however this sudden and rapid growth over the past decade has brought it to the forefront of management efforts as well as raise awareness of OHV participation among both motori zed and non-motorized re creation visitors. In 2004, the former chief of the U.S. Forest Serv ice (USFS) Dale Bosworth announced four major threats to National Forests and Grasslands one of which was unmanaged recreation. Specifically, Bosworth discussed unmanaged O HV recreation, acknowledging that the lack of management in conjunction with the current in crease in OHV visitation to FS lands has caused severe environmental degradation as well as decreased visitor expe riences. He further stated that

PAGE 13

13 ninety-nine percent of [OHV] users are carefu l to protect the land. But with [over 36 million users] even a tiny percentage of the problem use becomes relatively huge. We have to improve the management so we get responsible re creational use based on sound outdoor ethics (Bosworth, 2004). This call for management is supported by The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), the Multiple Use-Su stained Yield Act (1960), and Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public La nds and amended by Carter (Executive Order 11989, 1977), all of which support the management of or detail the necessity for the management of OHVs on Forest Service lands in a manner that conserves the resources and provides quality visitor experiences, especially as it relates to visitor safety. Shortly after Bosworths sp eech, the Travel Management Ru le (2005) was adopted by the USFS. The new rule was similar to prio r executive orders 11644 (1972) and 11989 (1977), requiring that all National Forests manage fo r off-highway vehicle recreation by providing quality recreation experiences for riders as well as manage for resource conservation. The Rule differed from previous executive orders by specif ying that certain roads, trails, and areas be designated to motorized use as opposed to th e designation of areas only (Department of Agriculture, 2005). Within the rule many public co mments were received regarding the need to distinguish between the types of OHVs so that managers are more vigilant of different needs among the different OHV rider groups. Since mana gers were required under the new rule to designate roads, trails, and areas by class of vehicle, it was fe lt that the issue of managing for possible differences would be adequately ad dressed (Department of Agriculture, 2005). However, managing for quality recreation opportuniti es requires more knowledge and effort than the designation of trails by vehicle class. Ma nagers must also be knowledgeable about what factors contribute to a quality visitor experience, what may threaten a quality visitor experience,

PAGE 14

14 and whether or not all riders should be ma naged uniformly. Without this knowledge it is difficult, if not impossible, to provide ri ding opportunities that me et the 2005 Travel Management Rule objectives. The lack of information on OHV riders is surp rising given the history of mandates calling for OHV recreation management (Executive Order 11644, 1972; Executive Order 11989, 1977) as well as its presence on public la nds (Havlick, 2002). Also, planning for recreation experiences is the most fundamental objective for outdoor recr eation managers (More and Buhyoff, 1979), and has been a dominate focus in the research literat ure for nearly half a century. Much focus has been dedicated to developing a solid understandi ng of what defines quality visitor experiences such as feelings of solitude (Borrie et al., 2001; Dawson et al., 1998), desired social and environmental conditions, and the perceptions of the presence of manage ment (Stein and Lee, 1995). Existing research that has focused on other recreation groups has revealed that overall the setting in which an activity occurs may have more influence on a quality experience than the activity itself (Manfredo et al., 1983; Stein and Lee, 1995; Pierskalla et al 2004). Also, offering recreation opportunitie s that are diverse in these setting characteristics, as well as offering opportunities for various skill levels have an ability to benefi t more individuals over longer periods of time (Manning and Lime, 1999). Extensive examination has also been directed at defining elements that threaten or degrade these experiences such as perceived conflict (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980; Devall and Harry, 1981; Blahna et al. 1995; Vaske et al., 1995; and Gibbons and Ruddell, 1995) perceived environmental impacts (Noe et al., 1997; Floyd et al., 1997), discrepancies between desired and actual experiences (Moore, 1994), and crowding (Marion et al. 1993; Manning and Lime, 1996). Overall, the majority of research has shown that most visitors ar e satisfied with their recreation

PAGE 15

15 experiences (Moore, 1994; Manning, 1999), however recreation conflict doe s exist and can have serious consequences related to visitor safety, resource protection, and visitor experiences if left unmanaged (Moore, 1994). Understanding threats such as conflict is important for managers, for when acknowledged and coupled with well thought out and implemented solutions quality visitor experiences are likely to result (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000). Since the Travel Management Rule revealed a concern among the public about managing for differences between OHV rider groups, the overall goal of this study was to examine perceived differences among and between all-terrain vehicl e (ATV), off-highway motorcycle (OHM), and four-wheel drive (FWD) visitors within O cala National Forest. Sp ecifically, chapter two examines potential threats related to conflict a nd tolerance for lifestyle diversity between allterrain, off-highway motorcycle, and four-wheel drive rider groups by examining both in-group and out-group conflict and degree of tolerance. In chapter three conflict related to tolerance is examined spatially in order to ga in an understanding of where conflic t is more likely to occur (if at all), and address how managers can incorporate desired setting preferences relating to physical landscape attributes and potenti al differences between rider gr oups into the planning process thereby creating opportun ities for quality visitor experiences.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 EXPLORING CONFLICT AND TOLERANC E AMONG OFF-HI GHWAY VEHICLE RIDERS Introduction Technological advances within modern societ y have changed the way we perform our jobs, maintain our homes, participate in education, and even the way we recreate (Stewart, 1995; Moore and Driver, 2005). In the advance of technology within outdoor recreation, conflict related to technology is expect ed to both continue within and between recreation groups (Williams, 1993; Watson 1995). While conflict is in evitable (Manning, 1999), the identification of conflict or its potential can be utilized to bette r manage for quality visito r experiences. It can allow managers to identify areas that may need attention, and can identify knowledge gaps within the system (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000). A review of conflict li terature reveals that much of the research has focused on recreati on conflict between non-motorized groups such as hikers and mountain bikers (Ramthun, 1995; Jacobi et al., 1996), hikers and stock users (Moore and McClaran, 1991; Watson et al., 1994; Blahana et al., 1995), as well as non-motorized and motorized groups such as canoers and motor-boats (Ivy et al., 1992) and OHV users and hikers (Noe et al., 1981). In this advance of technology, th e participation in off-highway vehicle recreation has continued on an upw ard trend, and has been noted as one of the fastest growing outdoor recreation activities (Cordell et al., 2005). National sales of al l-terrain (ATVs) and offhighway motorcycles (OHMs) have more than trip led over the last decade with sales increasing from approximately 386,000 to over 1.1 million (Hav lick, 2002), and four-wheel drive recreation (FWD) has also had a steady increase in particip ation, with specific inte rests in rock crawling and sand sports (Campbell, 2006). Prior to this increase, OHV recreation wa s minimal on most Fore st Service lands, and managers could simply designate open and clos ed areas for OHV recreation (Executive Order

PAGE 17

17 11644, 1972; Executive Order 11989, 1977). However, this increase in OHV recreation over the last decade has led to an incr eased need to manage for OHV r ecreation opportuni ties within a designated system of roads, tr ails, and areas that provides op portunities for quality visitor experiences and conserves natural resources (D epartment of Agriculture, 2005). Following the recognition of the need to furt her control and manage for OHV riding opportunities, research was conducted that focused on OHV rider motiva tions (Sanyal, 2007) as well as possible differences relating to recreation specializati on within the ATV rider community (Shoenecker and Schneider, 2007). A study of 6,000 ATV and snowmobilers in Pennsylvania also revealed differences between the two OHV user groups (Elm endorf, 2007). Other information sources and research described the activit y styles of ATVs and OHMs as being focused on trail riding enjoyment (Wernex, 1994) while FWD recreation tends to be focused on challenging ones vehicle and overcoming obstacles (Neal, 1999; Ka waja, 2006). Despite this new information on both rider motivations as well as some differe nces between user groups, there have been no attempts to examine differences which may result in conflict between all-terrain vehicle (ATV), off-highway motorcycle (OHM), and four-wheel drive (FWD) operators. If managers are to successfully provide quality OHV ri ding opportunities while conser ving natural re sources they must first understand if all OHV riders should be managed uniformly, or if conflict related to perceived differences between rider groups exists. In order to evaluate potential perceived di fferences among OHV rider groups, the purpose of this study was to examine the potential for in -group and out-group recr eation conflict and the degree of tolerance related to goal interference between allterrain (ATV), off-highway motorcycle (OHM), and four-wheel drive (FWD ) rider groups. Given th at scare amount of

PAGE 18

18 information on OHV recreation riders research to ok an exploratory approach, and was guided by two specific research questions 1. What is the level of out-group conf lict and tolerance be tween rider groups? 2. What is the level of in-group conf lict and tolerance between rider groups? Theoretical Framework Goal Interference Jacob and Schreyers theory of goal interference (1980) has se rved as a dominate framework for examining possible causes of co nflict for almost 30 years (Noe et a l., 1981; Ivy et al., 1992; Graefe and Thapa, 2004). Conflict is defined as goal interference attributed to anothers behavior, suggesting that in order for contact to occur, either dire ct or indirect contact must be made. Direct contact refers to f ace-to-face contact or encounters wi th another individual. Indirect contact refers to seeing the presence of an individual in the form of vehicle tracks, litter, etc. In order for conflict to occur, an individual must in ternalize this contact and evaluate its affect on the recreation experience, which is typically based on previous soci al or physical contact (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Conflict related to goal interference has typi cally been shown to be asymmetrical, meaning one party is usually more affect ed by conflict than another. Back country canoers in Everglades National Park experienced more conflict due to individuals operat ing motorboats (Ivy et al., 1992). Likewise, hikers were more likely to report goal interferen ce due to unacceptable behavior of mountain bikers (Carothers et al., 2001). More recent studies have shown that higher levels of conflict related to goal interference can sometimes be attributed to individuals within the same recreation activity (in-group) rather than to individuals of a diffe rent recreation activity (out-group). In a study of conflic t between skiers and snowboarder s, higher levels of conflict were found between skiers than between skiers and snowboarders (Thapa and Graefe, 2004a).

PAGE 19

19 Similar results were also f ound between canoeists on the Delaware River (Todd and Graefe, 1989). The model of goal interf erence suggests four fundame ntal causes of conflict. Activity style refers to the personal mean ings given to the activity. Resource specificity refers to the meanings attributed to a particular site that is often utilized to engage in recr eation activities. Mode of experience refers to how an individual interacts with and perceives the environment as it relates to the level of individual focus. Tolerance for lifestyle diversity refers to the ability of an individual to perceive another as different from themselves, and to the ability to accept a lifestyle that differs from his or her own. Although there are four factors that may c ontribute to conflict, a single factor is sufficient to cause conflict (J acob and Schreyer, 1980). The present paper focuses on the conflict related to goal in terference, and the degree of tole rance that OHV riders perceive with both in-group and out-group members. Tolerance for Lifestyle Diversity While the American society valu es individualism, it is human na ture to seek out others who are similar to ones self. By id entifying with others who are pe rceived as being similar, the individual becomes re-assured in his or her ow n world views (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980), which can raise an individuals self -esteem (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) Recreation is an important component of peoples lives and therefore identify ing with those perceive d as pursuing the same recreation goals and recrea tion activities is also important in self-affirmation. As an individual begins to identify with a partic ular group (in-group), those who do not fall within that group are viewed as different (out-group) and possibly strange or inferi or (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). By categorizing individuals into id entifiable groups an individual can begin to form opinions and make statements about the individuals within those groups. Typically, comparisons are made between in-group and out-group members wherein opinions toward in-group members tend to be

PAGE 20

20 more positive promoting in-group favoritism wh ile opinions about out-group members tend to be more negative, promoting out-group discriminati on (Turner, 1985) which can lead to conflict (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Additionally, the promotion of favoritism and disc rimination often leads to the formation of a stereotypical view of all in and out-group members (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Within recreation and the theory of goal interference, this formation of stereotypes is typically based on two influencing factors; technology and resource consumption, and prejudice. Technology and resource consumption refers to how resources an d the natural environment are manipulated by an individual. For example, an individual who explor es nature on foot may view those who explore the environment with an ATV as exploitive (J acob and Schreyer, 1980) or abusive (Teisel and OBrien, 2003) to the land. However for the in dividual on the ATV, th e use of the machine brought about by advances in technology allows them to escape in a way not previously provided and is therefore valued (Jackson, 1957; Mar tin and Berry, 1974; Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Prejudicial views based on age, ge nder, ethnicity or social class can also lead to the formation of stereotypes about both in and out group members (Jacob and Schrey er, 1980). Prejudicial views are also often formulated through the categor ization of the groups themselves, therefore automatically allowing for the formation of ne gative views toward out-group members based simply of the individuals group a ssociation. In such cases where prejudice exists contact is not necessary in order for discrimi nation to occur (Tajfel, 1970). Within the theory of goal interference Jacob and Schreyer state that the degree of tolerance held by an individual consists of two main components. First, indi viduals perceive themselves as part of an in-group, and those who are not within that group are different. Second, group differences are evaluated. In instances where th ese differences are evaluated negatively, there

PAGE 21

21 may be an inability to share resources. Furthe rmore, Jacob and Schreyer hypothesize that when group differences are evaluated as undesirable or a threat to ones recreation goals, conflict results when members of the two gr oups confront each other (pp. 377). Defining Conflict and Tolerance Despite the wealth of literature on recr eation conflict and the dominate use of goal interference as a guiding framew ork, conflict itself has been inconsistently defined and evaluated. Several different quantitative appr oaches have been employed to examine goal interference, specifically as it rela tes to behavioral approaches. From this approach, conflict has been evaluated by examining the perception of others behavior as a problem (Moore et al., 1998; Cressford, 2002; Thapa and Graefe, 2004a), evalua ted the acceptability of certain behaviors (Carothers et al., 2001), or evaluated potenti al problem behaviors ba sed on the frequency of occurrence (Vaske et al., 2000). Tolerance has also been inconsistently m easured. Based on Jacob and Schreyers proposition of tolerance, some studies have taken a more di rect or norms approach and evaluated tolerance based desirable and undesirable contact with in and between activ ity groups (Vaske et al., 2000; Thapa and Graefe, 2004a) or perceived co mpatibility between two activities (Ivy et al. 1992). Other studies have assessed to lerance with a social values approach, examining beliefs and attitudes between activity groups (Watson et al., 1991; Blahna et al., 1995; Carothers et al., 2001). Alternatively, Williams et al. (1994) took a qualitative approach when examining tolerance and conflict between skiers and snowboarders which was shown to be effective. In addition to the inconsistent means of opera tionalizing tolerance, the internal reliability of some of the scales used has also been problemat ic. In measuring tolerance levels between those operating canoes and those operating motorboats the reliability for each activity groups tolerance index varied and ove rall was at lower than us ually acceptable values (Ivy et al., 1992).

PAGE 22

22 When assessing the degree of tolerance between skiers and snowboarders Vaske et al. (2000) was more successful and achieving acceptable levels of reliability than previous tolerance studies which focused on the same activity groups (Tha pa and Graefe,1999). A potential cause of low reliability and weak covariation be tween scale items may be attribut ed to the strength of in-group identification (Ivy et al., 1992). In other words, an individual may be able to easily identify outgroup members, but may not classify themselves as an in-group member as easily (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). In order to allow comparison to previous studi es as well as remain consistent with Jacob and Schreyers definition of conflict and their proposition of tolerance as contact being perceived as undesirable and bothersome, this study took a di rect approach at examining the degree of tolerance between rider groups, ut ilizing previous recreation c onflict and tolerance measures relating to the perception of problematic behaviors (Vaske et al., 2000; Thapa and Graefe, 2003; Thapa and Graefe, 2004a) affect on the users enjoyment (Thapa and Graefe, 2004a), undesirable encounters as well as a feelings of being bot hered by activity groups (T hapa and Graefe, 2003; Confer et al., 2005). Methods Study Area Ocala National Forest (ONF) is located in North Central Florida, and is within a days drive of most Florida residents (Figure 2-1). The proximity of the forest to major urban cities such as Orlando, Gainesville, and Jacksonvill e result in frequent visitation to engage in a variety of recreation activities such as hiking, swimmi ng, canoeing, camping, fishing, and off-highway vehicle recreation. Of the four National Forests within Florida, ONF receives the highest number of OHV visitors annually. Similar too many other national forests within the U.S., OHV recreation was mostly unmanaged, allowing cross country travel uncontaine d to a trail system

PAGE 23

23 until 1999. Recognizing the environmental and social impacts that were resulting from the lack of management, the Land and Resource Manageme nt Plan was revised to state that all OHV recreation must occur on existing user made tr ails within unrestricted areas (USDA Forest Service, 1999) until an actual trail system could be designe d and constructed. Although this action was a step toward gaining control of OHV recreation within a currently unmanaged system, it still was insufficient in reducing e nvironmental and social impacts throughout the forest. At the initiation of this research effort in 2005 managers were stil l in the trail designation and planning phase, however temporary acces s points were designated and two campgrounds were established as OHV recreation hub sites (US DA Forest Service, 2005) allowing for some systematic surveying procedures to be implemented. Data Collection A stratified random sampling procedure base d on day of the week (weekend and weekday) and volume of use (low and high) was used to sa mple participants. Data collection was achieved through the implementation of on-site interviews and mail back surveys. Trained interviewers were strategically placed at major stagi ng and camping areas. They randomly selected individuals (at least 18 years of age) from each visitor group and asked them to complete a short on-site interview. The on-site survey was mean t to gather basic information on the respondents trip characteristics and provide them with info rmation about the overall study. At the end of the interview the researcher provided the participant with a nine-page mail back questionnaire which contained a postage paid envelope. Using Dillm ans Tailored Method Approach (Dillman, 2000), a follow-up postcard was mailed one week after th e original mail back wa s distributed. If the mail back was not returned after another two we eks, a new mail back survey was sent to the participant. From September 30, 2006 March 31, 2007 a total of 703 onsite interviews were completed. Forty-three participants refused to take a mail back survey resulting in the

PAGE 24

24 distribution of 660 mail back questionnaires. Of the mail back surveys given out 295 were returned for a 44.7% response rate (ATV = 219, OHM = 37, 4x4 = 39). Variables Measured Goal interference Goal interference was measured through two multi-scale items indices adapted from Thapa and Graefe, (2003) and Confer et al., (2005). To be consistent with Jacob and Schreyers definition of goal inference attributed to others behavior, a list of seven potential problem behaviors were presented to the respondent in the form of a five -point Likert scale. The scale items were repeated for each rider group in or der to evaluate both in-group and out-group conflict resulting in a total of three behavioral in dices. Cronbachs alpha was used to evaluate the reliability of each of index. All indices were highly reliable (Table 2-1). In addition, Jacob and Schreyer (1980) state th at in order for conflict to occur, contact must be made and this contact must be interpreted and evaluated as having a negative affect on ones recreation experience. To address this affect on the recreation experience, two statements regarding the affect of seeing a nd encountering individuals were pr esented to respondents in the form of a five-point likert scale. Like the previ ous index, statements were repeated for each rider group. A cronbach alpha revealed th at these three indices were also highly re liable (Table 2-1). Tolerance for lifestyle diversity A modified version of a to lerance index (Thapa and Graef e, 2003) was employed to assess tolerance of lifestyle diversity between OHV user groups. Initially, the indices were composed of three variables, however a reliability analysis of the index revealed that the statement The forest should only be open to X did not show consistent internal reliabi lity and was removed from the final analysis. The final two statements used to compose the tolerance i ndex were repeated for

PAGE 25

25 each user group resulting in a total of three tole rance indices. The final cronbach alpha for each indices was obtained. All indices we re highly reliable (Table 2-1). Data Analysis A series of t-tests were used to assess out -group conflict and the degr ee of tolerance, and a series of one-way ANOVAs were used to assess in-group conflict and de gree of tolerance. In both cases, the independent variable was the individuals activity gr oup (ATV, OHM, or FWD), and the dependent variable was the measure of r ecreation conflict and tolerance. To compensate for unequal sample sizes between rider groups, the Welch statistic was used to evaluate mean differences for both in and out-group differences (Algina et al., 1989; Turner and Thayer, 2001). All data analysis was conducted using SPSS v 11.5. Results Activity Group Socio-Demographics Overall, participants were Caucasian (95.3 %), male (78.3%), and be tween the ages of 30-39 years old (34.6%). Individuals op erating OHMs were more likely to be male (94.1%) compared to those operating FWD vehicles (64.9%). Individuals operating FWD vehicles were also more likely to be between the ages of 18-29 year s old (32.4%) compared to those operating OHMs who were more likely to be between the ages of 40-49 years old or ATV rider who were more likely to be 30-39 years old. All respondents were educated receiving at least some college education or beyond (52.9%), and received an annual household income of $90,000 or more (Table 2-2). Out-group Conflict Those operating OHMs are more likely to view the behavior of those operating ATVs as a somewhat serious problem (mean = 2.12) compared to ATV rider perception of OHM behavior (mean = 1.76). However, the affect on both ATV riders and OHM riders experience was more

PAGE 26

26 likely to be increased when seeing and encount ering an out-group member. According to the definition of goal interference set forth by Jacob and Schreyer (1980), in order for conflict to occur, contact has to be made and that contact should negatively affect a users experience. Therefore, it could be concluded that conflic t related to goal interference between ATV and OHM riders is low in its intensity since the beha vior of ATVs does not ha ve a negative affect on OHM riders enjoyment, and the overall mean sc ores related to the perception of problem behaviors are low. Also, those operating ATVs were slightly more tolera nt of those operating OHMs (mean = 1.61) than OHM riders were of ATV riders (mean = 1.96) (Table 2 -3). Those operating FWD vehicles are more likely to view the behavior of those operating ATVs (mean = 3.40) as a serious problem while those ope rating ATVs were more likely to view the behavior of FWD operators as a somewhat se rious problem (mean = 1.83). In addition, those operating FWDs were more likely to experience decreased enjoyment as a result of seeing or encountering those on ATVS (mean = 3.64), howe ver those operating ATVs were likely to experience increased enjoyment when seeing or encountering those operating FWDs (mean = 2.73). Likewise, those operating FWDs were more likely to show low-tolerance towards ATV operators (mean = 3.24) while AT V operators showed a higher to lerance towards FWD operators (mean = 1.67). As a result, conflict between ATV and FWD operators tends to be asymmetrical with FWD operators experiencing more conflict as a result of goal interference and inability to accept perceived differences of ATV riders (Table 2-4). Similar to out-group conflict between ATV and FWD operators, FWD operators were also more likely to view the behavior of OHM opera tors as a serious problem (mean = 3.25), and indicated that seeing or enc ountering those operating OHMs w ould decrease their enjoyment (mean = 3.56). Conversely, those operating OHMs were likely to view FWD behavior as a

PAGE 27

27 somewhat serious problem (mean = 1.96), and se eing or encountering FW D operators was likely to increase their enjoyment on the trails (mean = 2.82). Lastly, FWD operators showed less tolerance toward OHM operato rs (mean = 3.34) than OHM operators showed toward FWD operators (mean = 2.07). Therefore, it could be concluded that conflic t between OHM and FWD vehicles is also asymmetrical with FWD operato rs experiencing more conflict as a result of goal interference and tolerance for lif e style diversity toward OHM ope rators. Also, the mean scores representing the level of conflict are fairly low, indicating that although co nflict is present, the intensity of conflict is low (Table 2-5). In-group Conflict The second research question explored the le vel of in-group conflict and tolerance among all three rider groups. No st atistical significant differences we re found between the perceptions of in-group behavior or in-group experiences signif ying a symmetrical perception of conflict. Mean scores for each rider group are low, further suggesting that this sy mmetrical relationship indicates that rider groups feel that the behavior of their own in-group members are not at all a problem, and that that seeing or encountering members of an in-group member are likely to increase their enjoyment. Lastly, statistical significant differences were found between in-group tolerance levels be tween FWD operators (mean = 1.83) and ATV (mean = 1.37) and OHM (mean = 1.46) rider groups. However, the associat ed mean scores suggest that all rider groups have a high tolerance toward in-group members (Table 2-6). Discussion Overall, the results of this study support the theory of goal inte rference, as conflict attributed to anothers behavior (Jacob a nd Schreyer, 1980), and supports pr evious research demonstrating that that conflict is likely to occu r as a result of the behavior of others or low tolerance toward an out-group member. Also similar to previous resear ch, conflict tended to be asymmetrical with

PAGE 28

28 individuals operating FWD vehicl es experiencing the most conflict, as well as experiencing decreased enjoyment during riding trips. Convers ely, those operating AT Vs reported the least amount of conflict and held the highest tolera nce for both in and out group members. These results hold several conceptual and management im plications and are further discussed below. Conceptual Implications Results of this study are gene rally supportive of prev ious research, however some differences exist in relation to the current body of literature. First, regarding conflic t relating to behavior; within this study, conflict was more likely to be a result of direct or indirect contact with an outgroup member rather than an in-group member Some research examining in-group and outgroup conflict has revealed that while conflic t relating to out-group members was present, conflict resulting from the behavior of in-group members was more prevalent (Todd and Graefe, 1989; Thapa and Graefe, 2004). This was not the cas e within this study, ho wever results reported here appear to be more consistent with th e existing knowledge relati ng to goal interference. When reaching similar results in their study between skiers and snowboarders, Vaske et al. (2000) noted that the prevalence of out-group conflict compared to in-group conflict lends further support to the theory of goal interference as conflict occurring be tween activity groups rather than within activity groups. Although conf lict related to in-group member behavior may be an issue for some visitors, overall conflict is more likely a result of an out-group member. Second, significant differences in the degree of tolerance occurred both with out-groups as well as with in-groups. Four-wheel drive opera tors tolerance toward out-group members were comparatively low, suggesting that those who operate four-wheel drive vehicles perceive themselves differently when comparing them selves to those who operate ATV and OHMs. Overall, individuals operating FW D vehicles tended to be younger and were a more even mix of males and females compared to other rider groups suggesting that the differences in tolerance

PAGE 29

29 may be a function of age and/or gender. Other research has suggest ed that perceived differences related to tolerance could be a result of nega tive encounters related to behavior. Depending on the sensitivity of the affected visitor, one negative encounter could result in developing a stereotypical view of an entire activity group (Kuss et al., 1990). This perception of differences related to tolerance holds several management im plications which are fu rther discussed within the next section. Also, significant differences were found be tween OHM and ATV tolerance levels toward each other. However the suggested meanings associ ated with the mean scores used to measure tolerance suggests that these activity groups both disagree wi th the tolerance statements. Therefore, it could be concluded that toleran ce between OHM and ATV riders is relatively high. Still, the fact that these differences exist shou ld serve as a caution si gn, and managers should remain vigilant of changing or evolving attitudes toward the out-groups. If left unchecked, riders who are more sensitive to conflict may begin or c ontinue to have low quality visitor experiences which may result in dissatisfaction a nd possible displacement (Manning, 1999). Lastly, tolerance toward in-group members is typically high promoting in-group favoritism. Although all rider groups disagree with in-group tolerance statements suggesting high tolerance for in-group members, its inte resting to note that ATV and OHM groups are more likely to strongly disagree, showing high in-group toleran ce, and FWD operators are likely to just disagree. Although this still shows tolerance toward in-group members, it still begs the question as to why there may be some reservation a bout having complete tolerance with in-group members similar to that of ATV and OHM riders. Management Implications Conflict resulting from the behavior of others can be addressed more directly by managers by way of posting and monitoring speed limits, meeti ng with user groups, posting signs, utilizing

PAGE 30

30 volunteers to help monitor and disseminate info rmation, or provide a stronger presence of law enforcement (Moore,1994). Conflict resulting from intolerance toward other activity groups is much more difficult for managers to resolve du e to its abstract nature. Within the current literature, there have been two main suggestions in aiding manage rs in reducing conflict relating to tolerance, separate users (zoning) (Daniels and Krannic h, 1990) and provide education (Ramthum, 1995, Carothers et al., 2001). Separating users through the practice of zoni ng for recreation opportunities is one of the most common management actions taken to help redu ce conflict between act ivity groups, typically between motorized and non-motorized user grou ps (Manning, 1999). However, conflict often occurs within the same activity group which is typically zoned for the same area and separating users based on zoning strategies may not be a vi able solution. Offering a diversity of trails ranging in difficulty and settings ma y further help disperse and sepa rate users. Planning and trail design strategies such as single and multiple use trail systems can also be implemented to help create quality recreation opportunities and aid in reduc ing conflict (Moore, 1994). Education may also be another effective management for minimizing conflict related to tolerance. Often, visitors are more similar then they perceive themselves to be, and it has been suggested that promoting an understanding of other activity groups motivations, attire, and techniques specific to the activity may help ra ise tolerance toward out -groups (Ranthum, 1995). Overtime, this may help re-categorize an indi viduals definition of in-group and out-groups, moving from the idea of us and them to simply us (Gaertner et al ., 1993). Education may also help promote an awareness of responsible and sustainable be havior by all recreation activity groups, thereby reducing the overall imp act to the resource (Manning, 1999).

PAGE 31

31 Conclusions The identification and acknowledgement of recrea tion conflict is important to managers since it can be utilized to better understand visitors and manage for quality visitor experiences (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000). Currently, many managers within the U.S. Forest Service including Ocala National Forest are in the planning phases of designing and constructing OHV trail system(s) in order to better manage for OHV recreation (Department of Agriculture, 2005). The results of this study show that not all OHV ri ders perceive themselves as being part of the same in-group, and therefore if managers were to manage all OHV riders uniformly their actions may result in less then quality visitor experi ences. These perceived differences should be considered when planning for trail and riding opportunities; if ignored managers may loose support from the riding community which may re sult in competition for trail space (MacDonald, 1992). Prior to this research stu dy, few studies have examined fact ors that could help manage for quality visitor experiences for OHV visitors on multip le use lands. This rese arch has taken one of the first steps in understanding possible differences relating to conflict and tolerance for lifestyle diversity in order to make proactive manageme nt decisions about how to best provide riding opportunities that considers the perception and beliefs of the respective activity groups. In addition, the results contribute to current knowle dge of conflict by examining recreation conflict in a new way with results indicating that confli ct may also occur within motorized user groups. In addition, strength lies in the strong reliab ility of the tolerance index used. As mentioned previously, consistent internal reliability of tole rance indices used within previous research has been somewhat problematic. Although unexplainable, some of those previous scales showed to be reliable when used to be measure tolera nce within the OHV riding population for this study.

PAGE 32

32 Still, much is unknown about recreation pr eferences among and between OHV riders. Taking perceived differences into account, future resear ch should examine trail and setting preferences to further aid managers in creating riding opportun ities. Finally, results w ithin this study suggest that low tolerance within the FWD population may be a result of age and/or gender. Future research should also work to address this que stion, and to examine other possible contributing factors to low tolerance levels.

PAGE 33

33 Figure 2-1. Study area, O cala National Forest

PAGE 34

34 Table 2-1. Conflict and tolerance index items and reliability Cronbach Alpha Index ATV OHMFWD Behavioral Index a .95.96.95 People on X are destructive People on X ride unsafely People on X are discourteous People on X pass unsafely People on X cut others off People on X ride to fast People on X are out of control Affect on Experience Index b .90.92.91 Seeing People on X Encountering People on X Tolerance Index c .87.86.86 I find it undesirable to meet people on X People on X bother me a Measured in a 5-point scale 1 = not at al l a problem, 3 = neutral, 5 = serious problem b Measured on a 5-point scale 1 = greatly increa sed my enjoyment, 3 = neutral, 5 = greatly decreased my enjoyment c Measured on a 5 point scale 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = ne utral, 5 = strongly agree

PAGE 35

35 Table 2-2. Activity gro up socio-demographics ATV (%) OHM (%) FWD (%) TOTAL (%) Gendera Male Female 78.2 21.8 94.1 5.9 64.9 35.1 78.3 21.7 Ageb 18 29 years old 30 39 years old 40 49 years old 50 59 years old 60 years or over 14.9 38.5 32.7 11.5 2.4 17.1 25.7 45.7 11.4 0.0 32.4 21.6 16.2 16.2 13.5 17.5 34.6 32.1 12.1 3.6 Incomec $10,000 $19,999 $20,000 $29,999 $30,000 $39,999 $40,000 $49,999 $50,000 $59,999 $60,000 $69,999 $70,000 $79,999 $80,000 $89,999 $90,000 or more 1.0 5.5 7.0 9.0 10.0 7.5 12.5 11.0 36.5 3.0 9.1 3.0 0.0 3.0 15.2 15.2 6.1 45.4 6.3 6.3 15.6 18.8 6.3 12.5 6.3 3.1 25.1 1.9 6.0 7.5 9.1 8.7 9.1 12.1 9.4 36.2 Educationd > Some high school High school diploma Some college College graduate Some graduate school Graduate degree 6.0 31.0 32.0 20.7 3.0 7.4 8.1 27.0 32.4 24.3 5.4 2.7 5.4 27.0 32.4 24.3 0.0 10.8 6.1 30.0 21.1 21.7 2.9 7.2 Ethnicitye White Hispanic or Latino African American Asian American 94.2 3.9 0.5 1.0 97.1 2.9 0.0 1.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.3 3.3 0.4 0.7 a. X2 = 8.951 p < .01 b. X2 = 26.844 p < .001 c. X2 = 25.877 p = ns d. X2 = 7.708 p = ns e. X2 = 2.884 p = ns

PAGE 36

36 Table 2-3. Out-group conflict and tolerance between ATVs and OHMs Out-Group Conflict ATVc OHMc W-Stat Behavior Index 1.76 2.124.89a Experience Index 2.55 2.620.18 Tolerance Index 1.61 1.965.07 a a p < .05 c mean Table. 2-4. Out-group conflict and to lerance between ATVs and FWDs Out-Group Conflict ATVc FWDc W-Stat Behavior Index 1.83 3.4057.58b Experience Index 2.73 3.6452.23bTolerance Index 1.67 3.2473.75 b b p < .01 c mean score Table 2-5. Out-group conflict and tolerance between OHMs and FWDs Out-Group Conflict OHM c FWD c W-Stat Behavior Index 1.96 3.2528.54 b Experience Index 2.82 3.5611.37 bTolerance Index 2.07 3.3426.61 b b p < .01 c mean score Table 2-6. In-group conflict and tolerance Index ATV c (1) OHMc (2) FWD c (3) Welch Stat Post-Hoc Conflict Measures Behavior Index 1.611.441.681.36 --Experience Index 2.302.132.391.10 --Tolerance Measures Tolerance Index 1.371.461.8363.47 b 1, 2 < 3 b p < .01 c mean score

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 3 PLANNING FOR VISITOR EXPERIEN CES: A SPATIAL APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING TOLERANCE Introduction Managing recreation conflict is often an inhe rent aspect of outdoor recreation management (Daniels and Krannich, 1990), and managers are often faced with the ch allenges of minimizing recreation conflict in order to promote quality visitor experien ces, visitor safety, and ensure resource protection (Moore, 1994). Jacob and Schr eyers (1980) theory of goal interference provided an initial examination at the causes of conflict, and has remained the dominate framework for researching and understand ing recreation conflict today (Confer et al., 2005). Within the theory of goal interference, tolerance for lifestyle diversity is offered as a possible cause for recreation conflict. Under this construct, it is suggested that when individuals perceive themselves as different from another, an encounter with those perceived as different is likely to result in conflict. It is further suggested that the presence of tolerance may result in an inability to share resources. While some researchers have empirically examined conflict related to tolerance as well as a perceived ability to share resources with other ac tivity groups, none have taken a spatial approach to examine where this inabi lity to share resources may exist, and hence understand where conflict is more likely to oc cur. Understanding conflict potential within a spatial context can allow both managers and the affected activity groups to look beyond perceived differences that result in conflict and bring focus to pl anning efforts that are aimed at providing desired recreation opportun ities (Gimblett and Guisse, 1997). The purpose of this study was to identify area s best suited for off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation based on conflict pot ential between OHV rider groups, and rider groups resource preferences. Specifically, the objec tives of this study were to (1 ) examine the degree of tolerance between all-terrain vehicle (ATV), off-highway motorcycle (OHM), and four-wheel drive

PAGE 38

38 (FWD) operators, (2) examine ri ders preferred resources wh en operating an OHV, and (3) examine where conflict related to tolerance is likely to occur based on shared resource preferences. Although tolerance itsel f can not be directly linked to landscape attributes, resources that are highly favored when engaged in a spec ific recreation activity can be identified. These preferred resources can be mapped for each ac tivity group and then compared across activity groups allowing for the identification of where c onflict is most likely to occur based on the assumption that riders will choose areas that ar e best suited to meet their recreation needs (Kliskey, 2000). The outcome of the process provides managers with a set of maps that can be incorporated into the recreation planning pro cess and aid managers in deciding where to implement single and multiple use trail systems within areas that are preferred by specific rider groups. Understanding and Managing Recreation Conflict The study of recreation conflict has evolved over time, shifting fr om a descriptive nature of addressing incompatible activity groups to provi ding more meaningful ex planations as to the causes of recreation conflict. The advance of Jac ob and Schreyers theore tical framework of goal interference has provided the clearest definiti on of conflict (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000), and has been the standard framework in examini ng conflict over the past three decades (Confer et al., 2005). Conflict is defined as goal in terference attributed to another s behavior, suggesting that in order for conflict to occur, either direct or indirect contact must be made. Direct contact refers to face-to-face contact or encounters w ith another individual. Indirect contact refers to seeing the presence of an individual in the form of vehicle tr acks, litter, etc. One must then internalize this contact and evaluate its affect on the recreation experience, which is typically based on previous social or physical contac t (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980).

PAGE 39

39 Conflict resulting as goal interference due to ot hers behavior can be addressed more directly by managers by way of posting and monitoring sp eed limits, meeting with user groups, posting signs, utilizing volunteers to help monitor and disseminate information, or provide a stronger presence of law enforcement (Moore, 1994). Howe ver, addressing behavior al issues may ignore other underlying causes of recrea tion conflict which must also be addressed if conflict management is to be effective (Manning, 1999). Th e model of goal interference further suggests four fundamental causes of conf lict, one of which is toleranc e for lifestyle diversity. Tolerance for lifestyle diversity refers to the ability to accept or rej ect a lifestyle that is perceived as different from one s own (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Within the theory of goal interference Jacob and Schreyer (1980) state that the degree of toleranc e held by an individual consists of two main components. First, individu als perceive themselves as part of a group, and those who are not within that group are different. Second, group differences are evaluated. In instances where these differences are evaluated negatively, there may be an inability to share resources. Furthermore, Jacob and Schreyer ( 1980) hypothesize that when group differences are evaluated as undesirable or a th reat to ones recreation goals, co nflict results when members of the two groups confront each other (p. 377). It has long been noted that c onflict due to tolerance cannot be eliminated. Rather, managers must seek to understand intolera nce as it relates to providing r ecreation opportuni ties and try to minimize conflict occurrences (Jacob, 1977). More recent studies have also echoed this notion, suggesting that managers seek to separate activity groups who are intolerant of each other (Vaske et al., 2000; Thapa and Graefe, 2003) Recreation management frameworks such as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) can aid managers in minimizing recreation conflict

PAGE 40

40 through the implementation of zoning strategies and assist in promoting quality visitor experiences through offering diversity (Clark an d Stankey, 1979; Daniel s and Krannich, 1990). Although the concept of zoning may work to help minimize motorized vs. non-motorized conflicts, it is not a universal remedy for resolv ing all recreation conflic t issues (Daniels and Krannich, 1990). Often times, recreation conflict occurs within similar activity groups which may occur within the same zone (Todd and Graefe, 1989; Watson et al., 1994; Vaske et al., 2000). In such cases, zoning may be ineffective and other tactics must be implemented in order to help minimize conflict. Planning and trail desi gn strategies such single and multiple use trail designs and varying trail difficulty can also be implemented to he lp disperse recreation visitors and help create quality recrea tion opportunities while reducing conflict (Moore, 1994). Although these tactics have been extensively discussed within the current body of literature, few have looked at conflict spatially in orde r to help identify how to best separate users that are sensitive to conflict in a manner that best utilized available resources. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a tool that can help managers begin to evaluate potential recreation conflict wi thin a spatial context. Repres entation of various recreation opportunities for various user groups within a sing le managed area allows for a range of potential opportunities to be compared and assessed simultan eously which may lead to the development of management solutions for otherwise contentious activities (Kilskey, 2000). This often involves the need to assess large amounts of information rela ted to user preferences, user perceptions of conflict, and biological and physic al constraints. GIS provides managers with the appropriate tools to evaluate this large amount of inform ation as well as the ability to ask geographic questions about possible management actions (Falbo, Queen & Blinn, 1991). By doing so, managers can begin to evaluate how potential actions could help enha nce user experiences,

PAGE 41

41 minimize user conflicts, and preserve environmen tal integrity before any actual decisions are implemented on the ground. As a result, accuracy and long-term cost efficiency of managing an area are increased (Naber and Le ung, 2006). Recent advances within GIS and recreation research has began to link visito r preferences (Kilskey, 20 00) and values (Brown, 2005; Reed and Brown, 2003) to resource attributes, allowi ng managers to identify areas of potential conflict as well as potential use. Other studies have examined visito r use and travel patterns in order to identify areas of heavy use, and discuss management st rategies to help reduce resource impacts and minimize potential user conflicts (Wing and Shelby, 1999). Developing an understanding of visitor use levels, travel patt erns, and preferences spatially can not only help identify areas in need of ma nagement focus to reduc e conflict potential, but can also assist managers in understanding wher e to concentrate management efforts to help provide quality recreation opportunities. In the Netherlands, researchers recognized the social benefits of forests, and created a regional m odel that depicted visitor volume and visitor preference. The model itself can be useful in a ssessing how to plan for the volume of individual use within a given area, and to some extent a ssess the quality of an experience based on the visual attraction (de Vries and Goossen, 2002). In Yellowstone National Park, GIS was used to help create and map indicators and standards as it related to providing quality visitor experiences. Recognizing that qual ity trails lead to quality recr eation opportunities, Xiang (1996) developed a method for trail alignment to evaluate the most suitable areas for trail construction based on ecological, biological, and economical constraints. Managers are also often f aced with the conflicting dual mission of preserving ecological integrity of an area while providi ng quality recreation opportunities within those areas. In order to help balance between resour ce use and resource preservation, GIS, global positioning systems

PAGE 42

42 (GPS), and remote sensing (RS) tools have been u tilized to help plan an d manage for sustainable opportunities. In Gwaii Haanas National Park, re searchers built a GIS database incorporating ecological, archeological, and levels of visitor us e data to establish baseline levels of visitor impacts. Data was evaluated independently and in conjunction within each other in order to evaluate areas sensitive to impacts and determin e where management efforts should be focused (Gajda et al., 2000). A similar study conducted at Boston Ha rbor integrated resource information and visitor carrying capacity data in order to help monitor recreation impacts (Leung et al., 2002). Data collected with GPS units in conjunc tion with GIS information has been used to evaluate campsite impacts and develop management strategies to help restore areas receiving unacceptable impacts. Remote Sensing techniques ha ve also shown to be valuable in identifying and monitoring recreation impacts, specifica lly within coastal recreation areas (Ingle et al. 2003). Methods Study Area Ocala National Forest (ONF) is located in North Central Florida, and is within a days drive of most Florida residents. Of the four National Forests within Florida, ONF receives the highest number of OHV visitors annually. Similar too ma ny other National Forests within the U.S., OHV recreation went unmanaged, allowing cross country travel uncontained to a trail system until 1999. Recognizing the environmental and social impacts that were resulting from miss management, the forests Land and Resource Manage ment Plan was revised to state that all OHV recreation must occur on existing user made tr ails within unrestricted areas (USDA Forest Service, 1999) until an actual trail system could be designe d and constructed. Although this action was a step toward gaining control of OHV recreation within a currently unmanaged system, it still was insufficient in reducing e nvironmental and social impacts throughout the

PAGE 43

43 forest. At the initiation of this research effort in 2005 managers were stil l in the trail designation and planning phase. As a result research effort s and analysis were all aimed to aid managers within this recreati on planning process. Ocala National Forest is composed of appr oximately 157,422 hectares and is mostly known for its pine-scrub habitat, which composes over 50% of the forest (USDA Forest Service, 2005). The sand pine scrub is a fire dependent comm unity, characterized by a closed canopy of sand pines ( Pinus clausa ) and a thick under-story of scrub live oak ( Quercus geminate ), myrtle oak ( Quercus myrtifolia ), chapman oak ( Quercus chapmanii ) and saw palmettos ( Serenoa repens ) (FNAI and FDNR, 1990). Due to the ecosystem s isolation, many endemic and endangered species live within the habitat including the Florida scrub-jay ( Aphelocoma coerulescens ), scrub buckwheat ( Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium ), and Lewtons milkwort ( Polygala lewtonii ) (Wildlaw, 2006). Long leaf pine ecosystems, characterized by open over-story, widely spaces trees and a dense ground cover of wiregras s and forbs is also prevalent throughout the forest (FNAI and FDNR, 1990). Small pockets of hardwood hammocks can be found near the forest boundaries. In addition, ONF contains severa l smaller parcels of land located on the south east of the forests larger boundary. Due to the small size of these pa rcels as well as their distance from the main forest, these parcels were not considered in the spatial analysis. Collecting Social Data Data collection was achieved through the implem entation of on-site interviews and mail-back surveys. The on-site survey was meant to ga ther basic information on the respondent trip characteristics and provide them information about the overall study. At the end of the interview the researcher provided the participant with a nine-page mail back questionnaire which contained a postage paid envelope. Using Dillmans (2000) Tailored Method Approach, a follow-up postcard was mailed one week after the original mail-back was distributed. If the mail back was

PAGE 44

44 not returned after another two weeks, a new mail-b ack survey was sent to the participant. From September 30, 2006 March 31, 2007 a total of 703 onsite interviews have been completed. Forty-three participants refused to take a mail back survey re sulting in the di stribution of 660 mail back questionnaires. Of the mail back su rveys given out 295 were returned for a 44.7% response rate (ATV = 219, OHM = 37, 4x4 = 39). Evaluating tolerance for lifestyle diversity Tolerance for lifestyle diversit y has been measured in with a variety of techniques within the literature. Based on Jacob and Schreyers proposition of tolerance, some studies have taken a more direct or norms approach and evaluated tolerance based desirable and undesirable contact within and between activity groups (Vaske et al., 2000; Thapa and Graefe, 2004a) or perceived compatibility between two activities (Ivy et al. 1992). Other studies have assessed tolerance with a social values approach, examining beliefs and attitudes between activity groups (Watson et al., 1991; Blahna et al., 1995; Carothers et al., 2001). Also, the internal re liability of some of the scales used to measure tolerance has been probl ematic. In measuring tolerance levels between those operating canoes and those operating motor boats, the reliability for each activity groups tolerance index varied and ove rall was at lower than us ually acceptable values (Ivy et al., 1992). When assessing the degree of tolerance between skiers and snowboarders Vaske et al. (2000) was more successful and achieving acceptable levels of internal validity and reliability than previous tolerance studies which focused on the same activity groups (Thapa and Graefe, 1999). Jacob and Schreyer (1980) proposed that when group differences were evaluated as undesirable or a potential threat to recreation goals, then c onflict is likely to occur. In order to be consistent with this statement as well as mainta in the ability to compare tolerance results to previous studies, this study utilized a two ite m index measuring the extent of agreement to which the presence of other OHV activity groups were bothersome and undesirable. The

PAGE 45

45 statements used to compose the tolerance index were repeated for each user group resulting in a total of three tolerance indices. The final cronbac h alpha for each index indicated all three where reliable (Table 3-1). Evaluating resource preferences In order to define which areas of the forest riders found to be the most desirable for OHV recreation as well as to examine the potential inab ility to share the same resources, riders were presented with a list of 13 spatial descriptions of physical settings (8 vegetation, 2 soil, and 3 water) that were found within the study area. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they liked or disliked each of the physical se ttings when operating an OHV specifically within Ocala National Forest. Analysis of Social Data A series of t-tests were used to assess percei ved differences relating to tolerance for lifestyle diversity where the independent variable was the individuals activity group (ATV, OHM, or FWD), and the dependent variable was the tole rance index. To compensate for unequal sample sizes between rider groups, the Welch statistic wa s used to evaluate mean differences (Algina et al., 1989; Turner and Thayer, 2001). A principle component analysis (PCA) with va rimax rotation was used to further examine the eight vegetation physical setting variables in order to see if there were any underlying dimensions for desired vegetation attributes, and to examine the potential of reducing the number of variables being mapped. Due to the small num ber of soil and water variables as well as the desire to incorporate different sp atial layers within the GIS spatial analysis the other variables were left as is and mean scores for each attribute were obtained. All social data analysis was conducted using SPSS v 11.5.

PAGE 46

46 Spatial Analysis Once the social data was analyzed, a four-step sp atial analysis process was carried out. First a data inventory was completed to help assess wh ere OHV recreation could pot entially take place within the study area. This entail ed gathering all available spatia l information on threatened and endangered species, sensitive habitats, cultural resources, and existing recreation opportunities. The final data inventory was developed into a single map through an overlay process, and utilized as an analysis mask later in th e spatial analysis procedure (Appendix C). Second, the 13 physical resource variables were grouped into 3 main categories; vegetation, soil, and water. Each of these three physical setting categories were then paired with an appropriate GIS layer. Each attribute within ea ch GIS layer was then reclassified into new attributes to reflect social data results. Lastl y, these newly reclassified categories were assigned new values according to the mean of each rider group within each GIS layer. Third, each GIS layer for each activity group was combined through an overlay process in order to create a recreation terrain preferen ce map for each rider group (Kliskey, 2000). The analysis mask created in step one was also comb ined with the other thr ee existing layers within this step so only areas that could actually be used to crea te OHV riding opportunities were considered in the final analysis. Once the f our layers were combin ed, each activity groups recreation terrain preference map was collapsed into three ranges of high, medium, and low preference (Carr and Zwick, 2005) a ccording to the maps standard deviation. Standard deviation reclassification usually results in fairly equal intervals, allowing for a fair comparison between layers (Carr and Zwick, 2007). The final recreation terrain preferen ce maps were meant to model preference only, and were not necessarily represen tative of actual use. The individual models assume that riders will choose terrain with phys ical landscape resources th at are best suited to

PAGE 47

47 meet their riding needs, and that the higher the preference for an ar ea the more likely they are to want to ride within that area to achie ve some desired goal(s) (Kliskey, 2000). Fourth, the three recreation te rrain preference models were combined in an overlay process creating a single potential conflict map that could represent all pos sible combinations of conflict between the three activity groups (Carr and Zwic k, 2005). Conflict potential was noted to occur anytime at least two user groups were shown to ha ve significant different tolerance levels toward one and other and shared the hi ghest preference for a given re source. When only one activity group had the highest preference for a resource the area was given lead preference to that activity group. All GIS layers with the excepti on of one were initially in ve ctor format, however all final spatial results were converted to raster, with a grid size of 50 me ters during spatial analysis. All spatial analysis was cond ucted within ArcGIS 9.0. Results Socio-Demographics Overall, participants tended to be white (95.3%), male (78.3%), and between the ages of 3039 years old (34.6%). Individuals operating OHMs were more likely to be male (94.1%) compared to those operating FWD vehicles (64.9 %). Individuals operating FWD vehicles were also more likely to be younger (32.4%) compared to other rider groups. All respondents were highly educated receiving at least some college education or beyond (52.9%), and received an annual household income of $90,000 or more. (Table 3-2). Tolerance for Lifestyle Diversity Riders operating FWD vehicles were the le ast tolerant of both ATV and OHM riders. Specifically, individuals operating FWD vehicles were significantl y less tolerant of ATV riders (mean = 3.24), than ATV riders were of FW D operators (mean = 1.66). Four-wheel drive

PAGE 48

48 operators were also significantly less tolerant of those operating OHMs (mean = 3.34) compared to OHM operators tolerance towards FWD ope rators (mean = 2.08). Lastly, there were statistically significant differences between ATV and OHM tolerance levels toward each other. However, reviews of the rider groups mean scores reveal that both rider groups disagree with the index statements. Therefore, it can be concl uded that although signifi cant differences exist between ATV and OHM rider groups, the differences hold little practical meaning for managers, and more focus should be placed on the intolerance of FWD operators toward ATV and OHM rider groups where intolerance was sl ightly more intense (Table 3-3). Preferences for Environmental Resources The principle component analysis of the eigh t vegetation variables revealed two components explaining 68.8% of the variance, and each component had a cronbach alpha value above .70 and could therefore be considered reliable (Table 3-4). The first component represented those who had a desire to ride in areas with dense vege tation, and the second com ponent represented those who had a desire to ride in more open settings Neither component showed a preference for any particular ecosystem type, rath er the overall preference was focused on vegetation density. Overall, all rider groups shar ed the same preferences for open habitats. Those who operated ATVs and OHMs shared similar preference for dense habitats, while those who operated FWD vehicles held a slightly lower preference (mean = 3.30) Those who operated FWD vehicles were also more likely to place a higher preference on sandy soils compared to other rider groups who placed higher preferences on compact soils, pa rticularly for those operating OHMs (mean = 4.59). The ability to see water at least some of the time was the mo st preferred scenic attribute for all three groups in comparison to the desi re to not see water at all (Table 3-5). Areas where ATV riders had th e highest preference for resources tended to occur around the western and eastern boundaries of the forest (Figure 3-1), a nd made up 6.57% of the total

PAGE 49

49 suitable area. These areas are mostly composed of compact soils, and tend to be where water could be seen at least some of the time. Vegetation is more likely to be dense, being composed mostly of hardwoods and are within close prox imity to wetlands. Areas of medium preference are found in close proximity to highly preferre d areas and make up 36.75% of the suitable area. Lastly, areas of the lowest preference made up the majority of the suitable area (56.59%) and are located throughout the central portio ns of the forest where soils tend to be dry and sand and water is less likely to be visi ble. Vegetation is mixed between open and dense habitats, but is mostly composed of pine scrub habitat (Table 3-6). Similar to ATV riders, OHM riders have the highest preference for resources that occur on the eastern border and some high preference ar eas on the western border composing 9.15% of the total suitable area (Figure 3-2). Likewise, areas of medium prefer ence occur in close proximity to high preference areas and account for 30.83% of the area. Low preference areas account for 60.01% of the total area, and are mo stly located within th e central region of the forest (Table 36). Four-wheel drive operators have more high pr eference areas in comparison to the other rider groups (31.69%), and can be found in the northeast southeast, and southwestern areas of the forest (Table 3-6). These areas tend to occur in close proximity to water, on drier soils, and in dense vegetation. Medium preference areas are also more scattered about, but can be found mostly within the south central region of the fo rest. These areas are also more likely to be composed of drier soils and within more open ha bitats. The ability to se e water is also more limited. Similar to the other rider groups, areas of low preference are mostly located within the central region of the forest (Figure 3-3).

PAGE 50

50 Mapping Potential Conflict Each of the resource variables were paired with an appropriate GIS layer. First, the vegetation variables were paired with a forest de nsity layer. Within the forest density layer each cell contained a percentage va lue between 0-100%, representing the amount of tree canopy cover modeled within each cell. The Forest Service So uthern Research Station, National Park Service and other state and federal agencies use the Na tional Vegetation Classifi cation System (NVCS) when conducting land cover/land class classifica tions. Under NVCS, areas containing 60% or more canopy cover are noted as areas domin ated by vegetation. Areas containing 25%-60% canopy cover are defined as more open areas wh ere crown canopy is not touching. Therefore, areas of dense forest were clas sified as having 60% closed canopy cover within each cell (Nature Conservancy, 1994; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1997). Soils were paired with a soils layer and we re reclassified into compact and sandy soils according to soil drainage. Soil drainage is closel y correlated with soil texture, allowing for the assessment of potential soil compact ion. Soils with larger pore space, generally sandy soils, are well drained whereas soils containing smaller pore spaces, generally clay so ils containing at least 20% clay or more, are much more compact (Whiting et al., 2006). Soils that were classified as excessively well to moderately we ll drained were considered to be sandy soils. Soils that were classified as somewhat poorly drai ned to very poorly drained were classified as compact soils. Lastly, a water surface layer was paired with the variable relati ng to the ability to see water. First, a view-shed analysis was performed to iden tify where water could be seen all of the time, and where water could not be seen at all. Assessi ng the ability to see water at least some of the time was a three step process. Initially, a straig ht line distance analysis from all surface water was conducted. Then, zonal statistics were conduct ed using the view-shed analysis as an input layer, and the straight line distance analysis as the value raster. Zonal statistics produce an output

PAGE 51

51 table that computes central tendency values for each defined zone within the specified layer based on values within the input layer (ESRI, 20 02). Results indicated th at the mean distance within areas that water could be seen at le ast some of the time was 969.69 meters. Therefore it could be concluded that in areas 0-969 meters away from water, a rider would be more likely to see water than areas 970 .0 meters or further away. As a re sult, areas within 969 meters were defined as areas where water could be seen so me of the time, and all other distance were reclassified as areas where water could not be seen. Since the results of potentia l conflict related to toleran ce among the three rider groups revealed that individuals opera ting FWD vehicles were more likely to experience conflict as a result of low tolerance compared to those operating OHMs and ATVs, conflict was noted to occur when those operating FWD vehicles and at least one other rider group shared the highest preference for an area. An area was given prefer ence to a rider group when they were the only group to have the highest preference for the area. Conflict as a result of low tolerance could potentially occur between FWD operators and ot her rider groups on approximately 39% of the forest (Figure 3-4), however the majority (36.94%) of that potential would occur in areas of low preference. Conflict between FWDs and ATVs are also likely to occur in just over 9% (9.47%) of the area, 4.07% of which both groups share high resource preferences (Table 3-7). Not all areas showed the potential for conflic t to occur (Figure 3-5) For those who operated FWD vehicles, just over 25% (25.03%) of hi gh preference areas show ed less potential for conflict since these are areas th at FWD operators preferred mo re than any other rider group. Similar to the FWD recreation terrain preference maps, these areas occur in the northeast, southeast, and southwestern por tions of the area. Likewise, 17.67% of areas given medium preference by FWD operators are also less likely to experience conflict si nce these are areas of

PAGE 52

52 low preference for other rider gr oups (Table 3-7). Medium prefer ence areas tend to mostly occur in the south central region of the forest, with a few scattered areas in the north central region. In addition, OHM operators had some areas wher e conflict potential was less likely since this group help higher preferences for resources than other rider groups within these areas. These areas tended to be more spread out along the easte rn and western borders of the forest accounting for 6.56% of the areas (Table 3-7), and tended to occur in the northeast, southeast, and west central portions of the forest. Areas where me dium preference was given was most likely to exist within the southeastern portion of the forest, and accounted for 1.51% of the area. Discussion The social data collected allowed for the identification of potential conflict as a result of tolerance, and the spatial analysis provided furt her insight as to where this conflict related to tolerance is most likely to occur based on shar ed resource preferences. Survey results were reflective of similar conflict studies and further supports that conflict tends to be asymmetrical. Significant differences in the degree of toleran ce occurred between all rider groups. As stated previously, the statistically si gnificant differences between ATVs and OHMs hold little practical value for managers. A review of the mean scores indicates that those operating ATVs strongly disagree while those operating OHMs disagree. Therefore, it co uld be concluded that while some differences exist, over all tolerance levels between ATVs and OHMs are fairly high. However, managers should continue to monitor for conflict between these rider groups in order to evaluate changing or evolving pe rceptions of conf lict over time. Four-wheel drive operators tolerance to ward out-group members was significant and comparatively low to ATV and OHM rider groups, suggesting that those who operate four-wheel drive vehicles perceive themselves differen tly and find it undesirable to encounter those operating ATV and OHMs. The differences in to lerance levels between FWD operators and

PAGE 53

53 other rider groups may also result in an inabil ity to share resources (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Implications and solutions for this are discus sed further under management implications. According to the theory of goal interference, tolerance for lifestyle diversity is generally affected by an individuals view of technology an d resource consumption as well as prejudice (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Prev ious research on OHV visitors and comments from members of the OHV community has shown that ATV and OH M riders typically desire trail riding opportunities (Wernex, 1994; Crimmins and NOHV CC, 2006) while FWD operators tend to desire more technical challenges for their vehicle (Kawaja, 2 006; Neal, 1999). As a result the way in which the various groups of OHVs ma nipulate the environment may be viewed differently by those who operate FWD vehicles thereby contributing to different levels of tolerance toward other riding groups. Prejudice and stereotypical views can be influenced by ethnicity, gender, age, and social class (J acob and Schreyer, 1980). A review of sociodemographics between rider group s shows that individuals operat ing FWD vehicles tended to be younger and were a more even mix of males and females compared to other rider groups suggesting that the differences in tolerance may be a function of age and/or gender. Management Recommendations For this study, analysis focused on planni ng efforts. This has several benefits and implications for managers. By understandi ng and acknowledging that OHV rider groups, particularly those operating FWD ve hicles, perceive themselves as different from one and other, managers can plan accordingly to help minimize conflict that may later result in unsafe trail conditions due to unacceptable be havior (Dolesh, 2004). As menti oned earlier, many studies that have taken a more direct approach at examining conflict rela ted to tolerance, and they have found tolerance to exist between activity groups and have suggested spatial separation. This recommendation is also suggested here; however, not all riders will ha ve the desire to be

PAGE 54

54 separated from other rider groups. Although conflic t exists, conflict itse lf is never rampant (Graefe and Thapa, 2004). Rather, it tends to aff ect a small percentage of the population and the majority of visitors are gene rally satisfied (Manning, 1999). Ther efore, a greater majority of users may be managed within a multiple use sett ing, and it is suggested that managers also provide for single use trails in order to provide opportunities for those wh o are more likely to experience conflict. The results from the spatial analysis can aid managers in the decision making process of how to best achieve the single and multiple use separation between activity groups while still providing opportunities with in areas riders ma y find desirable. Looking at the potential conflict map, areas note d as potential conflict may be better suited for multiple use areas since these are areas that all riders groups prefer. Areas that had lead preference for a specific rider group may be best suited for single use areas. Given that the recreation terrain preference models assumed that riders would chose areas that best suit his or her needs, then opportunities could be planned in areas of high preference. However, the majority of areas that were a ll in potential conflict were ar eas of low pref erences and found within the central region of th e forest while areas of higher preference were around the forest boundaries. In addition, areas of high preference for both ATV and OHM riders also tended to occur around the forest outer boundar ies. This proximity to reside ntial and/or commercial areas may pose an additional challenge to manage rs seeking to maximize opportunities within preferred settings that also help minimize conflic t, indicating that what may be desired is not always possible. Both visitors and managers mu st be flexible and willing to compromise if quality opportunities are to be created within the resour ces available (Moore, 1994). Also, OHV recreation is a di spersed activity requiring la rge areas for trail riding opportunities. Creating trails within appropriate riding areas that consider riders physical setting

PAGE 55

55 preferences and allows for dispersed use will he lp minimize conflict as a result of less social contact. Dispersing use may also result in more sustainable trails in the long run, allowing for continued quality recreation opportunities (Cri mmins and NOHVCC, 2006) It is often thought that dispersing use over large area s will create larger and more frequent resource impacts (both ecological and biological). Howeve r, dispersing use so that ride rs are more spread out along a trail system will have neither a positive or nega tive effect on the environment assuming that the number of places through which the trail traverse s is the same as if use were concentrated (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). Results from the spatial analysis can help define specific areas in which a diverse trail system could be created. Referring back to the pot ential conflict map and considering the need to provide diversity, ar eas containing the greate st, continuous mix of opportunities would be the most suitable areas to disperse use over a large area. Lastly, managers can provide education in order promote tolerance between rider groups. Often, visitors are more similar th an they perceive themselves to be, and it has been suggested that promoting an understanding of other activ ity groups motivations, attire, and techniques specific to the activity may help raise tolera nce toward out-groups (Ranthum, 1995). Education may also help promote an awareness of respons ible and sustainable behavior by all recreation activity groups, thereby reduci ng the overall impact to the resource (Manni ng, 1999). Using a combination of spatial separation and education can help create opportunities for those who are more sensitive to experiencing conflict while pr oviding information to users who may help build tolerance between ride r groups over time. Conclusions This study adds to the exis ting body of knowledge in severa l ways. First, it examines perceived differences related to tolerance w ithin the OHV visitor community, a group not yet previously studied within this context. Resu lts indicate that not al l OHV riders perceive

PAGE 56

56 themselves the same, and managers should take that into considerati on when creating riding opportunities. If these differences are ignored, nega tive consequences that affect visitor safety, visitor experiences, and resource protection ma y occur (Moore, 1994). This study also took a new approach at examining the spatial context of conflict related to tolerance in order to help identify where conflict was most likely to occur. The spatial identification of conflict can help managers identify where to concentrate manageme nt efforts to minimize recreation conflict as well as help plan for new recreat ion opportunities that consider ri der group preferen ces as well as rider group differences. Although this study took a planning appr oach, the methods could be adapted to assess conflict potential related to tole rance on existing trail systems. Specifically, this study used a management mask so that only ar eas suitable for riding were evaluated. For an existing trail system, a trails layer would be us ed instead of a mask, thereby containing all evaluations to the trail system.

PAGE 57

57 Table 3-1. Tolerance index items and reliability Tolerance Index a ATV OHM FWD I find it undesirable to meet people on X People on X bother me .87.86.86 a Measured on a 5 point scale 1 = st rongly disagree 3 = neut ral 5 = strongly agree Table 3-2. Socio-demographics ATV (%) OHM (%) FWD (%) TOTAL (%) Gendera Male Female 78.2 21.8 94.1 5.9 64.9 35.1 78.3 21.7 Ageb 18 29 years old 30 39 years old 40 49 years old 50 59 years old 60 years or over 14.9 38.5 32.7 11.5 2.4 17.1 25.7 45.7 11.4 0.0 32.4 21.6 16.2 16.2 13.5 17.5 34.6 32.1 12.1 3.6 Incomec $10,000 $19,999 $20,000 $29,999 $30,000 $39,999 $40,000 $49,999 $50,000 $59,999 $60,000 $69,999 $70,000 $79,999 $80,000 $89,999 $90,000 or more 1.0 5.5 7.0 9.0 10.0 7.5 12.5 11.0 36.5 3.0 9.1 3.0 0.0 3.0 15.2 15.2 6.1 45.4 6.3 6.3 15.6 18.8 6.3 12.5 6.3 3.1 25.1 1.9 6.0 7.5 9.1 8.7 9.1 12.1 9.4 36.2 Educationd > Some high school High school diploma Some college College graduate Some graduate school Graduate degree 6.0 31.0 32.0 20.7 3.0 7.4 8.1 27.0 32.4 24.3 5.4 2.7 5.4 27.0 32.4 24.3 0.0 10.8 6.1 30.0 21.1 21.7 2.9 7.2 Ethnicitye White Hispanic or Latino African American Asian American 94.2 3.9 0.5 1.0 97.1 2.9 0.0 1.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.3 3.3 0.4 0.7 a. X2 = 8.951 p < .01 b. X2 = 26.844 p < .001 c. X2 = 25.877 p = ns d. X2 = 7.708 p = ns e. X2 = 2.884 p = ns

PAGE 58

58 Table 3-3. Tolerance for lifestyle diversity between OHV rider groups Tolerance Measures ATV OHM FWD Welch Stat Tolerance between ATV and OHM 1.621.96---5.07a Tolerance between ATV and FWD 1.66---3.2473.75b Tolerance between OHM and FWD ---2.083.3426.61b ap < .05 b p < .01 Table 3-4. Principal component analysis results for vegetation preferences Variable Component 1 Component 2 Dominated by pine trees and wire grass .837 Dominated by hardwoods and shrubs .913 Dominated by a mix of pine trees and hardwoods .900 Scrub .418 A mix of pine trees and open spaces .860 A mix of hardwood trees and open spaces .835 A mix of pine trees and hardwoods and open spaces .796 Open with no presence of vegetation .575 Percent of variance explained 36.1%32.7% Cronbach Alpha .82.73 Table 3-5 OHV riders resource preferences Variable ATV OHM FWD Vegetation Open Habitats 3.633.793.64 Dense Habitats 3.703.623.30 Soils Compact Soils 4.004.593.11 Dry/Sandy Soils 3.342.893.62 Scenic Attributes Where water can not be seen 2.372.512.75 Where water can be seen some of the time 3.953.813.76 Where water can be seen all of the time 3.513.383.19

PAGE 59

59 Figure 3-1. ATV recreation terrain preference model

PAGE 60

60 Figure 3-2. OHM recreation terrain preference model

PAGE 61

61 Figure 3-3. FWD recreation terrain preference model

PAGE 62

62 Table 3-6. Composition of pref erred areas for OHV riders Rider Group Composition of Preferred Areas (%) High Medium Low ATV 6.57 36.7556.59 OHM 9.15 30.8360.01 FWD 31.69 29.3838.92 Table 3-7. Composition of potential conf lict areas and lead preference areas Potential Conflict Pixel Count Percentage of Area (%) All in potential conflict all low preference 1,374,94536.94 All in potential conflict, all medium preference 7,8580.21 All in potential conflict, all high preference 96,1912.58 Potential conflict between ATV and FWDs, medium preference 201,1505.40 Potential conflict between ATV and FWDs, high preference 151,6064.07 OHM riders have lead preference (medium preference) 56,2881.51 OHM riders have lead preference (high preference) 244,6256.56 FWD riders have lead preference Medium over low 657,75317.67 FWD riders have lead preference High over Medium 932,01525.03

PAGE 63

63 Figure 3-4. Potential conflict map

PAGE 64

64 Figure 3-5. Areas of lead pr eference for rider groups

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS The prevalence and continued growth of offhighway vehicle recreation on Americas public lands is presenting new challenges for recrea tion managers. Currently, managers within the USFS have been tasked to develop OHV trail syst ems and riding areas that provide for quality visitor experiences, ensure vis itor safety, and protect natural resources. Although this should be an inherent aspect of any out door recreation managers job, many have been struggling with how to best meet this task. Until recently, little in formation had been empirically documented about who OHV riders were, what they wanted out of a recreation experience, and if differences between OHV rider groups needed to be consid ered when creating riding opportunities. This basic information is necessary if qual ity opportunities are to be created. The overall goal of this study was to examin e perceived differences between ATV, OHM, and FWD riders. Specifically, the studies first obj ective was to examine potential conflict and the degree of tolerance within and between OHV ride r groups. The results indi cate that conflict and tolerance does exist toward bot h in-groups and out-groups howeve r, out-group conflict is more prevalent than in-group conflict. In addition, the degree of toleran ce tends to be higher toward ingroup members than toward out-group members. Both of these results lend further support to the theory of goal interference, and provide an initial examination of possible perceived differences between OHV rider groups. This study also lends further support to th e understanding that conflict tends to be asymmetrical, with those operating FWD vehicle repo rting a greater chance at experiencing conflict and having a lower degree of tolerance toward ATV and OHM operators. However, asymmetri cal conflict can become symmet rical overtime and managers should be aware of conflic t potential between groups.

PAGE 66

66 When examining tolerance within a spatial contex t, the results showed that the potential for conflict could occur over large area s of the forest, however this know ledge could be beneficial to managers when creating riding opportunities. Inco rporating GIS into a pl anning process allows for a visual understanding of not onl y where potential conflict as a re sult of low tolerance is most likely to occur, but also allows for the identifica tion of areas that riders prefer based on physical landscape characteristics. Taking these preferen ces into consideration in conjunction with perceived differences between rider groups can help form on the ground solutions to minimizing conflict and promoting quality vis itor experiences. This process can also help managers make the best use of available resources to help mini mize recreation impacts by identifying areas of adequate size, areas that are environmentally more resistant to impact, and areas that offer the most diversity based on rider pref erences. As a result, managers are more likely to be successful at meeting the travel management rules objectiv es of providing for visitor safety, providing for quality visitor experiences, and ensuring resource protection. Lastly, OHV recreation may offer a unique challenge for managers regarding conflict, in that for most areas this will be the first era of OHV management. Until now those operating ATVs, OHMs and FWD vehicles were able to ride cros s-country, and as a resu lt, the chances of an encounter with another vehicle we re reduced. Placing riders within a trail system may increase encounters with other users which may increase th e likelihood of a negativ e encounter with outgroup members. As a result, these increased enco unters may lead to goal interference and/or the development of stereotypes about out-group memb ers. Offering diverse oppor tunities, dispersing those riding opportunities over large areas, and careful monitoring wi ll be a necessary part of successful OHV management.

PAGE 67

67 APPENDIX A ON-SITE SURVEY Surveyor Name:__________ Date: _____ ______ Access Point: ___________ OHV: ______ 1. Is this your first time riding in Ocala NF? [] Yes question 3 [] No question 2 2. How many times Have you operated an OHV w ithin Ocala NF within the past year? [] one other time [] 814 [] 21-30 [] 41-50 [] 2-7 [] 15 20 [] 31-40 [] 5o times or more ( # of times) 3. Have you ridden or plan to ride in ot her areas of the forest on this trip? [] Yes: (Where) ____________________ [] No 4. How long did you spend riding on this trip? [] Less then an hour [] A few hours [] half day [] whole day [] overnight (#: ___) 5. If riding more then a da y, where did you camp overnight? [] Campground within the forest [] Friend or families home nearby [] Private campground outside th e forest [] Other: ____________________ 6. When riding in Ocala, do you primarily ride on: [] designated marked trail [] mixe d-use roads [] open scramble ares 7a. Including yourself, how ma ny people are you traveling wi th on this trip? #: _____________ 7b. Of the people you are trav eling with, how many are: Male over 16 yrs. old: ________ Females over 16 yrs. old: ______ Males under 16 years old: _____ Females under 16 years old: ____ 8. What type of group are you traveling with? [] Family [] Family & Fr iends [] Organized Group: ______________ [] Friends [] Alone [] Other: ________________________ 9. How would you rate your trip t oday on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being a perfect experience? ___ 10. Did you participate in any other recr eation activities during this trip? [] Yes: ______________________________________ [] No 11. What year were you born? 19_____ 12. Ethnicity (indicate dont ask): _____________ Mail Back Questionnaire #: ______ Name: _______________________________ City: _________________ St. ________ Address: _______________________________________ Zip Code: _____________________

PAGE 68

68 APPENDIX B MAIL BACK QUESTIONAIRRE Off-Highway Vehicle Visitor Recreati on Study: Ocala National Forest For purposes of this survey off-highway vehicles ar e defined as all ATVs, all off-road motorcycles, 4x4s (licensed vehicles), unlicensed vehicles, sand rails, and utility vehicles. Section 1: Off-highway vehicle riding experience and preferences 1. Please indicate the type of off-highway vehicle you were riding during your trip to Ocala National Forest when given this survey: [] ATV [] 4x4 (licensed vehicle) [] Off-Highway Motorcycle [] Other: ___________ 2. Other than this vehicle, do you operate other types of off-highway vehicles? [] Yes If yes, what other types of off-road vehicles do you ride? [] ATV [] Off-road motorcycle [] 4x4 [] Other: _______________________ [] No 3. About how many times have you operated each of the following off-highway vehicles for recreational purposes during the past twelve months within Ocala National Forest? Vehicle Type Number of Times Driven Off-Highway Motorcycle ATV 4x4/Jeep Other: _________________ 4. How many times have you operated each of the following off-highway vehicles for recreational purposes during that past twelve months outside of Ocala National Forest? 5. How many years have you participated in off-hig hway vehicle riding? ______ years _____ months 6. How would you rate your OHV skill level? Vehicle Type Number of Times Driven Off-Highway Motorcycle ATV 4x4/Jeep Other: _______________

PAGE 69

69 1 2 3 4 5 Beginner Novice Intermediate Advanced Expert 7. Are you a member of an OHV club or organization? [] Yes If yes, what club(s) or organization(s) are you a member of? _______________________ [] No 8. Do you subscribe to any OHV magazi nes or electronic newsletters? [] Yes If yes, what magazine(s) or electronic news letter(s) do you receive? [] No ______________________________________________________ 9. Have you completed a safety program on OHV operation? [] Yes If yes, what program(s) did you complete? _____________________________________________________ Date(s): _____________ [] No 10. People go to particular areas and participate in r ecreation activities for any number of reasons. Listed below are some possible reasons you might have had for recreating in the forest during your most recent OHV trip. Please indicate in column A how important each experience was for you during your visit. In column B, indicate how much you were able to attain this experience during your visit. (A) Importance (B) Attainment Experiences Not at all important Not very important Neither Very Important Most Important Did not Attain Somewhat Attained Moderately Attained Totally Attained Learn about history and culture of the area 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Promote physical fitness 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Reduce tensions and stress from everyday life 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Escape noise/crowds 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Learn about the natural environment of the area 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Be with friends and family 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Feel a sense of independence 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Take risks 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Engage in personal/spiritual reflection 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Explore the area and natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Challenge myself and achieve pe rsonal goals 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Depend on my skills and abilities 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Enjoy nature 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Strengthen family kinship 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Be in an area where I feel secure and safe 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 Meet new people 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

PAGE 70

70 11. Please indicate the degree to which you like or di slike the following environmental characteristics when operating your OHV. Environmental Conditions Strongly Dislike Dislike Neutral Like Strongly Like Compact soils 1 2 3 4 5 Dry sandy soils (i.e. sugar sand) 1 2 3 4 5 Dominated by pine trees and wire grass 1 2 3 4 5 Dominated by hardwoods and shrubs 1 2 3 4 5 Dominated by a mix of pine trees and hardwoods 1 2 3 4 5 A mix of pine trees and open spaces 1 2 3 4 5 A mix of hardwood trees and open spaces 1 2 3 4 5 A mix of pine trees and hardwoods and open spaces 1 2 3 4 5 Open with no presence of vegetation 1 2 3 4 5 Scrub 1 2 3 4 5 Where I can see water all of the time 1 2 3 4 5 Where I can see water some of the time 1 2 3 4 5 Where I can not see water at all 1 2 3 4 5 12. Which of the following social encounters would you mo st prefer during your riding experience within Ocala National Forest? [] I would prefer to have very little contact with pe ople outside my travel group (fewer then 6 people). [] I would prefer to have little contact with pe ople outside my travel group (6-15 groups per day) [] I would prefer to have moderate contact with other people outside my travel group (30+ groups per day). [] I would prefer to have constant contact with ot her people (large numbers of users on-site and in nearby areas). 13. Which of the following trail opportunities would you most prefer while operating your OHV? [] I would most prefer to ride on designated, marked trails [] I would most prefer to ride on mixed use roads [] I would most prefer to ride in scramble areas 14. When riding on trails, which of the following types of trails do you most prefer? [] I prefer to ride on tight technical trails [] I prefer to ride on wide meandering trails 15. When riding on trails, what type of trails do you most prefer? [] I prefer riding on loop trails [] I prefer riding on linear trails [] A series of connecting linear trails 16. How long would you prefer an OHV trail to be? _______ miles

PAGE 71

71 17. Please indicate how important you feel that each of the following amenities are at day-use trailheads. Statement Not at all Important Not very Important Neither Very Important Most Important Restrooms 1 2 3 4 5 Picnic Tables 1 2 3 4 5 Pavilion/Shaded areas 1 2 3 4 5 Water Fountains 1 2 3 4 5 18. When camping with your OHV do you prefer to stay in: [] Primitive (tent camping only) campsites [] Developed campsites 19. When camping with your OHV, which of the following would you most prefer? [] Camping in a site for smaller groups (4 or fewer) [] Camping at a site for medium size groups (5-10 people) [] Camping at a large group site (11-20) people 20. When camping with your OHV, which of the fo llowing accommodations would you most prefer? [] A camp site with restrooms only [] A camp site with restrooms and showers [] A camp site with electrical hook-ups 21. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Statement Strongly Disagree DisagreeNeutral Agree Strongly Agree People on ATVs bother me 1 2 3 4 5 People on off-road motorcycles bother me 1 2 3 4 5 People in 4x4s bother me 1 2 3 4 5 I find it undesirable to meet people on ATVs 1 2 3 4 5 I find it undesirable to meet people on off-road motorcycles 1 2 3 4 5 I find it undesirable to meet people in 4x4s 1 2 3 4 5 Parts of the forest should be open to ATVs only 1 2 3 4 5 Parts of the forest should be open to motorcycles only 1 2 3 4 5 Parts of the forest should be open to 4x4s only 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 72

72 22. Please rate the extent to which each of the followi ng reduced or increased your riding enjoyment in Ocala. Statement Greatly Reduced Enjoyment Reduced Enjoyment Neither Reduced/ Increased My Enjoyment Increased My Enjoyment Greatly Increased My Enjoyment Seeing people on ATVs 1 2 3 4 5 Seeing people on motorcycles 1 2 3 4 5 Seeing people in 4x4s 1 2 3 4 5 Encountering people on ATVs 1 2 3 4 5 Encountering people on motorcycles 1 2 3 4 5 Encountering people in 4x4s 1 2 3 4 5 23. Please rate the extent to which you view the following as a problem in Ocala National Forest. Statement Not at all a problem Somewhat of a Problem Neutral Serious Problem Very Serious Problem People on ATVs are to destructive 1 2 3 4 5 People on ATVs ride unsafely 1 2 3 4 5 People on ATVs behave in a di scourteous manner 1 2 3 4 5 People on ATVs pass unsafely 1 2 3 4 5 People on ATVs cut others off 1 2 3 4 5 People on ATVs are out of control 1 2 3 4 5 People on ATVs ride to fast 1 2 3 4 5 People on motorcycles are to destructive 1 2 3 4 5 People on motorcycles ride unsafely 1 2 3 4 5 People on motorcycles behave in a discourteous manner 1 2 3 4 5 People on motorcycles pass unsafely 1 2 3 4 5 People on motorcycles cut others off 1 2 3 4 5 People on motorcycles are out of control 1 2 3 4 5 People on motorcycles ride to fast 1 2 3 4 5 People on 4x4s are to destructive 1 2 3 4 5 People on 4x4s ride unsafely 1 2 3 4 5 People on 4x4s behave in a di scourteous manner 1 2 3 4 5 People on 4x4s pass unsafely 1 2 3 4 5 People on 4x4s s cut others off 1 2 3 4 5 People on 4x4s are out of control 1 2 3 4 5 People on 4x4s s ride to fast 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 73

73 24. National Forests throughout the United States are being required to provide for managed OHV trail systems. However, the U.S. Forest Service also faces declining budgets, which forces managers to either find new funding to provide OHV recreation oppor tunities, or to potentially limit and restrict OHV riding on the forests. To ensure OHV users have the ability to ride in national forests, many forests have begun to charge an annual fee in orde r to obtain a reliable funding source devoted to the continual provision of quality OHV recreation. If such a fee were required on the Ocala National Fo rest, would you be willing to pay $X each year for a permit? [] Yes [] No Section 2: Off-Highwa y Vehicle Management 25. The following is a list of potential management actions that could be taken to improve the OHV riding experience within Ocala National Forest. Please indicate the extent to which you would support each item with (1) indicating that you strongly oppos e and (5) indicating that you strongly support the potential action. Potential Management Action Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Provide signs at trailheads and trail junctions indicating trail length 1 2 3 4 5 Provide children riding areas 1 2 3 4 5 Provide an annual fee system 1 2 3 4 5 Provide detailed maps of riding areas 1 2 3 4 5 Provide more ranger patrols 1 2 3 4 5 Improve maintenance of OHV areas and trails 1 2 3 4 5 Take measures to protect/improve the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 Provide more parking space for OHV support vehicles 1 2 3 4 5 Provide primitive camping at appropriate places for OHV riders 1 2 3 4 5 Provide more safety education 1 2 3 4 5 Provide environmental ethic training 1 2 3 4 5 Provide warm up areas 1 2 3 4 5 Provide trail to destination areas 1 2 3 4 5 Other: ___________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 74

74 26. To what extent do you perceive the following cond itions to be a problem in Ocala National Forest? Statement Not at all a problem Somewhat of a Problem Neutral Serious Problem Very Serious Problem Litter 1 2 3 4 5 Overcrowding 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of proper safety equipment worn by other OHV riders 1 2 3 4 5 Environmental degradation within riding areas 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of safety and environmental ethic training 1 2 3 4 5 Not enough rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5 Too many rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5 Poor enforcement of rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of knowledge by riders of rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of riding information 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of marked trails 1 2 3 4 5 Not enough children and family riding areas 1 2 3 4 5 Inadequate trail maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of parking for support vehicles 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of adequate campground sites 1 2 3 4 5 Other: _________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Section 3: Socio-Demographics We would like to ask you a few questions about your self and your background. This information is for statistical purposes only and all informati on will remain strictly confidential. 27. What is your gender? [] Male [] Female 28. What year were you born? 19____ 29. Which of the following best describes your status? [] Married [] Divorced [] Single [] Widowed

PAGE 75

75 30. How many children currently reside in your household? ________ 31. What is the highest level of e ducation you have completed? [] Eighth grade or less [] College Graduate [] Some High School [] Some Graduate School [] High School Graduate or GED [] Graduate Degree or beyond [] Some College 32. Are you presently [] Employed Full Time [] Full Time Student [] Employed Part Time [] Part Time Student [] Retired [] Full Time Homemaker [] Unemployed 33. What race or ethnic group would you place yourself in? [] White [] Hispanic or Latino []African American [] American Indian or Alaskan Native [] Asian American []Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 34. What was your approximate total household income, before taxes this past year? [] Less the $10,000 [] $60,000 to $69,999 [] $10,001 to $19,999 [] $70,000 to $79,999 [] $20,000 to $29,999 [] $80,000 to $89,999 [] $30,000 to $39,999 [] $90,000 to $99,999 [] $40,000 to $49,999 [] $100,000 or More [] $50,000 to $59,999 35. What county do you live in? ____________________ If you have any questions or comments please write them in the space below. Thank you for your help with this study!

PAGE 76

76 APPENDIX C ANALYSIS MASK The development of the suitability mask accounted for biolog ical, ecological, and management considerations each of which is disc ussed in detail below. A nine-point scale is typically used within a suitability analysis, howev er there was a need to stay consistent between management and visitor scale values used within the visitor survey. Theref ore, a five-point scale was chosen where a five represented the most suit able and one represented the least suitable. In most cases, current guidelines for buffered areas existed and therefore ar eas could be ranked as suitable or non-suitable. In these cases a value of five was given to suit able areas, and one was given to unsuitable areas. In cases where specific buffer areas were not already in place (i.e. appropriate soil types) the full scale of values was assigned. Biological Considerations The Endangered Species Act and Forest Se rvice policies direct Forest Service to protect and improve habitat for threatened and en dangered species in corp oration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In doing so, desi gnated buffer distances are required to be implemented and maintained to assist in the spec ies recovery process. Ocala National Forest is home to five threatened or e ndangered wildlife species and two threatened or endangered plant species (USDA Forest Service, 2005).Where spatia l data was available, these guidelines were implemented in the development of appropriate buffer (Table C-1). Scrub-jays ( Aphelocoma coerulescens ) also reside within Ocala National Forest. Currently, there is no information that exists on noise im pacts and scrub jays, and no standard buffer areas are set. In addition, scrub jays live within fire dependent communities, therefore scrub-jay populations will be moving into appropriate hab itats as new areas are burned, making buffer

PAGE 77

77 areas difficult to enforce (USDA Forest Servi ce, 2005). As a result, scrub-jays were not considered within this analysis. Gopher tortoises ( Gopherus polyphemus ) also reside within ONF. The USFWS and USFS guidelines state that a 15.24 meter buffer zone should be implemented when planning for new trails. All efforts were made to obtain informa tion on active burrows within the forest, however no information could be obtained. As a result the final analysis mask does not account for current gopher tortoise populations. The eastern indigo snake ( Drymarchon corais couperi ) and sand skink ( Neoseps reynoldsi ) can also be found within Ocala National Forest In both cases it is no t possible to specify locations of each individual species residing wi thin the forest, or quantify the number of each species that could be impacted and therefore can not be considered within this analysis (USDA Forest Service, 2005). Ecological Considerations Soils OHV recreation results in severe soil degradatio n, specifically as it rela tes to loss of organic matter, soil compaction, and soil erosion. Vehicl e weight, vehicle volume and frequency of vehicles riding in the area, vehicl e tire width and air pressure, in conjunction with soil type (wet or dry) all contribute to soil impacts (Havlick, 2002). Impact s such as soil compaction and loss of organic matter along trails are expected, a nd can not be prevented, only managed (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). Soil erosion in considered to be the most serious recreation impact to soils (Kuss et al., 1990; Hammitt and Cole, 1998), and once it begins it is much harder for managers to control (Kuss et al., 1990). However, the recrea tion activity itself is not considered to be the main cause of erosion. Rather, r ecreation activity is onl y one of several elements that aid to

PAGE 78

78 erosion, and other natural factors such as wind an d rainfall are the continuing driving factors of the erosion process (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). In ge neral, soils that contain high amounts of silt and fine sand, or are more homogenous in compos ition are more susceptible to erosion compared to soils containing high amounts of clay or a mixt ure of various sand classi fications (i.e. course sand, loam, and clay). However, clay soils are still susceptible to erosion when the organic layer has been removed therefore allowing soil particle s to be more easily detached and moved from the surface (Florida DEP, 2007). A widely accepted measure of soil erodibility is the soils computed K-factor, which is a measure a soils susceptibility to erosion by natu ral forces, mainly water (Florida DEP, 2007). Kfactors within Florida an d within Ocala National Forest range from .10 67, with lower values representing lower potential for soil erosion (FDOF, 2005). A pproximately 72% of Ocala National Forest is composed of Astatula-Paola or Astatula soil associatio ns which are defined by low soil fertility and organic topsoil and are extremely dry and well drained (USDA Forest Service, 2005). Soils within these associations te nd to be predominately composed of sand, with a small percentage of silt and clay (Obreza and Collins, 2002). The remaining soils within Ocala are composed of Immokallee-Sellers soil associ ations which are defined as having moderate levels of organic matter, are poorly drained, a nd can be typically found in flatwoods and marsh areas (USDA Forest Service, 2005). Considering Floridas relatively flat topography, erosion impacts as a result of OHV recreation are not thought to be a serious threat to the resour ce (USDA Forest Service, 2005). Suitability of appropriate soils were ranked according to potential for eros ion with k-factors ranging from .10-.20 being the most suitable and k-factors .44-.69 being the least suitable. Although K-factor values are low, and therefore chances for erosion are low, a review of the

PAGE 79

79 literature on recreation impacts also indicates that homogeno us, sandy soils are the most susceptible to soil compaction. Since ONF is pred ominately composed of this loose sandy soil it is still highly vulnerable to impacts. Therefore, the highest suitability rating of four (as opposed to a five), was given to k-Factors.10-.20 and a suitability rating of one was given K-factors .44.69 (Table C-2). Wetlands Wetlands and ephemeral ponds are home to many sensitive species and can be easily affected by motorized recreation. Current OHV monitoring guidelines state that trails should not be within 60.96 meters of lakes, ponds or wetlands (USDA Forest Service, 2005); therefore, a 60.96 meter buffer was applied to these areas. In addition, there are seve ral geologically unique sinkholes within Ocala. According the Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests of Florida (USDA Forest Service, 1999) a 10.67 meter buffer area should be placed around these areas. Management Considerations Appropriate recreation zone The Recreation Opportunity Sp ectrum (ROS) is a recreation management framework that designates a diverse setting of potential recreation opport unities ranging from primitive experiences where the sights and sound of humans are almost non existent to more urbanized experiences where development is present and co nstant contact with ot her visitor groups is likely. It was developed to aid managers in zoning for recreation opportu nities and to reduce conflicts between motorized and non-motorized visitors (Manning, 1999). Each zone is guided by specific guidelines relating to access, other non recreational uses, onsit e management, social interaction, acceptability of vis itor impacts, and acceptable level of regimentation (Clark and

PAGE 80

80 Stankey, 1979) (Table C-3). In doing so, ROS allo ws for the identification of zones appropriate for OHV recreation. Within Ocala National Forest, al most 80% of the forest is classified as roaded natural and just over 7% (7.3%) is clas sified as semi-primitive motorized resulting in nearly 90% of the forest bei ng designated as suitable for motorized recreation opportunities (Table C-4). Suitability ratings were assigne d to each recreation z one found within Ocala according to the areas ability to provide d motorized recreation (Table C-5). Existing facilities and trails Ocala National Forests currently contains a pproximately 250 miles of existing user trails, excluding user made trails and new OHV trails that have been developed since this projects initiation. The Forest Service Trails Manage ment Handbook does not specify appropriate buffer distances for existing trails and facilities when planning for new recreation opportunities. However, the new Travel Management Rule, requires that agency officials consider minimization of conflicts among uses of FS lands. In designating trails an d areas, local agency officials must consider compatib ility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors. In addition to the language in the new rule, existing literature on conflict between motorized and non-motorized activities furthe r supports the need to reduce contact between these activity groups to reduce conflict potential. Considering that approxima tely 87% of ONF is designated as appropriate for motorized recreat ion, and therefore sound and visu al contact with other user groups is acceptable but not necessarily comm on, a 402.34 meter (one-quarter mile) buffer was placed around existing trails (Harris on, 1975; USDA Forest Service, 1992). Existing facilities may be utilized as destin ation areas by OHV operators either for camping or to pursue other recreation oppor tunities (USDA Forest Servi ce, 2006), therefore, a 200 foot

PAGE 81

81 buffer was assigned to all existi ng facilities. A two hundred foot buffer was chosen because its far enough away from a facility to not create ad dition impact but close enough that riders could walk to the facility assuming that appropriate parking is provided. Cultural resources The protection of cultural reso urces should also be considered within the planning process, however, these resources may also be utilized to develop recreation oppo rtunities. According the Land and Resource Management Plan for National Fo rests in Florida, Cultural resources when ground-disturbing activities are planned within 60 .96 meters outside of site boundaries, clearly mark site boundaries so site can be seen and avoided (USDA Forest Service, 1999 pp. 3-6). Considering that OHV recreati on is a ground disturbing activit y, a 60.96 meter buffer zone was applied to all known historical and cultural site s within the forest. The buffer zone is large enough to protect resources but short enough to allo w interpretation of resources that may be of interest. The results of the analysis shows that the majo rity of the study area is of high suitability for OHV recreation planning (Figure C-2). Only area s rated high suitability were used as a management mask in the overall analysis.

PAGE 82

82 Table C-1. Buffer zones for biological considerations Species Buffer (m) Suitability Ranking Threatened Plant Species 60.96 Within Buffer: 1 Outside Buffer: 5 Endangered Plant Species 152.40 Within Buffer: 1 Outside Buffer: 5 Red cockaded Woodpecker 60.96 Within Buffer: 1 Outside Buffer: 5 Table C-2. Soils hydrologi cal group and K-factor Hydrologic Grouping K-Factor Suitability Rating A .10-.20 4 B .21-.24 3 C .25-.43 2 D .44-.69 1

PAGE 83

83 Table C-3. Recreation opportunity spectrum zone descriptions Opportunity Class Physical, So cial, and Managerial Setting Primitive (P): Area is characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Concentration of users is fairly low and evidence of other area users is minimal. The area is managed to essentially be free from evidence of human induced restrictions and controls. Only essential facilities are used and are constructed of on-site materials. No facilities for comfort or convenience of the users are provided. Spacing groups is informal and dispersed to minimize contacts with other groups or individuals. Motorized use within the area is not permitted. Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized (SPNM): Area is characterized by a predominately unmodified natural environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other area users. The ar ea is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restric tions may be present, but are subtle. Facilities are primarily provided for the protection of resource values and safety of users. On-site materials are used where possible. Spacing of groups may be formalized to disperse use and provide low-to-moderate contacts with other groups or indivi duals. Motorized use is not permitted. Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM): Area is characterized by a predominately unmodified natural environment to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other area users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but is subtle. Facilities are primarily provided for protection of resource values and safety of users. On-site materials are used when possible. Spacing of groups may be formalized to disperse use and provide low to moderate contacts with other groups or individuals. Motorized use is permitted. Roaded Natural (RN): Area is characterized by predominat ely naturally-appearing environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of humans. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and ut ilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environmen t. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design of facilities. Rural (R): Area is characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerab le number of facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided for special activities. Moderate densities are provi ded far away from developed sites. Facilities intensified motorized use and parking are available. Urban (U): Area is characterized by a substantia lly urbanized environment, although the background may have natural app earing elements. Renewable resource modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and manicured. Sights and sounds of humans, on-site are predomin ate. Large numbers of users can be expected, both on-site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor use are available, with forms of mass transit often available to carry people throughout the site. Source: USDA Forest Service, 1982. ROS Users Guide.

PAGE 84

84 Table C-4. Composition of ROS zones found within Ocala National Forest ROS Zone Pixel Count Percentage of suitable area (%) Primitive 1,064,144,0966.26 Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized 569,849,8173.35 Semi-Primitive, Motorized 1,242,760,6097.32 Roaded Natural 13,504,774,43779.51 Rural 62,807,6390.369 No Zone Assigned 289,506,4661.70 Bombing Range 251,803,3691.48 Table C-5. Suitability classification of ROS zones ROS Zone Suitability Primitive Not Appropriate Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized Not Appropriate Semi-Primitive, Motorized Appropriate Zone Roaded Natural Appropriate Zone Table C-6. Buffers assigned to management considerations Management Consideration Bu ffer (m)Suitability Rating Appropriate ROS Zone 0 Non Appropriate Zones: 1 Appropriate Zones: 5 Existing trails 402.34 Within Buffer: 1 Outside Buffer: 5 Existing Recreation Facilities 60.96 Within Buffer: 1 Outside Buffer: 5 Cultural and historical resources 60.96 Within buffer: 1 Outside Buffer: 5

PAGE 85

85 Figure C-1. Suitability for OHV areas

PAGE 86

86 LIST OF REFERENCES Algina, J., Olejnik, S., and Ocanto, R. (1989) Type I error and power estimations for selected two-sample tests of scale. Journal of Educational Statistics, 14, 373-384. Blahna, D., Smith, K., and Anderson., J. (1995) Backcountry llama packing: Visitor perceptions of acceptability and conflict. Leisure Sciences, 17 185-204. Borrie, William T.; Birzell, Robert M. (2001) Approaches to measur ing quality of the wilderness experience. In Proceedings: Visitor Use Density (RMRS-P-20). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service. Bosworth, D. (2004). Four threat s to the national forests and gr asslands. Idaho environmental forum, Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service. Brown, G. (2005). Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 17-39. Campbell, S. (2006). Ten trends companies be lieve are hot and growing hotter. HSPN global news. Retrieved online from http ://news.hspn.com/artic les/440/1/10-TrendsCompanies-Believe-Are-H ot-And-Growing-Hotter/Page1.html on July 24, 2007. Carothers, P., Vaske, J.J., and Donnelly, M.P. (2 001). Social values vs. interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 23 47-61. Carr, M.H. and Zwick, P. (2005). Using GIS suitab ility analysis to identify potential future land use conflicts in North Central Florida. Journal of Conservation Planning, 1, 89-105. Carr, M.H. and Zwick, P. (2007). Smart land-use analysis: The LUCIS model Redlands, CA. Clark R.N. and Stankey G.H. (1979). The recreation opportunity sp ectrum: A framework for planning, management, and research (Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-98). USDA. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Research Station. Confer, J.J., Thapa, B., and Mendelsohn, J.L. (2005). Exploring a typol ogy of recreation conflict in outdoor recreation. World Leisure 1, 12-23. Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J., Green, G., and Owens M. (2005). Off-highway vehicle recreation in the Untied States, regions and states: A national report from the national survey on recreation and the environmen t (NSRE). USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Cressford, G. (2002). Perception a nd reality of conflict: Walkers and mountain bikes on Queen Charlotte track in New Zealand. In P roceedings of the Moni toring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recrea tional and Protected Areas (pp. 102-108). Vienna, Austria: Bodenkultur University.

PAGE 87

87 Crimmins, T.M and the National Off-Highw ay Vehicle Conservation Council (2006). Management guidelines for OHV recreation. Great Falls, MT. Daniels, S.E. and Krannich, R.S. (1990). The recreational opportunity spectrum as a conflict management tool. In Vining, J.(Ed). Social Science and Natural Resource Management (pp. 165-179). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Dawson, C.; Newman, P.; Watson, A.. (1998). Cognitive dimensions of recreational user experiences in wilderness: an explorat ory study in Adirondack Wilderness areas. In Proceedings of the 1997 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-241, pp. 257-260). Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2005). 36 CFR part 212, 251, 261, and 295 travel management; designated routes and ar eas for motor vehicle use: Final rule. Retrieved January 30, 2006 online from http://www.fs.fed.us/recreat ion/programs/ohv/final.pdf. Devall, B. and Harry, J. (1981). Who hates w hom in the great outdoors: The impact of recreational specialization and technologies of play. Leisure Sciences, 4, 399-418. de Vries, S. and Goossen, M. (2002). Modeling recr eational visits to forest s and nature areas. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1, 5-14. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method New York: J. Wiley. Dolesh, R.J. (2004). Tough terrain: The Conf licts associated with multiple-use trails. Parks and Recreation, 39 56-63. Elmendorf, W.F. (2007). ATVs and Snowmobile s: Comparisons from a Survey of 6,000 Pennsylvania Owners. Abstract Proceedings for the 13th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management: Landscape Continuity and Change Social Science Perspectives and Interdis ciplinary Contributions. Park City, UT. Environmental Systems Research Institute. (2002). Using spatial analyst. Redlands, CA. Executive Order 11644 (1972). Use of off-road vehicles on the public lands. Executive Order 11989 (1977). Off-road vehicles on public lands. Falbo, D., Queen, L. and Blinn, C. (1991) Introdu ction to data analysis using a geographic information system. Minnesota Extens ion Service Publication, NR-FO-5740-E. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vege tation Subcommittee (1997). Vegetation classification standard. Retr ieved on April 30, 2006 from http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-s tandards-projects/vege tation/index_html.

PAGE 88

88 Florida Department of Envi ronmental Protection. (2007). The Florida stormwater, erosion, and sedimentation control inspectors manual Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Forestry (2005). Silvicu lture best management practices: Appendix 2 soils. Retrieved on April 25, 2006 from http://www.fl-dof.com/forest_management/bmp/page_58.html. Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources (1990). Guide to the natural communities of Florida. Tallahassee, FL. Floyd, M.F., Jang, H., and Noe F.P. (1997). The re lationship between environmental concern and acceptability of environmental impacts among two national parks. Journal of Environmental Management 51, 391-412. Fly, J.M., Stephens, B., Askins, L., and Hodge s, D. (2002). Tennessee OHV user survey. Human Dimensions Lab; Divisi on of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common in-group identity model: Recategoriza tion and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4 1. Gajda, A. Brown, J., Peregoodoff, G., and BAr tier, P. (2000). Managing coastal recreation impacts and visitor experience using GIS. In Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (GTR-NE-326, pp. 115-123). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Gibbons, S. and Ruddell, J.E. (1995). The effect of goal orientation and place dependence on select goal interferences am ong winter backcountry users. Leisure Sciences 17, 171181. Gimblett, H.R. and Guisse, A.W. (1997). Assessi ng and mapping conflicting recreation values in state park settings using neural networks. AI Applications, 11 79-89. Graefe, A.R. and Thapa, B. (2004). Conflict in na tural resource recreation. In (eds). Manfredo, M.J., Vaske, J.J., Bruyere, B. L., Field, D.R., and Brown, P.J. Society and Natural Resources A Summary of Knowledge (pp.209-224). University Park, PA. Hammitt, W.E. and Cole, D.N. (1998). Wildland recreation: ecol ogy and management second edition New York, NY. Hammitt, W.E. and Schneider, I.E. (2000). Recreati on conflict management. In (Eds.) Gartner, W.C. and Lime, D.W. Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism (pp. 347-356). CAB International Publishing. Harrison, R. T. (1975). Impact of off-road vehicle noise on a national forest. San Dimas, California: USDA, Forest Servi ce Equipment Development Center.

PAGE 89

89 Havlick, D. (2002). No place distant: Roads and motorize d recreation on Americas public lands Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Ingles, C., Leung, Y., Monz, C., Bauman, H. ( 2003). Monitoring visitor impacts in coastal national parks: A review of techniques. In Proceedings of the George Wright Society and National Park Service Joint Conference (pp. 228-233) Hancock, Michigan: The George Wright Society. Ivy, M.I., Stewart, W.P., and Lue, C. (1992). Ex ploring the role of to lerance in recreation conflict. Journal of Leisure Research 24, 348-360. Jackson, J.B. 1957. The abstract world of the hot-rodder, Landscape 7, 22-27. Jacob, G.R. (1977). Conflict in outdoor recreation the search for understanding. Utah Tourism and Recreation Review, 6, 1-5. Jacob, G.R. and Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflic ts in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12, 368-380. Jacobi, C., Manning, R., Valliere, W., and Negra, C. (1996). Visitor Use and Conflict on the Carriage Roads of Arcadia National Park. In Proceeding of the 1995 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, (Gen. Tech. Rep. NE218, 228-233). USDA Forest Service. Kawaja, J. (2006). Comments of the route desi gnation in the sand pine scrub ecosystem. Retrieved on January 2, 2007 from http: //www.fl4wda.com/pdf/phase2_comments.pdf. Kliskey, A.D. (2000). Recreation terrain su itability mapping: A spatially explicitly methodology for determining recreation pot ential for resource use assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52, 33-43. Kuss, F. R., Graefe, A.R. and Vaske, J.J. (1990). Visitor impact manageme nt: A review of research. Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association. Leung, Y., Shaw, N. Johnson, K., and Duhaime, R. (2002). More than a database: Integrating GIS data with the Boston Harbour islands visitor ca rrying capacity study. George Wright Forum, 19, 69-79. Macdonald, S. (1992). Forging alli ances among trails users. In Proceedings llth National Trails Symposium (pp. 18-21). American Trails, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT. Manfredo, M.J., Driver, B.L., and Brown, P.J. (1983). A test of concepts inherent in experience based setting management fo r outdoor recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 15, 263-283. Manning, R.E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Sear ch and research for satisfaction second edition Corvallis, OR.

PAGE 90

90 Manning, R.E. and Lime, D.W. ( 1996). Crowding and carrying capacity in the national park system: Toward a social science research agenda. In Crowding and Congestion in the National Park System: Guidelin es for Management and Research. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Agricultural Experi ment Station Publication 86, 27-65. Manning, R.E. and Lime, D.W. (1999). Defining and managing the quality of wilderness recreation experiences. In Proceeding Wilderness science in a time of change conference: Wilderness visitors, experien ces, and visitor management (RMRS-P-15-VOL-4, 23). Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Marion, J., Roggenbuck, J., and Manning, R.E. (1993). Problems and practices in backcountry recreation management: A survey of national park service managers. U.S. National Park Service Natural Resources report NPS/NRVT/NRR-93112, Denver, CO. Martin, T.W. and Berry, K.J. 1974. Competitive sports in post industrial society: The case of the motorcross racer. Journal of Popular Culture, 8, 107-120. More, T.A. and Buhyoff, G.J. (1979). Managing recreation area for quality visitor experiences: A theoretical framework. Research Report NE-432, USDA Forest Service. Moore, R. L. (1994). Conflict on multiple-use trails: synthe sis of the literature and state of practice Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031, Fede ral Highway Administration. Moore, R.L. and Driver, B.L. (2005). Introduction to outdoor recr eation: Providing and managing natural resource based opportunities State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Moore, R.L., Scott, D., and Graefe, A.R. ( 1998). The effects of activity differences on recreational experience al ong a suburban greenway trail. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 16, 35-53. Moore, S. and McClaran, M. (1991). Symbo lic dimensions of the packstock debate. Leisure Sciences 13, 221-237. Naber, M.D. and Leung, Y. (2006). Technology lends a helping hand: Recreation managers are learning the benefits of using geospati al technologies in resource management. Parks and Recreation 41, 24-29. Neal, D. (1999). Life on the rocks: Environmenta l perceptions of the ro ck crawlers, a western American recreational community. PhD Di ssertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Noe, F., Wellman, J., and Buhyoff, J. (1981). Per ception of conflict between off-road vehicle users in a leisure setting. Journal of Environmental Systems 11, 243-253.

PAGE 91

91 Noe, F.P., Hammitt, W.E., and Bixler, R.D. (1997). Park user perceptions of resource and use impacts under varied situations in three national parks. Journal of Environmental Management, 49 323-336. Obreza, T.A. and Collins, M.E. (2002). Common soils used for citrus Production in Florida. Document SL 193, University of Florida, In stitute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved on July 31, 2007 online from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SS403#TABLE_3. Pierskalla, C.D., Lee, M.E., Stein, T.V., Anderson, D.H., and Nickerson, R. (2004). Understanding relationships among recreation opportunitie s: A meta-analysis of nine studies. Leisure Sciences, 26, 163-180. Ramthun, R. (1995). Factors in us er group conflict between hi kers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences 17, 159-169. Reed, P. and Brown, G. (2003). Values suitability analysis: A methodology for identifying and integrating public perceptions of ecosystem values in forest planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46, 643-658. Sanyal, N. (2007). Using Segmentation to Develop an Off-Highway Vehicle Route System in the Colville National Forest. Abstract Proceedings for the 13th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management: Landscape Continuity and Change Social Science Perspectives and Interdisci plinary Contributions. Park City, UT. Schoenecker, A.H. and Schneider, I.E. (2007). De scribing and Differentia ting Recreational ATV Rider Preferences. In Abstract Proceedings for the 13th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management: Landscape Continuity and Change Social Science Perspectives and Interdisciplinar y Contributions. Park City, UT. Stein, T.V.and Lee, M.E. (1995). Managing Recreation Resources for Positive Outcomes: An Application of Benef its-based Management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13, 52-70. Stewart, S.I. (1995). The convergence of recreation and tourism. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreati on and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resource Planning Conference. St. Paul MN: University of Minnesota, College of natural Resources and Minnesota Extension Service. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American 223 96. Tajfel, H.and Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory and inter-group behavior. In (eds.) Worchel, S. and Austin, L.W. Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Teisl, M.F. and OBrien, K. (2003). Who cares and who acts? Outdoor re creationist exhibit different levels of environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 35, 506-522.

PAGE 92

92 Thapa, B. and Graefe, A.R. (1999). Gender a nd age group differences in recreation conflict and tolerance among adult skie rs and snowboarders. In Proceedings of the 1998 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium 1998 (Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-255, 219-226). Radnor, PA: USDA, Forest Service. Thapa, B. and Graefe, A.R. (2003). Level of sk ill and its relationship to recreation conflict and tolerance among adult skiers and snowboarders. World Leisure 1, 13-25. Thapa, B. and Graefe, A.R. (2004a). Recreat ion conflict and tolera nce among skiers and snowboarders. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 22, 37-52. The Nature Conservancy (1994). Standardized national vegetation classification system. Retrieved online on April 16 from http://bio logy.usgs.gov/npsveg/class ification/index.html. Todd, S. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1989). Level of experience and percep tion of conflict among canoeists on the Delaware River. In Northeast Proceedings of the 1989 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-132, pp. 147). Burlington, VT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization a nd the self-concept: a social cognitive theory group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (ed.), Advances in group processes: theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Turner, J. Rick and Julian Thayer (2001). Introduction to analysis of variance Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Focus on expl aining different t ypes of designs. U.S.D.A. Forest Service (1982). ROS users guide. U.S.D.A Forest Service (1999). Revised land and resource management plan for national forests in Florida. Tallahassee, FL. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. (2005). Final envi ronmental impact statement for the access designation on the Ocala national forest. Volume 1: FEIS and appendices. Tallahassee, FL. U.S.D.A. Forest Service (2005a). Record of d ecision for access designation in restricted areas on the Ocala national forest: Lake, Marion, a nd Putnam counties Florida. Tallahassee, FL. U.S.D.A. Forest Service (2006). Route designation in the sand pi ne scrub ecosystem of Ocala national forest. Tallahassee, FL. Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., Wittmann, K., and Laidla w, S. (1995). Interpersonal versus socialvalues conflict. Leisure Sciences 17, 205-222. Vaske, J.J., Carothers, P., Donnelly, M.P., and Baird, B. (2000). Recr eation conflict among skiers and snowboarders. Leisure Sciences, 22, 297-313.

PAGE 93

93 Watson, A., Williams, D., and Daigle, J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bikers in Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9, 59-71. Watson, A., Niccolucci, M., and Williams, D. (1994) The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 372-385. Watson, A. (1995). An analysis of recent prog ress in recreation c onflict research and perceptions of future challenges and opportunities. Leisure Sciences 17, 235-238. Wernex, J. (1994). Off-Highway Motorcycle and ATV Trails Guidelines for Design, Construction, Maintenance and User Satisfaction, Second Edition American Motorcycle Association. Pickerington, OH. Whiting, D.,Card, A., and Wilson, C. 2006. Soil drainage. Document 217. Colorado State University Extension. Retrieve d online on April 15. 2007 from http://cmg.colostate .edu/gardennotes/217.pdf. Wildlaw (2006). Undesignated OHV routes in the Apalac hicola and Ocala national forests: Inventory, maps, and recommendations Tallahassee, FL. Williams, D. (1993). Conflict in the great outdoors. Parks and Recreation 28, 28-34. Williams, D. W., Dossa, K.B., and Fulton, A. (1994). Tension on the slopes: Managing conflict between skiers and snowboarders. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 19, 191-213. Wing, M. and B. Shelby. 1999. Using GIS to integrat e information on forest recreation. Journal of Forestry 97(1):12-16. Xiang, W. (1996) A GIS based met hod for trail alignment planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 35, 11-23.

PAGE 94

94 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rachel Albritton was born in Valrico, Flor ida, and spent much of her childhood in the great outdoors. In 2004, she gradua ted with a bachelors degree in recreation, parks, and tourism with a concentration in natural resource manage ment and ecotourism from the University of Florida. After graduation she continued to work fo r the University as a re search assistant where she became an integral part of various outdoor recreation and tourism projects throughout the state. Her time spent working in research inspir ed her to pursue a masters degree, and she began working toward her Master of Science in th e fall of 2005. While purs uing her Master of Science in interdisciplin ary ecology, Rachel conti nued her involvement of pa st research projects including an extended state-wide visitor monito ring of the Florida National Scenic Trail.


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 E20110331_AAAAEE INGEST_TIME 2011-03-31T23:44:15Z PACKAGE UFE0021811_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 53394 DFID F20110331_AACXHJ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH albritton_r_Page_06.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
bfcad2fe69289626101f224a0a07e180
SHA-1
24a7d0de060fa068713423be7b5511d1ded4b509
1831 F20110331_AACXGV albritton_r_Page_84.txt
9e852b5c823fcbe808cae64e1eb885f9
895002988d84c5d979aba27b59a1e4b087908ab9
56912 F20110331_AACXHK albritton_r_Page_07.pro
d50c9a116510db6aaf2e30a905e660f2
e6391a4d506db96b113e0ea1c7d39083fe046c67
392 F20110331_AACXGW albritton_r_Page_85.txt
5df0c09cfe31b499fb3e6c7e13c21751
1780fde85bf397789309440aa401907be2c8743a
45522 F20110331_AACXHL albritton_r_Page_10.pro
b58c41bd9ac7ae8c7957d0d4d1d0fe5f
90a3036ef326572a5d1dd9e5bd93c316076cb91b
57724 F20110331_AACXIA albritton_r_Page_28.pro
20ad46c099eb744394456379fc007a15
d1ecf2b9bd097ad77591ca1604fa1ad5a75bbddc
20153 F20110331_AACXHM albritton_r_Page_11.pro
5ad0df96cc02345f3c214e73437f34b2
13d1bae35344ccf1700e21200c004ff6ff08cdab
2524 F20110331_AACXGX albritton_r_Page_86.txt
1131421d764c007dbe7c05d8d85468bf
efbfb8b742071836370544f9bf1eb9621cb81be3
54300 F20110331_AACXIB albritton_r_Page_29.pro
a21bf84b99f42bc01e9a3c1caa58c575
7069a7140c082a08652e623857b0ea92e1d419da
53101 F20110331_AACXHN albritton_r_Page_12.pro
fc5b95bc3a0fb7c2f62ea1deee001e9f
cde1535baa31f9ffaea6de0e13155a579b4e3470
2554 F20110331_AACXGY albritton_r_Page_87.txt
ab380c9dbac0c760cc3dcb7ec40b5a21
b28eddf4bee2abd12df3e51bce5852f1056d73d9
52744 F20110331_AACXIC albritton_r_Page_30.pro
280168ce1bc2eaf4d6744eab57c3ec9e
389ab0f22ea4ee2f3cf5338e5b3834d8f1447e1e
55337 F20110331_AACXHO albritton_r_Page_13.pro
f895f736ef209bc59a1c337a89df477d
463a0284d6540bf4d17ce8b4fd2c712413233009
2595 F20110331_AACXGZ albritton_r_Page_88.txt
8e1e83794ac1a4a49e5000a2da89323b
08b5aa9987e3e1606552f33155dc8c8a5b16feeb
53318 F20110331_AACXID albritton_r_Page_31.pro
39ef6c9102b24a89edd66c4de83eaa3a
542f9696c3b285265196da0aba91242c998ce80f
54205 F20110331_AACXHP albritton_r_Page_14.pro
38c034732fc102a2d901e8b76a79a32c
ab2cd13cbbae60aee3efa7cfd5c527c82a068392
13467 F20110331_AACXIE albritton_r_Page_32.pro
4be0d7a1561b34192a6866fc05f861fc
02fb6328829e2189b365adbe9de2adc68687244c
38344 F20110331_AACXHQ albritton_r_Page_15.pro
3785bada5f643019a9fe1d782e13b50b
f265a0869d747aa0635b368740a1372381f9ddb9
5062 F20110331_AACXIF albritton_r_Page_33.pro
c828290859b89e722096af57ad95d51c
d112982497c550b9b3cc348544a2c3f654c039dd
52844 F20110331_AACXHR albritton_r_Page_16.pro
87040974b22c22aa46efb5f56ddba213
8cf184eb319fb34b659a326e8305eeff82ae555f
22402 F20110331_AACXIG albritton_r_Page_34.pro
74b65582b0d099ed9a16627a8b259d2f
03ad48aa0aa1c321e3f3481c3eaa0d2bd71b44d2
52370 F20110331_AACXHS albritton_r_Page_17.pro
a9b19f3f854f54a9525e4746aa128178
353f5db5db03a1e428b467a016b962380b79c329
40726 F20110331_AACXIH albritton_r_Page_35.pro
3aa399eb481b860734bd0431289b14f1
61da6afec391814745e73016e9ede8292eed6f5b
52833 F20110331_AACXHT albritton_r_Page_18.pro
cb478f5b067daa6d82a39353b5190420
424bc1f2ccefe1d10567290001c930194a727744
28620 F20110331_AACXII albritton_r_Page_36.pro
2ae500e1a5f87f36ba5179b331b91715
e2ee2600255051ca70a4e6a2c24139e51999af53
54699 F20110331_AACXHU albritton_r_Page_20.pro
3315991d559b0879b5d83813d479e54e
1921dc6863129bd4feaa926a8a14dca3fc54918d
54970 F20110331_AACXIJ albritton_r_Page_37.pro
568b2e64cf4deeed49d8b2365d74c316
e6c23425cff897974f7914f1a8d6f349957d419a
55783 F20110331_AACXHV albritton_r_Page_21.pro
7fe2542fc3425d6a2ac0b53dc43d56cf
05885d3cf00904fd54905f51db0c1ea7995f0716
53750 F20110331_AACXIK albritton_r_Page_38.pro
81af87779bbe0747a939aab8138a0c4b
59f7e951f179013a3a8397f31d7ff50645011d96
52045 F20110331_AACXHW albritton_r_Page_22.pro
9d5fac91ccb1767007d6003b67c0756c
18fbbfe7d22b229407d3fb1f19f2a9db06dc7c8d
56593 F20110331_AACXIL albritton_r_Page_40.pro
02f4359881b1ef4b86e354c546a66291
1bae7ec751b41bdbb4d37f075cfda9db06c772df
56138 F20110331_AACXHX albritton_r_Page_23.pro
aa756e160daee612d69b6e43aad6c9cc
d6af6fee9c9843af9f0689f10a13dea1a3dbe000
55945 F20110331_AACXIM albritton_r_Page_41.pro
2a5d17473342c810ad4e9fe007965d11
897e2edefb550565ed114f24c7ec5a9634e432a7
8860 F20110331_AACXJA albritton_r_Page_61.pro
1e7968e30122195f44ba13b048e5a9b8
c765061d4182f4f064272480396952757dbfd378
52888 F20110331_AACXIN albritton_r_Page_42.pro
7ff0cc0089fa7e7acec395241cb900f4
97c36e21ac10c923c764a0532532f1457b6ced17
51123 F20110331_AACXHY albritton_r_Page_24.pro
81911734bf0d77264a8a32d0ec46ab33
b25734c400870d58f44215247afced0737ca6a6e
31702 F20110331_AACXJB albritton_r_Page_62.pro
0ee056187bb5c417bb81c428d3497a27
fce5985090a78a406d99ff059c8c02c8e0aae716
56197 F20110331_AACXIO albritton_r_Page_43.pro
401ed9f08c04175acb5c8bccd5ede5cc
feea3788d39453fd5d82f0be550c3c2569855038
53668 F20110331_AACXHZ albritton_r_Page_27.pro
4efbe0d54a20ba9443bd24d2edd5c737
98add5be9bd02858ce1fb5410e06705f2c871e07
12259 F20110331_AACXJC albritton_r_Page_63.pro
e6f81641749dc1fd183b14d37a6755f2
a29b107fdeac634fcd764355a364556baf56c112
57726 F20110331_AACXIP albritton_r_Page_44.pro
48fa2e7961d8d5e83ffd3766454aab78
13fefc53c00b2b3340cd7d7184ef6714a21b917e
51119 F20110331_AACXJD albritton_r_Page_65.pro
c0edc4a430199132d5264a7aa13988e9
64dfa95a3d7d88748ce714d2d179444ed70ae698
54976 F20110331_AACXIQ albritton_r_Page_46.pro
f9a584f4e1e7b23687fa5d5cffed5401
844fe65dada4a9a79d55c19c14a23d2a1a8ec218
53024 F20110331_AACXJE albritton_r_Page_66.pro
9b64ed9b34a042cf7f422660e640975f
f1b54ee4a1fa68065993c12f887fb9fcba54c702
49080 F20110331_AACXIR albritton_r_Page_47.pro
37947081438073e576d3978fe2862b7f
6505f037bcf371cc020ce7d7d9be4d2b4df5856f
57019 F20110331_AACXJF albritton_r_Page_69.pro
11427422cb21a069fb90339b4b64ca05
d9318de84bdcb1fc591ca597d10686c53e129585
57108 F20110331_AACXIS albritton_r_Page_48.pro
d72169e44150841d63a25e7c5b5506ae
87396eb789e3f0112b33109d74abffad88570016
63822 F20110331_AACXJG albritton_r_Page_70.pro
5011424446e5dba8af3b689a1f59abe9
192e5b2cbfb3239a91997ef8dff078742d9dcf3b
58205 F20110331_AACXIT albritton_r_Page_50.pro
e7698d02dab0e8a608c1b65c27cdcecf
1edf953039e1dbc84d56c6e395587abbe11bec96
58602 F20110331_AACXJH albritton_r_Page_73.pro
e87db5bd2ea05f6fdbaf8f3a0aa72a16
68be479ed846ac85cd9307ea47b5fe1afe2806c4
55553 F20110331_AACXIU albritton_r_Page_51.pro
2290ce232e644037dee42ce8e33c44b2
4c67f6aa8c8a34f961af24644fdb8570182734ff
47752 F20110331_AACXJI albritton_r_Page_74.pro
9b1e68b902b10f2c6741fee589e09dc2
1d7c45eedb7ddf7ac1e374c3640d20e79ba756df
55954 F20110331_AACXIV albritton_r_Page_55.pro
c7200ae0ffad7203b813262a24bdcc5c
80c85bda213d7e13063b112759ac2c47bb36fdf6
32960 F20110331_AACXJJ albritton_r_Page_75.pro
5173f225d6e3dada54dc26ca0e511a02
4fc0750587036c02587ed89c1eaa5fc813e5f925
28612 F20110331_AACXIW albritton_r_Page_56.pro
97584bdf351dde5f1434ac0e47c6eff1
e94c63f114dfe70f5df9ed260601cec99ffdfd0a
49390 F20110331_AACXJK albritton_r_Page_76.pro
c41a1bf244a3b2cf0a11f3ef67b59201
f4c73159f3b8bc46f0b72b76554e811cf0993a23
39064 F20110331_AACXIX albritton_r_Page_57.pro
87732e6e984bee09f1ce6acbcede4a56
3a4157612b83c4e1f54c40d8e13608e15a3ca024
48344 F20110331_AACXJL albritton_r_Page_77.pro
5bfbda5182906ccd5666c8c1fdd64fcc
6016448acf708f9d7d1328fb6b05d53d637a49e4
8461 F20110331_AACXIY albritton_r_Page_59.pro
0e19f55368e9a3179aa2548afb2131a3
c03ea9bcd2ab374d7ba86b31b1154f4ca117501a
27928 F20110331_AACXKA albritton_r_Page_01.jpg
a4259abfb3d4385313c0e1f6e116725d
3c74028eb276de372d3af75d3a757800b2b6e4bd
54595 F20110331_AACXJM albritton_r_Page_78.pro
e1323eaaeda422db98c4b16d1a552880
1ce0d4099f1a84555c71816e6fbb90ef8590f941
20092 F20110331_AACXKB albritton_r_Page_03.jpg
261e509734d0290f31b9fe9468306f12
78d74eccbfb43ef7c462d49f1a6c551809516c06
53782 F20110331_AACXJN albritton_r_Page_80.pro
7292fdd346b34ca81e723a65e45bf437
08289fc5d26de244c7a66e8bf87ffc2b30a4773b
8483 F20110331_AACXIZ albritton_r_Page_60.pro
d1dc9e5e5a883fe9d3f9cc88eca9cb5a
ad228e837b78008cf0cc299ca392a7aff212396b
86159 F20110331_AACXKC albritton_r_Page_04.jpg
9258bd177f89e190ed91cb9ce2209e51
ed73eadc89368e0700640cfa1c543806d5b5c8c2
33638 F20110331_AACXJO albritton_r_Page_81.pro
b00de05f4c8ef1a293881ab758e2555d
767fe7330168c6f22cfa29f7fbd1c23fca41b82f
121289 F20110331_AACXKD albritton_r_Page_05.jpg
8bb8491b28afa7a0a1f3d22fa61ff974
72723940c26d2652cf2a1d32aa43d6f4652b9b2b
97648 F20110331_AACXJP albritton_r_Page_83.pro
9d6008f4e347265d9e9be643bed3cae1
03ed35ca8af2c2b14d3be91b7cc23f22c13dd3f9
65150 F20110331_AACXKE albritton_r_Page_06.jpg
90ff3cfd2c4cfdac4a2167240ed11c8b
b59cecf95aabddf44dedf9ef827bcf16a0441b3b
32455 F20110331_AACXJQ albritton_r_Page_84.pro
685bb3c3d8bcfeb3d96ae514dccb6b78
47d93abc5c54261223c2eafd3831e8b05bf33692
95606 F20110331_AACXKF albritton_r_Page_07.jpg
ef27feca65f203e0d16ffeb2767ff892
9e420329bea5004cf75a4ed56036692518b7ee2a
8725 F20110331_AACXJR albritton_r_Page_85.pro
a754f2233c061d2927091bac99787844
96bcd5b65ea9cf4c2e121187775fef4e27c5bcb0
15037 F20110331_AACXKG albritton_r_Page_09.jpg
134e8c04c176f63155e23b1c053399f4
6c3a92cdb1d592966f6f65ae272a73b7a4f3f74f
64034 F20110331_AACXJS albritton_r_Page_86.pro
de32acf5940331f4a730200773a27f69
2da603df3b03db2e5d7482813ea6e0e388fbbc7a
109284 F20110331_AACXKH albritton_r_Page_12.jpg
91d0d9e988a7dc7788e8ec57ed33113c
e261c8c2d57fa6fd7ec5904617a6f54bcd75ccc4
65470 F20110331_AACXJT albritton_r_Page_88.pro
6ef080d3b609ac5c4b2e098f2ebc9543
d465d20a029e76d7abd41dc392d94cf58779fd25
112595 F20110331_AACXKI albritton_r_Page_13.jpg
211e152c2f03f95f83fa1de9bab6d0d8
4f911f3a39b7209f7e973deeeb932d019f28c93b
63372 F20110331_AACXJU albritton_r_Page_89.pro
477c664dedb85f2146b6e7f9cf65bea2
d2ed62411bf808882a0ada43549aa5fac8574c95
79560 F20110331_AACXKJ albritton_r_Page_15.jpg
7e60ca3aba058253d179ac3416fcc0ee
347747479691fd6e674d8727384f6f7684789bc8
64218 F20110331_AACXJV albritton_r_Page_90.pro
ddf050d88178cf719f6c777b014a89ab
961dc919d8ef6cae77c097077156d7ebf7f63070
109400 F20110331_AACXKK albritton_r_Page_16.jpg
6925831016ac140919cfbbe33201a844
3686645ff3b2dfd2bb5fcad63504925f78e82d07
69912 F20110331_AACXJW albritton_r_Page_91.pro
af3a70800ec24f2c9e20afe1fc6e6ebb
95364c21e8ce9f7bcb22e576ff5eab3b950e8668
108767 F20110331_AACXKL albritton_r_Page_17.jpg
2b50cf189ad73615d9659f0f7b4bcb4a
f9f6f247b53c0529794e002dc9a29cf9dd208a72
65013 F20110331_AACXJX albritton_r_Page_92.pro
45027f263645ce3cd770910860ad8e7c
13f11c09b4a6027a0f4af861794e831a971e853d
64260 F20110331_AACXLA albritton_r_Page_33.jpg
900811372b288bfcc7bd684cf2854f07
52641d1ca29ddc36f88b33e88e061880b914fcfb
105500 F20110331_AACXKM albritton_r_Page_18.jpg
912ecdb261d3d7d5d5a856fbdc29f30c
121422ecb9a824b0c526da6c732e62f51bc5847b
41335 F20110331_AACXJY albritton_r_Page_93.pro
9d0829e78236346dec0d6eca32feda7f
55007a48ecfe3dcd88b253ffb0c147a13ed7b3c5
44212 F20110331_AACXLB albritton_r_Page_34.jpg
ce922bda1b42016a6d6d2fc0d6d34d77
d094f9ba48430c5b3d7fd34e517d56b522b6124f
112096 F20110331_AACXKN albritton_r_Page_19.jpg
1a1169ca83863d04703b04a98a01b93f
50e252e7a5dddfb3da6639e5faa4ae1299a17d71
22654 F20110331_AACXJZ albritton_r_Page_94.pro
303a1537d824aca0ffa06a2f14152d24
1240aa804301e839d2017f5d07bf2ff53b6c4d77
65931 F20110331_AACXLC albritton_r_Page_35.jpg
afb91968f62a601f8b8441f6597ba2ba
a177bdd7c5d10aeab1dc722c4f99a8c31dffee7a
111040 F20110331_AACXKO albritton_r_Page_20.jpg
e9b0a817f026f6b196f672582197c991
63691fab60886a854297f3e5d3ed0e78328320ce
111289 F20110331_AACXLD albritton_r_Page_37.jpg
4306435a739d360d39446beb17efab33
4391decf597595f426a97b548eaf11e5c303a543
111314 F20110331_AACXKP albritton_r_Page_21.jpg
b22257af3578a2b834ffed9fdbe52778
9c2e931c1ace83d5ba0970bf6ac257c29dbf0b07
107707 F20110331_AACXLE albritton_r_Page_38.jpg
5bc4a154577c0dfcf22bbfe2b35b6b94
32071a30292bf9ae77e430dee9c472131b2d110b
105153 F20110331_AACXKQ albritton_r_Page_22.jpg
1b44cbdc0a2fe4a980d11dda54c7ac6c
3eab1c9c1a05ae48ced53fc9f7f523798d654e42
108221 F20110331_AACXLF albritton_r_Page_39.jpg
0e460cb2a7da87e8b7f20f371c02d9ee
3325a9b707060959f16d49ca68e5a55693fe903b
103775 F20110331_AACXKR albritton_r_Page_24.jpg
db22912a73c3b138388a8c992403b8e7
173c0bae0a63833ea61fd55bea94c68827465344
107537 F20110331_AACXLG albritton_r_Page_42.jpg
d3c6eb33a35eefe3d7cedf9da2dbb225
f8dbbb2b02ca2ae182a29701d6cd07e83c578726
98049 F20110331_AACXKS albritton_r_Page_25.jpg
b45b4f11218e765bbeb3095249cd5712
23227952f3971e07f67fc8288ad607451be9a3e6
113937 F20110331_AACXLH albritton_r_Page_43.jpg
280157565e830b5e5255ca30cc31c53f
598002cd480b5b141277adbd1a61b07481146715
111573 F20110331_AACXKT albritton_r_Page_26.jpg
4b3b28a50d543ec2fc85b4c82f7a747e
78ef2d85b8cfdd1180da4ed485e0b36c8f34ace1
114415 F20110331_AACXLI albritton_r_Page_44.jpg
d7d249b0fbf99979dcee7e43b9930d1e
324f01847d538d5b31c9f7428f30180b5664c31c
107855 F20110331_AACXKU albritton_r_Page_27.jpg
b54ec885c8ac37eea3bc3545b463e7df
c8077b9bb7db9a32766f6d3de25379e40cd04276
96937 F20110331_AACXLJ albritton_r_Page_45.jpg
a454e15685f86a6a57abfb1b3686216a
ae9dff61cb5b960ee39bf79375bd42a7969a9406
115508 F20110331_AACXKV albritton_r_Page_28.jpg
51de17db09aab1ac1569fbcc1e5d1ae5
9787e3db277fc317a90e8e8589fdc71a797f80d8
109930 F20110331_AACXLK albritton_r_Page_46.jpg
fc27be43d21be12ba1973c2f2fcb7bc3
4c32465ddff738422a539b90a8965d39578e03d2
110926 F20110331_AACXKW albritton_r_Page_29.jpg
0bb830ee60cd80bf45f0577a4006e6f0
62d3a34a286bb855633e82117318a682493d00e8
101605 F20110331_AACXLL albritton_r_Page_47.jpg
f4fa8e7b71b16c1ed032833114e148fa
4bdff1b981d54355f8c5703ab4ed739bf0f0452b
106271 F20110331_AACXKX albritton_r_Page_30.jpg
bcb21a8660cca9accc1848f5d2bc05da
de8e981a4eb93e2c7296a0afe23fc7af982ea4ff
101564 F20110331_AACXLM albritton_r_Page_49.jpg
502035367ad9ce84587f2c9254b05166
3c585215f6aa1c407afac5447694e6fb3524f110
106894 F20110331_AACXKY albritton_r_Page_31.jpg
67e412367138f2feaf9dcb16a24b5b06
508d0137b24b1cabc1de3c9f8d97c277bf4762cb
91171 F20110331_AACXMA albritton_r_Page_67.jpg
a40d51eb3ba0d807e417e052f94f46d8
4d09a54fbe78372931969443f9b984c560b1970c
29735 F20110331_AACXKZ albritton_r_Page_32.jpg
c75080aa0c8db050aa38a9546ae3a1d5
0ac8a1b26b35fc9e7bd17a148ed5e83ef09d0618
77187 F20110331_AACXMB albritton_r_Page_68.jpg
e86f55b97b86dbbd1cc0f4d812a7947f
beeffb482d9e4af6b03ad60a8b29ea0c762e6703
117010 F20110331_AACXLN albritton_r_Page_50.jpg
b8811864a159b863ae5c73143993afc5
bfcea495b6b0b6338c08a9e40f433c10cd0e54ed
114428 F20110331_AACXMC albritton_r_Page_69.jpg
6c68f45de421019a6161b4442d375eef
adc2e843edb68f16d27327d133496131f7511ecb
114450 F20110331_AACXLO albritton_r_Page_52.jpg
de2b8e7d0886cd81a75035a7f82d5878
fbb7c81d0f6539fd2ae8d083999a239b0385d1f7
111930 F20110331_AACXMD albritton_r_Page_70.jpg
b9ff3f1f87e7ba294c3a3e1c22c90ed0
c8b08c387f975959642db99dc826595dc947c96b
113661 F20110331_AACXLP albritton_r_Page_53.jpg
9389d8f6187ac606a568ad829e7ede33
887694d75157c6ca69d451c47c6c87a61ca81936
120905 F20110331_AACXME albritton_r_Page_72.jpg
de9e008a1a4bdda4d4be85bed8822386
53801cec7a7a0ec89de01a206c5769157564c763
112490 F20110331_AACXLQ albritton_r_Page_55.jpg
505d22c69d9758aeab7091b4f07f8b98
99409a06993cf02245f9755f84e0e82b938fcf14
107044 F20110331_AACXMF albritton_r_Page_73.jpg
f318a704c4bb31e340b3f23457bd5ead
b20ff748a87668a70936e13484a2066bff712c47
59590 F20110331_AACXLR albritton_r_Page_56.jpg
9bde83d927f83605c94c165ebee89316
835d99a998a30c67a2b2485fb9d5c2568652f040
88663 F20110331_AACXMG albritton_r_Page_74.jpg
d288f5fbca753aba6d061a55181646c7
4ccf42e8c009d76599a334285a39f7b377a4436a
79942 F20110331_AACXLS albritton_r_Page_57.jpg
72cd4a1928a4ee38efc76492beb868bf
33dc9126b410e4657578180a2051f18838e545d7
59958 F20110331_AACXMH albritton_r_Page_75.jpg
71af10efdc3160265c76051c3b016211
e266b619da60f6da56178fb247f15d4ca30b93e8
71211 F20110331_AACXLT albritton_r_Page_58.jpg
93a3804a61defaa08b01c27b5b05aab9
3ff9a2c5ce1ca96066d3c6be2c8b7dce7a37e4be
99978 F20110331_AACXMI albritton_r_Page_76.jpg
629c26a7c2ea617e80a5e93d35b18a72
74441fab2dc9a1cad5b95eb292e1eeff41f104ad
80063 F20110331_AACXLU albritton_r_Page_59.jpg
7c9ac8945bd5482708f415782762e384
0d7d1df0a4b5f51d72df8ac4993d6367dbe3de62
109134 F20110331_AACXMJ albritton_r_Page_78.jpg
a8e24c53bcaaa702109ed5a653b8fe6d
51fdf59a6d055a7a876726a2db5f61f28f360668
80901 F20110331_AACXLV albritton_r_Page_60.jpg
85777bdc7d7ad0c7d0100a003a721706
58858dc67babec2050ac0f4dd3a11636a10bed8d
97441 F20110331_AACXMK albritton_r_Page_79.jpg
9e7ab0ce6bc3a62bf5c4ef7740b5fbad
8dffaab23ef8ce752b598fcea59b6fa97cd6eca3
56515 F20110331_AACXLW albritton_r_Page_62.jpg
477ffd611b30451cbc2e8871e15ab439
ffcebb098019b3f418ac0987fca480c11dea27f6
30750 F20110331_AACXML albritton_r_Page_82.jpg
7f8d628bb1de0beba7986b99486f5648
e1bb19475bdcd18bb06c113168de55ccc6e86ff1
82581 F20110331_AACXLX albritton_r_Page_63.jpg
ce453fd4f0b9d1e7edf91a46b41909ad
216d22d7ceb73cdbdfc63e584ac11085683533d0
1051975 F20110331_AACXNA albritton_r_Page_06.jp2
be500decc0304141cf13835f0c54574b
6c2300f9bc59773f4397acca93914314420437d8
156874 F20110331_AACXMM albritton_r_Page_83.jpg
0bc852b5291644de35df1c1823bae707
3009eeeb992f390c800c346c753ef758e9c64de6
74914 F20110331_AACXLY albritton_r_Page_64.jpg
b538973a953923de43c35c8be390d8b2
28e45f9844e69a9b7bb873425151cd178325faa8
1051973 F20110331_AACXNB albritton_r_Page_07.jp2
05f8e07c7acccebfbef557e568bfacc6
501a5d5b8e4f55d83f5cfa2f212f28eb915dc28e
70922 F20110331_AACXMN albritton_r_Page_85.jpg
123760c5f718bd9f908543a06356dd2a
54479de2e4bda38a700738213d6969b682258e3b
104884 F20110331_AACXLZ albritton_r_Page_65.jpg
6542b78d24b2a45b177b5da7f624d2fa
511fb8c727a1498c578d50e3921319f14c61d216
606235 F20110331_AACXNC albritton_r_Page_08.jp2
a1fd6779647c920f8f4d9108ccee8353
f70934cc52f235ff90404dd91e8271955e0bf997
126788 F20110331_AACXMO albritton_r_Page_86.jpg
4f7e1f0d29e854d834bdf3e93e6792c8
71354768a15971bdfaeed0550e326d40c6cc73f4
15918 F20110331_AACXND albritton_r_Page_09.jp2
27fa557f527b9ce259452261fd2a26d2
3cd5ef8454a4a8b6db5898712c7314aea0bf439c
131088 F20110331_AACXMP albritton_r_Page_87.jpg
46a38f75daa7265fc0229cedebf42e2c
8e02efee76477fbe9886cb9ab5e9a38f33134d9a
100706 F20110331_AACXNE albritton_r_Page_10.jp2
c83e281903bf2886a440db7e7c291e9d
102425c83a8e50aa188bdd79fd381b3b7810723e
124382 F20110331_AACXMQ albritton_r_Page_89.jpg
8558a99affe278dacf8828b56b90dee9
2ad568ca8256bb0aaa808c511a8af90993ae2e9b
46330 F20110331_AACXNF albritton_r_Page_11.jp2
5e042203b748139d9976e8ad89faa24e
bd88411f80c67f86c2f8eeb95d4169461b04e452
130432 F20110331_AACXMR albritton_r_Page_90.jpg
a02c60739cc75f9e0749b59a505cef17
619c11e502af96a8486e03f6ff5b2ec4ade9d646
115597 F20110331_AACXNG albritton_r_Page_12.jp2
4cde8f33354a590582cb2f8a7a90c685
fe30c40a2dc8e75f72e75ab6d23ae9d4227e5b11
135835 F20110331_AACXMS albritton_r_Page_91.jpg
c51532a2d1686c23ecb3e977101ad77f
78da4dbfbbe81fad80e5c03b765123ae4974df4c
121112 F20110331_AACXNH albritton_r_Page_13.jp2
01c5e930c08fe0cb5da893150e1935e1
045f8b64ddfff5e9e46814e1a0eba8deeeca77ea
84232 F20110331_AACXMT albritton_r_Page_93.jpg
483e292938612af668bf1befb106c879
e461cebb41a908035ef0632b802a34e2101ff76e
86351 F20110331_AACXNI albritton_r_Page_15.jp2
eaf8ea26e64f1d96b8ad251535a08a74
d346acf1048177ff2773467638db9702fe9e94c4
49762 F20110331_AACXMU albritton_r_Page_94.jpg
6ff31a17ad6ef6cc2aa017917d0c2dc7
cec5cc96cd14a02ea083c8291d98e085cdef5522
115694 F20110331_AACXNJ albritton_r_Page_17.jp2
fc92905f4b2db02525e66ba59d03834c
b41bd1d7a3b64250ed46e7ddc5100b8f870c64cd
26657 F20110331_AACXMV albritton_r_Page_01.jp2
035572dc3fb15ef49f75c8cc341b18d4
9223d26f8969ce95132ebf1ab003db9d494c9202
113124 F20110331_AACXNK albritton_r_Page_18.jp2
41b3072c472d891e29faef43f3b1b4eb
2bb1be65485f50d12ba896d28b07ce38c90cadb6
5019 F20110331_AACXMW albritton_r_Page_02.jp2
ae47ae9bf7fdf56a3b803f1eb0cc5e16
8eb20946664007de9102529e9718c39bf8e2dced
119099 F20110331_AACXNL albritton_r_Page_19.jp2
ae03db17ee3dc576c411e00362fdeed3
b63a486e88cfacf7b110755b4c171b7fbe64a8f0
21044 F20110331_AACXMX albritton_r_Page_03.jp2
022a31185e8263ed4271d3fd9d55927f
977a79e3198cfee2b64b5f97164d397e3baa96b2
118384 F20110331_AACXNM albritton_r_Page_20.jp2
4049bc02483405d596cce4510122f168
53a44287066a540a8e588182b53aac6c5ce2abe6
90426 F20110331_AACXMY albritton_r_Page_04.jp2
35a796e8d0572fde2396074d43bc1d29
1814c1af815faac4fd4797b8938faee03fcef56f
115974 F20110331_AACXOA albritton_r_Page_38.jp2
5187009eda4b282e41f7ba3fd80fb977
9f7ee4fee5c870d8a9c6c5e1ccdb6b2f69c18de4
121010 F20110331_AACXNN albritton_r_Page_21.jp2
ee259810c6e785b975dfe8cc0b0e4851
3ee8d38bd2846fdc1a496e022130dd32c7b30e07
1051928 F20110331_AACXMZ albritton_r_Page_05.jp2
3508a8e5d6f3799ee8a4e270e90aacce
9c1eafdb5b520494468ac9a398030409d5ab1bfe
121285 F20110331_AACXOB albritton_r_Page_40.jp2
25b153689ac5a9b1bdcf12876798c8f8
4297ea84bbd68e53bda11743d6dd06a511c521f0
113308 F20110331_AACXNO albritton_r_Page_22.jp2
83af9e5f068ea403d7e5c4a84e16c9f8
d944dd7312f922e536006e2b7b3f4688eae41444
120924 F20110331_AACXOC albritton_r_Page_41.jp2
3f4034f9d469e5e4c02af259bd32b24a
514755e540e9e79e170959692b83cefecd6174c4
121637 F20110331_AACXNP albritton_r_Page_23.jp2
af925080e52c073c914261612a16b561
3cf59a8733b4bcb6c0a67250269c48a0edb19bf0
115041 F20110331_AACXOD albritton_r_Page_42.jp2
d205be17bc837370ed96743839b4b1b3
c79c20610a53dd9dc99733a52f6fca9343b02438
110050 F20110331_AACXNQ albritton_r_Page_24.jp2
1c778fb85594af572ad791b317720b0a
868ca4c9d38b3687e0ae1c9e49c7ec8afa7fa42a
123752 F20110331_AACXOE albritton_r_Page_43.jp2
35e1d311a21710a6ebe5b4de68027bfc
da64da6b79558b27da3af69702c56cf4d36c3f5b
119567 F20110331_AACXNR albritton_r_Page_26.jp2
96e2939b0a1a5130a04effeba54e2eff
799da2975ee01cef99ef9ce86a73128dcddacc3f
123905 F20110331_AACXOF albritton_r_Page_44.jp2
eb4198ce394176888d0975ede40c68ae
2853f54a543b41812b77a7287c66ead7b3a3ae05
124312 F20110331_AACXNS albritton_r_Page_28.jp2
afd583604b0b1217dc981ee9d563f65f
90afe05d96aacf91b54c15f311aaa5c4aa6259a0
108894 F20110331_AACXOG albritton_r_Page_47.jp2
4977468ff56552e455619a5f5416fd00
0bee03a310572dc79862c0706e5168b9443a45af
113992 F20110331_AACXNT albritton_r_Page_30.jp2
ad92580518283b1bbeceec2d4c1d52c0
6eca84e79111db77626ac3ed138d36939e698680
108641 F20110331_AACXOH albritton_r_Page_49.jp2
6907e38a1fe7d353bc1fb508f52db099
3fa57d606027ee34393bfad1da679d602db8c7e3
114452 F20110331_AACXNU albritton_r_Page_31.jp2
1a1be7f0f2ed58d1a68642f82a16c796
fd2e452cbc5790cfffd527bbba3b74135fb5a10a
120074 F20110331_AACXOI albritton_r_Page_51.jp2
f1e015846617070d4ceb91bd046cfc73
b91769f0f7342c56f25b7387bd0acb9eea6509fa
32210 F20110331_AACXNV albritton_r_Page_32.jp2
06534a4e75a8d5347f5749d0c42effde
1d160530ec4ad22a692698c35fe539b9a454ef09
121829 F20110331_AACXOJ albritton_r_Page_52.jp2
0931d762bb8285bd22a3fcd5e729f6b1
09be21ac387c91ef6af2dc151a92fe28373b1969
731334 F20110331_AACXNW albritton_r_Page_33.jp2
7c8d0c8cb16f6575d190686fdd3d1729
f43dad6fc9a2f4ca4ab3afa5ca7c2d054cc23c6b
122273 F20110331_AACXOK albritton_r_Page_53.jp2
561a682b4ddfda213405518fe250fda6
ac546ee1024063d86e9ea22a6cfef1a1dbe17713
69380 F20110331_AACXNX albritton_r_Page_35.jp2
e8b9f8a0cb6a7dcf6232500d0f7bee6c
da5d056ed32a232c2efb7a56ab343506b08dc4f2
120642 F20110331_AACXOL albritton_r_Page_54.jp2
88191eb1144c01867199400c43958fe1
4e3406e2a3915c8e3546b4000cf0f17b4e49b74d
59275 F20110331_AACXNY albritton_r_Page_36.jp2
744ae2f4881486ea688e1af3bbb608e9
4f4ca75092ed7fda50a1a6a8c1597d637855748c
97595 F20110331_AACXPA albritton_r_Page_72.jp2
b108b97c69e3abfa688f533543d1ede8
4bde9d72d8f0fd729f22da2aec19639484c44d82
119638 F20110331_AACXOM albritton_r_Page_55.jp2
04e18c1258f4156cc17a18bac45bd0b1
cb5eb5c5cbd9ad819cf70d8ea3a85b02e397f0e8
118782 F20110331_AACXNZ albritton_r_Page_37.jp2
4bd2651512f862a98b0b507c86379809
ee74cf869d5855825f9baaebd907e28c7f139817
100164 F20110331_AACXPB albritton_r_Page_73.jp2
4423c5d7e917ee1c6ef00046bc6f333c
118835afd935892b51f4b0783f8c9b768b40b724
63672 F20110331_AACXON albritton_r_Page_56.jp2
8fea21c0f1bfe5bbae287d0e91682cef
65943f3d6aaa459fa713c6436c469de0868d330a
76763 F20110331_AACXPC albritton_r_Page_74.jp2
c6f999fe66ab670d3967ede2c8f57f90
495547b4d81e1d8cc423bad95532efb545cf0ad3
72896 F20110331_AACXOO albritton_r_Page_58.jp2
e7b30934da96b3270f82b35a419bdbf0
2f7d259535f1bc2bcd7f20139c1c10bf0c111fe5
62050 F20110331_AACXPD albritton_r_Page_75.jp2
4cc90eafd15302ce5d0384292d038e0e
7d31782f8f3de29f4755f5b891a60c83f72a8176
F20110331_AACXOP albritton_r_Page_60.jp2
57c7a1b979d854bf04d736a575a93a2c
908b16df1e9f08f9c78c4d1a58777f0cf44ca085
108089 F20110331_AACXPE albritton_r_Page_76.jp2
0a3fe914253ee0aa68df1a7343ea2449
002b321d803e48483d0bda27a082707e89abcfae
1051909 F20110331_AACXOQ albritton_r_Page_61.jp2
f3808d694da0268f7c4cb88f781f5e7a
534da49bd5851321040118f798cd377f79c36d2d
104686 F20110331_AACXPF albritton_r_Page_77.jp2
a2c8c5b1a5cb6d1ebe90b757951eba5d
9e58acbb57e272db8e6f132db1d507deb377548f
57043 F20110331_AACXOR albritton_r_Page_62.jp2
adf5a89565a6521851760b41ceb0c761
21f1bd76380ffdcfedce4ec514f7bc993acc366a
117600 F20110331_AACXPG albritton_r_Page_78.jp2
350726faaa14d9d8f1d82bd9db815bbd
12f71bd35c628795a080c375bc84711b1ccddb32
1019497 F20110331_AACXOS albritton_r_Page_64.jp2
e498f1c7bc509bbe7b85c257759a35bb
5721c54428f118741bd781972faec1065b005970
117037 F20110331_AACXPH albritton_r_Page_80.jp2
4dc063447244840d5d792330fed9115b
3c452476006589464696ae30f25765e01c4fb4d9
111685 F20110331_AACXOT albritton_r_Page_65.jp2
67d18941e5d1056da4ccf2125904d082
04c83db25c88459fb11399add5bcff1a5fae452f
74960 F20110331_AACXPI albritton_r_Page_81.jp2
245b58016309484a1135cea1eee3c86a
78171c153749f473b9a073f1df535312ad1d1a5f
114274 F20110331_AACXOU albritton_r_Page_66.jp2
6499aad6eacb224de3b4b6d024e664ed
f90f657ee8514ec72a79d384e387d8f2e6968529
29896 F20110331_AACXPJ albritton_r_Page_82.jp2
795f68aeded68388ae73c7d964a95b16
e869d410ea7c13dd0f7c90c2462a698ccd962d91
87269 F20110331_AACXOV albritton_r_Page_67.jp2
7be3a569b6e80880cbf1ffd700d3f124
7c303e0027cedbb5626e20ce27be759a925d3bd9
174415 F20110331_AACXPK albritton_r_Page_83.jp2
06142ce74164beb6005d3cd87edb81b0
ba738039f653964b6df70c165afc4b5e77a1e550
78378 F20110331_AACXOW albritton_r_Page_68.jp2
5a16726f0bf91c1ce2c344433bf778c7
79cece4a70d390220544997e78fe05b34fcf3a86
8605 F20110331_AACXQA albritton_r_Page_17thm.jpg
1ce7b4bf97480e1de66672b287915374
e46fcfa63e484745c3e207882fe0656b8c72cd39
63298 F20110331_AACXPL albritton_r_Page_84.jp2
269a6b15d71a8bca6bc862a8d451fb1d
a2dafc14b7f9e2b63bb7ca7c76083fab7f176c53
1051947 F20110331_AACXOX albritton_r_Page_69.jp2
899824429997959f7276dec62e6c5d41
f7af2459f68080a810aed00ef12ba1bd40f75cf5
1051976 F20110331_AACXPM albritton_r_Page_85.jp2
e4c879cb20681b62152c531988a69169
79b7076e80a5b8283916de15e937dc28a4344605
103825 F20110331_AACXOY albritton_r_Page_70.jp2
0f689b1ec607c6e57dfdc4e332c362ac
27f7534878c2ff8b7463efef2893300ac8a8c310
9238 F20110331_AACXQB albritton_r_Page_43thm.jpg
c00a745f6ce99d00ba3b1a55e0ee3c18
3f4347ee2da59c6911d0191cd495204cb1098090
135834 F20110331_AACXPN albritton_r_Page_86.jp2
c087f06251a5eb88614e0b638d5b60de
61cda2b8225bc6b548f403b0f7e98fcb89816954
84581 F20110331_AACXOZ albritton_r_Page_71.jp2
d0e1474f372b552c794f37f2d57ae3b7
05e5671dfe95b4d727eae88a588dd19833959252
38087 F20110331_AACXQC albritton_r_Page_87.QC.jpg
d8766231c13a88945f2a133df8a93d9e
d48221bf2d392ef1df7cef5c7e9b75da74d84aba
142200 F20110331_AACXPO albritton_r_Page_87.jp2
46c93ae64439af507b70f7a141cc7de9
5514a52ff72cc9bd60a125a55023ffeaf35403da
34126 F20110331_AACXQD albritton_r_Page_47.QC.jpg
c733455ed7ae84dc084d54344bf868b7
9f232013e8841b488cb489272fc8744b412e4caf
140271 F20110331_AACXPP albritton_r_Page_88.jp2
a89be5bdc8f4dccb2ae1e208d5f3b6ee
8d3ec1177e387853a4c1257197a3c0ccbab855ca
4730 F20110331_AACXQE albritton_r_Page_75thm.jpg
fa9d1ceded3223b610fb52f1262f18be
6fee56916ad1cfb6578557cc9f858f8f17a71518
137544 F20110331_AACXPQ albritton_r_Page_89.jp2
35476038eac878bcb16442445f2e3e2c
78cecd65b42e4bb1308e9f4752ad6abe5b4a9084
37992 F20110331_AACXQF albritton_r_Page_52.QC.jpg
f4b8f8fb00f58cf2f52c66590afc831c
0ab66197854f89fd2af45c9df18295647beece6f
138342 F20110331_AACXPR albritton_r_Page_92.jp2
1d173b0719577de08c77d561b69209d9
0420b0f79341639b40ef1473a334600acb3484d9
24201 F20110331_AACXQG albritton_r_Page_68.QC.jpg
999bd5372983f75747f046d32f382d5e
75ec2ad4942d0cd3a7b5e541992867e7d8ddcd22
93974 F20110331_AACXPS albritton_r_Page_93.jp2
22acea5227c9136aeca414eeefaaf20a
91eb6f20a356817d02d30041dbe92d3c8cb60fe0
9104 F20110331_AACXQH albritton_r_Page_52thm.jpg
b80013bdc9fc40466a346eb612152878
efe296c50f9bbc899ea8f350a2a915b58348b59a
52349 F20110331_AACXPT albritton_r_Page_94.jp2
fa4c0822577d8ec25e43d422c2a836e6
99722b33898a125fef3b9d18bb761d6612c27c3c
7998 F20110331_AACXQI albritton_r_Page_76thm.jpg
f44058247608b3e094c01c9124f16e28
6deb5752e67b8a918404a5224dab0f2c7332a767
8761 F20110331_AACXPU albritton_r_Page_21thm.jpg
717fc22def10e40917a2b8e9f7106efa
16a95b38369912110b0e5209be35555e06a2d3e3
2062 F20110331_AACXQJ albritton_r_Page_01thm.jpg
c08c0278834fac15f9e63173d9a751aa
6482831e183c4c21318ecff614b936845ca6b3fc
33883 F20110331_AACXPV albritton_r_Page_73.QC.jpg
3e7ad555bc5f5b805750d75ec02d8597
4a19bdeb70a27004687c0c3bc4befb338fb0d279
7196 F20110331_AACXPW albritton_r_Page_64thm.jpg
41ab88dc9188bc20d4acfd75ff289603
73f29af555e1c193bc19e57fb611557e5bb3d629
9123 F20110331_AACXQK albritton_r_Page_50thm.jpg
c13edaa6598de7dba38754198d6a2b80
41e95fd57ee94f0c5bcb3c5279f9cfdd5a11441b
7655 F20110331_AACXPX albritton_r_Page_70thm.jpg
ea4139a4e98e9643de72ef7f0dab6417
b90b4cd4760b5dc6242f2b8c915a156aa6f2a75b
25657 F20110331_AACXRA albritton_r_Page_60.QC.jpg
ae2d698268d506244078977d611ede54
4a74a12d1e1802c4f8b878c242b320fd6aa0c28e
36536 F20110331_AACXQL albritton_r_Page_16.QC.jpg
2596afc68eb8d8253036485adb9528d3
f567cbdf97c77a407c79e698f86bc5eeeda93cbd
37004 F20110331_AACXPY albritton_r_Page_37.QC.jpg
a7e04f7f67e0d02f381440cacec87a5a
68c45c693ecbb419c79a466ffca523acf85e7371
9896 F20110331_AACXRB albritton_r_Page_82.QC.jpg
77aeacbabaefce1768b60b643bbc4411
7a4f2850bc9fbd71c85caafc6e1162a15374e4e3
521 F20110331_AACXQM albritton_r_Page_02thm.jpg
18c4e8430901ac558fadd46e334691c3
b3d04a975a731b3d6a6acb7b3e3901daf72e8be6
35343 F20110331_AACXPZ albritton_r_Page_66.QC.jpg
cb77c9ffe95c5e1dc609df8182e87d07
f5296b8352541c91892d0afb7162e366e8de7029
35557 F20110331_AACXQN albritton_r_Page_86.QC.jpg
d1e549cc9d47722a9a369bfe906597ba
816719ef12eb3c61f02d8c394088152d33ec6757
8664 F20110331_AACXRC albritton_r_Page_46thm.jpg
b1459e5bc899744d0d43ff26f0adf6f4
9501b1452bd4abc36fc83f52be0d7829cf2d2f43
9016 F20110331_AACXQO albritton_r_Page_14thm.jpg
73b33929291401d0df22305247783a07
89785bd7df831253c544a6f3fc48d280642afdae
8848 F20110331_AACXRD albritton_r_Page_41thm.jpg
259707c618137aec690bbbbcdfac84f9
f6921387e218168d75bc0b6a702edd0fcdfa5a27
25921 F20110331_AACXQP albritton_r_Page_05.QC.jpg
15962a27aa1142f5aad41f4d49a3aff4
9ee662913e6ad7795d7b20ea66a7e9d67d80cf22
8365 F20110331_AACXRE albritton_r_Page_25thm.jpg
c23b29acae032f052918b67e467f5425
fbd4877d0c19b6c94f2bacab41bb17f610ba5ec9
8263 F20110331_AACXQQ albritton_r_Page_45thm.jpg
ff7b7f6a3977399e4249a4819561b19d
4e7bdcf3579a9663a3bdf685aed0f10389218df5
8241 F20110331_AACXRF albritton_r_Page_47thm.jpg
1d91bb29845ede832958ed3b58cf055d
5446661ea5f3b57978b57e027ec6ca01f310c3aa
7898 F20110331_AACXQR albritton_r_Page_77thm.jpg
2ca54d70ede6eb963b2c5584ba3e600d
6e4ece8667cc11c10373a0d2aa4ceb55b4668d74
8971 F20110331_AACXRG albritton_r_Page_78thm.jpg
a90cbf90d37a86f79312e7246d61a185
821d8193d1b95c484a8f0cec3fd97bc1655a109a
8888 F20110331_AACXQS albritton_r_Page_26thm.jpg
e44f87f38e4b9229b78a0377e980f330
585d39da42664eea7cbfa0affd583697352d33f7
2566 F20110331_AACXRH albritton_r_Page_82thm.jpg
c1a4541f387d5ae680d050a1566583cb
3821f34bdf346b065653969f687dbdc0cefe6b03
7240 F20110331_AACXQT albritton_r_Page_10thm.jpg
5c3f5eac585e550c445ea9d56a123472
2af9095fdba8e5130dd19564235d6a5cfac0371c
8762 F20110331_AACXRI albritton_r_Page_38thm.jpg
ce4b2a81565624a579b74a75b96b9b95
d5e53be77ba6b645c760525a8449a1d4bbef6e88
6452 F20110331_AACXQU albritton_r_Page_68thm.jpg
dae1b8013370c5713a367080b014ee1e
4a3e8675e02f56fbd79627b5e9036eb8ceb3234d
26138 F20110331_AACXRJ albritton_r_Page_63.QC.jpg
821bcb1faa460162269de11f0b37f408
25044ee984bac8b97d0d91e01d0e80cc3d434440
20894 F20110331_AACXQV albritton_r_Page_35.QC.jpg
5fd8ff58e6000f4c80f4a23b32f9baed
46e3e5004b92f81c8eea623008f939b9f229f240
8323 F20110331_AACXRK albritton_r_Page_83thm.jpg
fbab2fcf5ec733718c05aced125a00ae
7921c56092325101e447fb7a6bcbc2c06fa83ad7
14457 F20110331_AACXQW albritton_r_Page_11.QC.jpg
84ca2bc7b4e2e5c53304b6d437aef837
b967f262e87212a53aac5f09e539022b61348c0d
1636 F20110331_AACXSA albritton_r_Page_03thm.jpg
34c749a21e16bb439520d97199d7279f
a794d74d50d6aad1de0d9626d70b22c48225cf90
7385 F20110331_AACXRL albritton_r_Page_74thm.jpg
de5b4850b6804879b92d869b65225f7a
dad8b524d6025b585fcf9c76fea5f3b0522327de
8568 F20110331_AACXQX albritton_r_Page_01.QC.jpg
1742b1ba6194ce84399bdd788b007489
c58d972115d3e7811cb1d984a40b1f1dc51527b3
36390 F20110331_AACXSB albritton_r_Page_88.QC.jpg
5d26455cba6e7ee35a4e9fe5f558a068
e95eacd595d1e2713328264e3a0f0ad1ffe5c97a
32720 F20110331_AACXRM albritton_r_Page_70.QC.jpg
46705c263125a9d0e8eebd8b33045311
d547f1ddac2290c7ab321d76ec74edadff74876b
9254 F20110331_AACXQY albritton_r_Page_48thm.jpg
f07275b520dde5423bf4c42ca62cb511
4ff10bfac1f2719791a2d72315d93ebd3d3834f3
34068 F20110331_AACXSC albritton_r_Page_18.QC.jpg
649d593c20934cb02042139b41eb233e
b83fcebe487c0c9a201c08052f964fb186957449
2500 F20110331_AACXRN albritton_r_Page_32thm.jpg
f940203f43055c9bf29711c8b15edeef
5d74a95338fa1c235296e640a91f4d27475296fa
6124 F20110331_AACXQZ albritton_r_Page_93thm.jpg
9375b36dd8bce1d853d00775db262151
dc50cc07019c3f25da91d8d43d152b3baa7a17d5
9132 F20110331_AACXRO albritton_r_Page_92thm.jpg
f285801e9211be4b941de11b41c1f1d4
fbc83c32b12d2e144e8a9c866191217a08fd64df
8274 F20110331_AACXSD albritton_r_Page_42thm.jpg
09ca84ca2c1bb8799904c6222f20b015
a3be8df79072c9778e79241009a35d4e9c7a43fb
6748 F20110331_AACXRP albritton_r_Page_05thm.jpg
2b9c944037268b11d85fefa22f8b38aa
575229efafa261ae668a0dc720df3a6c761da127
8994 F20110331_AACXSE albritton_r_Page_23thm.jpg
792b5fa601c65fe07df37d6e5e4256f4
2d8f4fb98927cdf0a0034b0145381b25fd9fc426
34810 F20110331_AACXRQ albritton_r_Page_38.QC.jpg
49e990d405605bbed5bb51b633c836f9
91f5bec9b06c732034cadbaabe8eda9f363fbedb
31825 F20110331_AACXSF albritton_r_Page_77.QC.jpg
5801d2ae4a7e1da7079ff00a63f58c86
517aed6a65e1aa0a624dc2e5dae8ead7e0862a1d
37695 F20110331_AACXRR albritton_r_Page_44.QC.jpg
36d349f75cf5ad94c683bdb9dc1dabb8
9113f89e43f93df7845957ed89197ae19ab3e1bd
27296 F20110331_AACXSG albritton_r_Page_71.QC.jpg
7c94758c442493d34c224abca65f89df
68cf6b6ad68b4696acb9ecb05aeed9bbb1993463
9157 F20110331_AACXRS albritton_r_Page_28thm.jpg
61a2b7585ff2970e1968db35ac7fc913
74c56ca1ab0c790d82d43db7a0c3e190dc13716b
8686 F20110331_AACXSH albritton_r_Page_19thm.jpg
0f7b9aececb2d73238dbc7f522b32d62
b5002e3bf45ca753f92a038bf4eda1cb45cf6002
33321 F20110331_AACXRT albritton_r_Page_49.QC.jpg
da6b33acc3b8a6c7fe260d58ab9ee8f0
460ac9ba8f1f123dacbc59a1d3680594bbc67419
9036 F20110331_AACXSI albritton_r_Page_51thm.jpg
8555c2faaf6afbc74f06049ff2d1a1c7
7ae86ddfe3632836c34d128a692674c043460f27
1170 F20110331_AACXRU albritton_r_Page_02.QC.jpg
9376f7187b263d267050969b55d548cd
fb5377e2f9734303501e49e523802f591886cc3a
8654 F20110331_AACXSJ albritton_r_Page_90thm.jpg
7f0060dde3661a18cc7cda417707bdc1
00a7bfd1bc2a761f7f8294845de5625c3d0b693c
22291 F20110331_AACXRV albritton_r_Page_33.QC.jpg
a5ecbc8b86b0dbf1f60e2935d8abdb06
6a2c930bb0dd3ff61129519cccf0d970a4e4ad8d
8583 F20110331_AACXSK albritton_r_Page_12thm.jpg
70843fc2fc0004b8ba42addc02280723
b4349e0e003091bc86e5f3abfa4605a8c6a3802a
7127 F20110331_AACXRW albritton_r_Page_04thm.jpg
a27791a4d4c22f958f43f5db44ee55db
4a536ff789c0dafa006529e70a905cfeca7ed30e
35257 F20110331_AACXSL albritton_r_Page_42.QC.jpg
14ed399cdd423aa0a5e7b92a24384ee0
c30c633ccb537d21f23f4e46debd3c6ecf6f78cf
36995 F20110331_AACXRX albritton_r_Page_13.QC.jpg
cba3b805bffbcfe22e0022751d6393f8
15d4d07a5d36ca36c25f01b102ef8933bb091e0e
34850 F20110331_AACXTA albritton_r_Page_39.QC.jpg
222994e19f3338d371341348646933b6
fb6e8b1498f539e518353389622f4c955c7e424b
28169 F20110331_AACXSM albritton_r_Page_67.QC.jpg
89527e178ddcd9e57f89fab38795b06a
057a86192b45e48aa008496ea346362bbee544e0
33429 F20110331_AACXRY albritton_r_Page_25.QC.jpg
50796e4b788be7af4abe242e8aa40cdd
9e770e64b780d4aba91f8fa0160db019e90b65f5
36720 F20110331_AACXTB albritton_r_Page_26.QC.jpg
ebfd204c1ef4aca276163a835060289d
66d1221c0aed8cbdf174181133d40fc67d89c2d5
37365 F20110331_AACXSN albritton_r_Page_21.QC.jpg
6576f94355978d8a5213d5f798dbd93b
1cde78f47c694aaa7c559e141ff374fda9a5f98e
35456 F20110331_AACXRZ albritton_r_Page_17.QC.jpg
f71ddeca2e966c9ad0b814c1405cf2a9
c25c24cdbd5246ae61f7162841de147abc800338
7937 F20110331_AACXTC albritton_r_Page_79thm.jpg
0ad9b24534c49cd56e6eb5973b9331d0
68e0d7d0b5dc819a75b935addbbd8cbead692806
37716 F20110331_AACXSO albritton_r_Page_53.QC.jpg
999330b21b15048c7e15d65183c11f93
d8451e17608847d863f43ed34410d0d0c5b5351c
3609 F20110331_AACXTD albritton_r_Page_34thm.jpg
b739773dc8be4495f22748acb70907ca
aace3dda1b799f646b9316ea4a87beacc1135bd9
37066 F20110331_AACXSP albritton_r_Page_19.QC.jpg
fc62641c11e65aab06efa1fd6c2b6fd8
504edf6dd729a4923f0668f32e466b535ffe0624
34966 F20110331_AACXSQ albritton_r_Page_22.QC.jpg
c0f382829dae13210907f7365fdb0e84
40a6d1480378f5df7e5787ca838ea033607e2b40
8332 F20110331_AACXTE albritton_r_Page_22thm.jpg
027301ec9319816aa59694b390d60b36
a519370446358a4a5dd6c6b7023d2409abade79c
8414 F20110331_AACXSR albritton_r_Page_65thm.jpg
0a503bed4feeb93e561dfb02a404c6a1
18cc29ad1eca4b4db533a6c064fe69970a89b895
8267 F20110331_AACXTF albritton_r_Page_24thm.jpg
b00fd7603547e88417ac0f1fd7a7c039
60dbcd2453a0072583a7165b391d693a274518ce
36625 F20110331_AACXSS albritton_r_Page_29.QC.jpg
d9626c800252da9b1fc588daf94805fa
84306624f35c1dc2cd11ea53d77cc514911c8593
7519 F20110331_AACXTG albritton_r_Page_67thm.jpg
454d53c44e9873985183de1c8aed72f0
80f9d08f8c65225411422383bf8e555d63c83979
2803 F20110331_AACXST albritton_r_Page_08thm.jpg
435b6845ee628c73d8ef76595422b587
08d09d53bbe5fc5123942a6f63ed7511e38985fc
18395 F20110331_AACXTH albritton_r_Page_75.QC.jpg
b7ddaaa4b4a13c8671dbcdbc1f022975
d1027d0b0341d02639127653f16da91d54782286
36118 F20110331_AACXSU albritton_r_Page_14.QC.jpg
1aeafc73fe6a7b982c394e2a6bda99f3
f36f84725c18ed987c3d3632c04932aac8150c8f
32448 F20110331_AACXTI albritton_r_Page_45.QC.jpg
ed678ffd014cfe2ef8079a97e125a0b9
66a7b92a8d39da83237fad3046930a81143e652a
8710 F20110331_AACXSV albritton_r_Page_55thm.jpg
69e211fb94ab200b1d6c69ae3267ed47
1bfe1d974627ba509ea341bb72f5cf3bcffa2136
9040 F20110331_AACXTJ albritton_r_Page_87thm.jpg
5243f6c08c624cc311166ae0d332e2f3
ce6100177a1794b6e331b3e936fd6b9e7e382725
24581 F20110331_AACXSW albritton_r_Page_64.QC.jpg
b202e524299ac0d0cfae0eead1a67944
c5da291233aa6e1702da38be73ade1e9df04f0f5
6477 F20110331_AACXTK albritton_r_Page_71thm.jpg
428304a9451e122bc01e2e2a1216833a
1f37f31269592862bf5f2786c7d99c8d793c02ac
24629 F20110331_AACXSX albritton_r_Page_57.QC.jpg
fa123ae3b6403041ac5e360ebd20387b
d2a2783cb85323e792e4ffffea8842b9ed62190c
8435 F20110331_AACXUA albritton_r_Page_31thm.jpg
14c4da4760d7dae4eee17519ee834d1c
b2505162866038a7747d68cbc8267c319d7639c2
26048 F20110331_AACXTL albritton_r_Page_61.QC.jpg
866d0ae538b9033f89f8741a20dcd431
ce92166182f2d607d61c70c5575387d09f9b1d41
38968 F20110331_AACXSY albritton_r_Page_48.QC.jpg
f876828a4ce137116baa06f33373b5a4
c992c2a34ef5a9ce685beb226c9c1cecd8be3f37
37920 F20110331_AACXUB albritton_r_Page_50.QC.jpg
c83392a7a440a73703ea64f158031df4
b41b6e32d705232f1d8d9953a18c8f3b3deef06e
9033 F20110331_AACXTM albritton_r_Page_20thm.jpg
6f9a658cde1b74a0ddd2fa2f659b1121
619fad401af982076e0a6889b4a0b395bc342fd6
8855 F20110331_AACXSZ albritton_r_Page_37thm.jpg
45d3869c19f005c86187c4a431312d1a
2d42eea6762792272ba61bfb66833d44605db373
36611 F20110331_AACXUC albritton_r_Page_40.QC.jpg
959af439578bc7b650686c18c1b33481
baacb05ab79127438a086eae10efa1304efc0a0e
9001 F20110331_AACXTN albritton_r_Page_54thm.jpg
bfbd8ea8e129df49bac2d849ea1a7ff9
fd9344da22250de2f32d6a10a2e0b6c62374d6bf
13923 F20110331_AACXUD albritton_r_Page_34.QC.jpg
8b27a9ce6ef9a3d5d0e2f42addb5ded3
9e2c3fde332e8199911af4289b8cb0466517b25e
7565 F20110331_AACXTO albritton_r_Page_60thm.jpg
246f5dc25f71525d5d359b13c47852ad
24c338bf828f88f778b64bcb815b5f35d733e926
37800 F20110331_AACXUE albritton_r_Page_91.QC.jpg
db0122bcea3c32a25473532a39fb13aa
52c1cba90ed7d0d8e5e44dc85ab97a98dfcc7b83
7641 F20110331_AACXTP albritton_r_Page_59thm.jpg
26c065f9e56f6cf440f04949db80a618
f8fcd91b2e59b553e28562cf0c7d4c4af1498319
1531 F20110331_AACXTQ albritton_r_Page_09thm.jpg
7fb5759bf86aeec2b51b38b3f5927494
37a4a770f1aaf538b2bccbb999d72872253e90a4
17571 F20110331_AACXUF albritton_r_Page_62.QC.jpg
5a5180fbca674cf94c23eaa08e4d2402
ea7c527730af2f3a5f80c6fa18f942411718ab75
7452 F20110331_AACXTR albritton_r_Page_63thm.jpg
d8daa6065fbc9b3e6b7c41c834b5ae5e
0c37acf4523c27d58024184dedaf47b24c7f7176
26722 F20110331_AACXUG albritton_r_Page_15.QC.jpg
e6160c1a78d61687b1b4bf820e3957a6
a9128d7662725c29d4aa9eafbdcd9938ff5f6333
3766 F20110331_AACXTS albritton_r_Page_06thm.jpg
49cf1d46b520e165a438dddf3c88ef36
269196af146e2072318dcd8cc4232ba81630d9dc
36322 F20110331_AACXUH albritton_r_Page_90.QC.jpg
c3ad825100e7c10907e3267ecd3be701
d714b4d88141150e298123cab7d2db4902bdfae3
6496 F20110331_AACXTT albritton_r_Page_15thm.jpg
b4251163d18ee53f16299963129de128
aef634e9da79577a90d6bd69dd96b75c0f1fd13e
8038 F20110331_AACXUI albritton_r_Page_49thm.jpg
bed467867a8df0045c1357d003b3dab9
c8093684d62dc3e223f7eafa8e322952c28d45a2
4070 F20110331_AACXTU albritton_r_Page_94thm.jpg
c5b6a5a14c07122c1f6d2b304fce88a3
f865807c820e34e13c91a51247a99be17af2acea
4638 F20110331_AACXUJ albritton_r_Page_56thm.jpg
df945816b1ec960dae30e0339ed3d49f
a3466bee86986f3b45df3c4336087422b5d108c4
38647 F20110331_AACXTV albritton_r_Page_43.QC.jpg
d22328b47dedb01674e9ea01d4abfb65
291a6b2202be9e6bfa2a9d8a428f861ce12be86f
5737 F20110331_AACXUK albritton_r_Page_09.QC.jpg
1b06e99dacd8407c23f276ef2d6a81c5
eb00eb28824fdc2ce3e5c0c6c9e88702147b73d6
4682 F20110331_AACXTW albritton_r_Page_84thm.jpg
49c6011b7594b22856c201176cd8ac5d
fc141b267f4a5a7895c885626844ebb16a2b212b
37524 F20110331_AACXVA albritton_r_Page_83.QC.jpg
f867ea54609752f34a2eef6ea4160818
1053249327b4f7ce697761db454bc787cad52191
37486 F20110331_AACXUL albritton_r_Page_72.QC.jpg
0306fb837e9f7a3c451c468ac74df105
e0963f0b199c935b3c97e71f2cfbf054f3e17dfd
34235 F20110331_AACXTX albritton_r_Page_24.QC.jpg
bd2e9bb3f09d33edb4ba7c0eeca1688a
e39c2694f8f0c3e44624dab660b32481c27911b9
18480 F20110331_AACXVB albritton_r_Page_84.QC.jpg
74269b6028fe2a8a02804852b8391d65
3fa0e5b0e00e2f4d1c284cb0b98178091bdf4af9
8480 F20110331_AACXUM albritton_r_Page_69thm.jpg
f2170cb33f5198e6c0a569755d795a36
55999bcb63a81e65423b722a41d022083b2dca55
25311 F20110331_AACXTY albritton_r_Page_93.QC.jpg
f9694689552f9fd591d5a39c60420f2c
cbb90d0ba1b3a2c579d2d83af8575ba154361cb6
22870 F20110331_AACXVC albritton_r_Page_85.QC.jpg
df34dc2f44662b051733dec9e8f289ea
60a275179b406c0afaa3ee91d6fb89bd91b62551
27073 F20110331_AACXUN albritton_r_Page_07.QC.jpg
4c3c2c203605028dae0c5ba0d799d765
e6064993fc767a3243b7535fa6a3a818d8cc6067
8995 F20110331_AACXTZ albritton_r_Page_13thm.jpg
1e9cea29a9037b0fefffec53b24f3bdf
62acdbca0d6e63f95f44569259a266913465f21e
36624 F20110331_AACXVD albritton_r_Page_89.QC.jpg
03b7d69f658b3793adfb1b2c35dd8bbe
4f6e717dc7c355bf5e8c2ce4d645bb9016cbd2ea
36308 F20110331_AACXUO albritton_r_Page_20.QC.jpg
6ceb62fda22c1644009c8310d21022be
a05c48f71eabd222d16a7531efae99dbfacf2a74
8863 F20110331_AACXVE albritton_r_Page_16thm.jpg
e472218fd0e007ca3cadf7ffbbaffe77
366ab91b02e3ac359c9be347bb78226bbb6f8120
154103 F20110331_AACXUP UFE0021811_00001.xml FULL
4b6fd10ef6ff8a34128e125f02ee07dd
20d29e2660af88d815314dbd8d97566aa93a3d1b
8507 F20110331_AACXVF albritton_r_Page_18thm.jpg
a7cc82d168107a8d5bccf88eed5ded8e
0306e477d783969a020f10f55c851388028ae768
27752 F20110331_AACXUQ albritton_r_Page_04.QC.jpg
d8ad4138d51eab6c9fce35bc67f99d16
075570bcd890fa79f0e446972a9bd04b9c3be763
37124 F20110331_AACXUR albritton_r_Page_23.QC.jpg
3f3a8203d4f93359ce87853e00e0dc65
f52bef18d39d42e3f23f75a31b15ec0d75a2ab41
8492 F20110331_AACXVG albritton_r_Page_27thm.jpg
7db3ecade3ebb0d40528a90ca955dcdc
d288ac5c98a564ff119cfde5718b7595bd9819a7
36082 F20110331_AACXUS albritton_r_Page_27.QC.jpg
3f6eb5da6d5bf46780517c31aaa8ae69
e0b92f5cc86175ac6156d994cfa013e4676f773f
34020 F20110331_AACXUT albritton_r_Page_30.QC.jpg
67c52c13cedcb06668dc824a5182bdcc
c362b4546b320c018278cf39ae67cf4f0279786f
7043 F20110331_AACXVH albritton_r_Page_33thm.jpg
a4bcded92fc894492bc655f78e6a28f1
46c525ec4558b510f40b1ebe45030d526663d713
10143 F20110331_AACXUU albritton_r_Page_32.QC.jpg
38c4bd2bf275a8d46d95f94f6f846420
8a34a28d9563e38ba4db3aded19b2f4e53398b47
4916 F20110331_AACXVI albritton_r_Page_36thm.jpg
9a327d4f86fc315c748cdb14b74f5598
c7d885c87801cc7a301932627c004c748f9e8ca6
35500 F20110331_AACXUV albritton_r_Page_46.QC.jpg
18a4d1cfe39e414083cc9c36f89aaf1d
9573f3c31024508ac06cb1cfb0d93d550e80ba8e
8694 F20110331_AACXVJ albritton_r_Page_39thm.jpg
6b90a2e19ada2695c3362f6bd6af6673
0a6e9f748ce79f9d663804b86a708e9794b3dec5
37099 F20110331_AACXUW albritton_r_Page_55.QC.jpg
f979e2db4eb5e79563fc171fd2115c63
03f502a0bf8048ef1d4332b71dbb6945c61afd92
5453 F20110331_AACXVK albritton_r_Page_58thm.jpg
8d408fa0b2c0687de47a641fb927fe14
6250a45285723aa58aebb7f7475701e41a9e3361
19910 F20110331_AACXUX albritton_r_Page_56.QC.jpg
33ab79fba6d9437758621bf13935b02e
8fa24edf49914e5b3baf44438e292e3ff5ca195f
4472 F20110331_AACXVL albritton_r_Page_62thm.jpg
3336ae291de9dfec95584d30210f7dc4
46182c3626214f1893aba828cb4c55ccf1db88b7
25951 F20110331_AACXUY albritton_r_Page_59.QC.jpg
334adbca61d6970d74757456cb98d8a5
9e7a11f5d6bec49216348c6e8223455d13a359f5
8513 F20110331_AACXVM albritton_r_Page_73thm.jpg
f96828f6d9a5ba1d94f7b758023e0dc8
abc5a4cc7afc6773b20aefe600317120c8273ad1
31667 F20110331_AACXUZ albritton_r_Page_76.QC.jpg
c95f4355fd7e5d905b1dac09f234d946
7e9cc785c86ed4d51523a661a3f7e1f1c377c4d1
8796 F20110331_AACXVN albritton_r_Page_86thm.jpg
cef77dedc47445bf693f6676d6cbad26
f66d43517caaf86b43d0b54bf732156cee3861f8
9094 F20110331_AACXVO albritton_r_Page_88thm.jpg
173605c36f80215c73a20761ca445887
6cc1a2576098a8b332e6c681129e38be295b80c3
F20110331_AACXVP albritton_r_Page_91thm.jpg
2b08519ca398d4f7adf7e9424c1a109c
8f84cb6a9881ab7740d88268e21c4e4d0302e81b
8713 F20110331_AACXAA albritton_r_Page_80thm.jpg
a7517afc5884e99578002b67b67ce8eb
8dbe0c1e6db9b56800e49b0a2c2d8fa9f24744ca
3936 F20110331_AACXAB albritton_r_Page_02.jpg
0760b2bcbb9a6bfc688f819a20befc79
367e7d685f0f768dcfa988742b10a756fbd3e833
24510 F20110331_AACXAC albritton_r_Page_81.QC.jpg
1f5f5eb0c23c5c73e1370ba86146703f
93f34bae8dadeac62a2a201ba50118bfebbbe1a2
408 F20110331_AACXAD albritton_r_Page_60.txt
585d703a35a6ab7b926715d5edf6e783
65bdf7bcc35a9f4a25e20faca49676c2fd49cb33
55990 F20110331_AACXAE albritton_r_Page_53.pro
4d2fdd6939f625925e5a63caef5deed5
4b84463c8a63d511fef8a7032fc30e8edd99fdf7
47301 F20110331_AACXAF albritton_r_Page_79.pro
c6e3f58ec12f18574dfc0f5519b0c5a3
6d88263b2151b15752a50ca60a78d903df603562
117501 F20110331_AACXAG albritton_r_Page_48.jpg
d19aeca9b109a049eeb06f86d3b04a06
cc0a531f9fa9ce1cfe5db0b024a087f0650bb497
61970 F20110331_AACXAH albritton_r_Page_84.jpg
0b69bec3aa47c52b53b4e56f68a7cb3d
2bd9ef5a9e5165f01776c2f72264b4c464c4bee0
1053954 F20110331_AACXAI albritton_r_Page_44.tif
2f53101685a4af8a8a13eda44acf9ed9
65cb66d9a92fbff9c3c056e3e15c56a04be5be2a
64530 F20110331_AACXAJ albritton_r_Page_87.pro
c67bfae729c1865664bfa27c5f18c125
1dbf2df863826435fb0d36640b4b7efe6dbff7df
112631 F20110331_AACXAK albritton_r_Page_54.jpg
94bfcccc1ba4fa8844d5dc9da1c56f0c
134c6cfc51b7d565e147a8d71f4b2ece5a88198e
130537 F20110331_AACXAL albritton_r_Page_92.jpg
7896d865ae8ed94b93049c949eee9503
b29e71c3dd12bde65a3a2e36ac1c5c9e29cae94b
2297 F20110331_AACXBA albritton_r_Page_07.txt
2a7ff2a675ba70a40aaac5ceb5a466bb
61dd553570d8dc3031e2c20bb4663d2c5e17753b
5753 F20110331_AACXAM albritton_r_Page_57thm.jpg
9f950c4f2da8760c67853233f8d7fe01
860b0ce9a9bc5ee44977143663fed60715811fd5
53338 F20110331_AACXBB albritton_r_Page_39.pro
eb61a31bc94c659dc72bb39085150694
892ca04c01d6891cf529e06facd0889faac2ffa7
151276 F20110331_AACXAN albritton_r_Page_91.jp2
8a50c97d5f4893c42ef8fd9c8a16a18d
420c08b0ce8489db031d7f3b6f39b348e705a9e9
104565 F20110331_AACXBC albritton_r_Page_79.jp2
d5e39474cb9c76b46855e8edd31df506
330b15dae06992f027880c03be6885373894f5ac
34784 F20110331_AACXAO albritton_r_Page_31.QC.jpg
2ee3b345960f440e45ed6a2ae0038417
e5047a756ddc5e0112cdca43005b05c1e36961a9
109805 F20110331_AACXBD albritton_r_Page_14.jpg
72f4c854c073323e6f84853dd92919bf
7897e6217d669628e283f4286f752f0716eb1167
952 F20110331_AACXAP albritton_r_Page_82.txt
21d261f57fed7332142677a471b14ede
5805d381ccbb3eab8ff1c59efb5b9f2a56b883f1
15810 F20110331_AACXBE albritton_r_Page_82.pro
e6a514f944a1f57cb1a61a74521d435a
c95cff1305872bfc86d51396b6d17f1c7dddda42
103370 F20110331_AACXAQ albritton_r_Page_45.jp2
f744acf87ddcda7924424e76310591ce
038bd31e9d2dfb6809bf9d978f6881c8d1a07f4b
126428 F20110331_AACXBF albritton_r_Page_50.jp2
151db0a27f165f25ef88a76841bbe4ac
7cd03577455468bd3160fe1a2d0de21e6307b187
112375 F20110331_AACXBG UFE0021811_00001.mets
f8740c5e4967820721c91de36ce051bf
c5efdc32fed1b5b834eaa4f9c33babc8808d7c30
25271604 F20110331_AACXAR albritton_r_Page_61.tif
2f2228205ff1d757902db83902710dbc
b6bc3f13b7044b4b99c4a2e78ba5f56fdeb63cd5
98272 F20110331_AACXAS albritton_r_Page_77.jpg
21aad2ffe383e3b1aeae9c8421485c5b
28c3b178af40d930371072aeeba3f4633a00e8c0
8946 F20110331_AACXAT albritton_r_Page_53thm.jpg
59cab7d9fe3349be9877141a90fac285
35aef1f893f09b533c9f26f3e301ea886fd46d16
F20110331_AACXBJ albritton_r_Page_01.tif
f8a729c838ac07b90f74c78dfb94d7ba
693936aad3a710ad243e00aa13914ef95314c5be
124597 F20110331_AACWWD albritton_r_Page_48.jp2
1096aaee86f714a5f368cab4775a4710
e9f89a83085df6adc2e0c167b7b4359e300de18c
115114 F20110331_AACXAU albritton_r_Page_23.jpg
02f989053478acb8c5480a5aee08a6ee
52dc641b9589de2527abe894cbaa9918972f843b
F20110331_AACXBK albritton_r_Page_02.tif
eebcf00879805435ccfb87328b05b3fe
bfabebe04657387385bc9d98b3d0d868ae368fbf
30049 F20110331_AACWWE albritton_r_Page_10.QC.jpg
5602e2e9ec583adbb2df7c0cbd92132b
48913be645ba52d0222de612a6012cac44ae51d0
F20110331_AACXAV albritton_r_Page_24.tif
e0b1396ea231dd141ed873d8a7e571d0
4d0aac4f3670b986c1eae02feae89f3c97f15bae
F20110331_AACXBL albritton_r_Page_05.tif
adf86797dbca5ad759357e76d79ba02e
738d7e361c0ca74200c1359a943883a050fa6364
3233265 F20110331_AACWWF albritton_r.pdf
ecad24d1e30743887c6aa05fca447e2b
0f312723c9c156e4befc3d142422b78e05b527ca
116183 F20110331_AACXAW albritton_r_Page_16.jp2
fe3adecd1dc63a5344c42aaa9a391ce4
89694b3552c5188c18a008a35b80076c70e3670e
F20110331_AACXBM albritton_r_Page_06.tif
1989eefe22601526cba44658bc5a0820
02887044f8f3fd33012e8d05f1e0cccc56412e4b
47080 F20110331_AACWWG albritton_r_Page_25.pro
7b6819e56a692d66923a996843cae122
aa41596c46087ae64f960721f4fbb52a32817b3f
8940 F20110331_AACXAX albritton_r_Page_40thm.jpg
8fc26cc14f03b29bd518db00c19988a7
f6e905a2c91a909e6942b20e3d34306cd44b54e0
F20110331_AACXCA albritton_r_Page_22.tif
2dba376ebc386314fa877171612033ef
fc7e79351106d6e78a746fb5626d7fca7dc142db
F20110331_AACXBN albritton_r_Page_09.tif
09c2495af29cb6c7d4a0a74f63f579db
b946cb005b69313b1447a5e99cf46579ea991c54
2124 F20110331_AACWWH albritton_r_Page_14.txt
abda1e6c3a5ef1fd0a24078c1e694429
28a286da03f238f28fdc3e8e3915000af743006e
2106 F20110331_AACXAY albritton_r_Page_35.txt
c1b7fca0d3192f256279250cbf87966c
02c53d9a24e7cd0cb186b6eb8271c5cbdf056a4e
F20110331_AACXCB albritton_r_Page_23.tif
29e377eb5a4b98f865f12c69c859c20a
3cb99a0790544fb504478c357a71ebcfd1e0f673
F20110331_AACXBO albritton_r_Page_10.tif
a74837e612179227fe2e50f9307b3096
899e36735f1204ee26384d6950d52139a63812b2
F20110331_AACXAZ albritton_r_Page_60.tif
51919ab2b6a77a87b4c27d48fc301bce
722e0a5bcc5d376ddf52ea00613060a44e47ecc9
F20110331_AACXCC albritton_r_Page_25.tif
604d741223f8f44a82f77a2992e684b4
60b137c27cd62a7f0f2444b66d412469cae3d4b7
F20110331_AACXBP albritton_r_Page_11.tif
e7ed7604f90ac256bf23c88a05e1a753
688338ce8c47f6dc5dfe3b5e9e32eb6f1362502f
F20110331_AACWWI albritton_r_Page_08.tif
08e5b66c78f526260453bce39207a3c5
a5a4fa6350ec68ecbec8f29021d94b984eb08fab
F20110331_AACXCD albritton_r_Page_27.tif
e64c27a6a04a6dba37d93beb97d622fe
6642ea7855b41844469cbacb8cffbc012103ea0d
F20110331_AACXBQ albritton_r_Page_12.tif
5b909c4d8b0e2f921ff10470e40c924a
130ad228a5b96242f45b3a30a094560ef4eedeb3
7561 F20110331_AACWWJ albritton_r_Page_61thm.jpg
91ad324c4e8117d3fe92e66955e04244
46b6b947206f88c4f9dbaf6dcc4cb6d576035601
F20110331_AACXCE albritton_r_Page_28.tif
67e137631b66a40c57054a846835f9fd
52798dc96a423d7f80b8d569f6712ebb9ff1374c
F20110331_AACXBR albritton_r_Page_13.tif
9abf6965f89dcd92fa712ba506cb35ea
24934de8ae256191fd7dd23c4f27475b5d42e8ad
36676 F20110331_AACWWK albritton_r_Page_58.pro
4f2860747140f9a93d00d838b577840d
1966e7c809596e7e3c43ba2126669f4c82852f5f
F20110331_AACXCF albritton_r_Page_29.tif
32cc9ad5cfcb1a0194ce1acbc0aa2246
45024acebce5709c2c35e06d826970512fdb9b40
F20110331_AACWWL albritton_r_Page_55.tif
65e575bcfef4225c4290e882c422b75d
a1caef8b55980799ba0dcb3fd78fb50f6cff6f6f
F20110331_AACXCG albritton_r_Page_30.tif
64c3c429e79064a2a2a53d9a6ed85136
9f4496017ba9acbe6271dcea29206cdb0401ad81
F20110331_AACWXA albritton_r_Page_34.tif
e1316a9ecb57beeec3d13ebbe3813085
cf2861d4a1ea68d33a9b5f7f80b6f827aab16174
31149 F20110331_AACWWM albritton_r_Page_79.QC.jpg
2ad48048d680fea833441c4841305e47
903a5225f5dd23812bdbf1ca5cd4c6b68efacac6
F20110331_AACXCH albritton_r_Page_31.tif
d6dabbd68f1453d54743c4750beca33f
7fc665d7279191883b4af599b3c089806bdc8f9d
106181 F20110331_AACWXB albritton_r_Page_25.jp2
f7578c835917ec8999cca0469be55074
1b7986ab642488c3d9533c929814f9834b1ef0f2
F20110331_AACXBS albritton_r_Page_14.tif
5b3c0b63cc9918619faea202ef66460f
bf3d97cbe9c1dd3291eab584a53a9a06c2f688df
F20110331_AACWWN albritton_r_Page_33.tif
c1f279709671059bd2e2fda8f27d1142
9a2f7f173d296d920336ea75624eaa4d6face6f3
F20110331_AACXCI albritton_r_Page_32.tif
25b988adc841de4ccb49a60c25e2254e
ab9bc5ee9cb49e257c223d5d38d2352aa6fa5a5d
54339 F20110331_AACWXC albritton_r_Page_26.pro
c95bc87ca9e90da430a6a86d8005c39d
1ac5310d5123f6bc15322bb7fb237b3ccfa3ae03
F20110331_AACXBT albritton_r_Page_15.tif
707dd8628561a2c43a6e3407adcfa593
2e155419f2ae779c2fe80bad17fd68b519a54794
65656 F20110331_AACWWO albritton_r_Page_72.pro
ed514cc86dfea09693ac110219bd2f1e
12000c66b37243fe96fb391021177ad9103bcf4b
F20110331_AACXCJ albritton_r_Page_37.tif
6d7cfd341e26b0cf1d96d7b7d4fbfc4d
60458fd763c128b411652c479bf56d696bf588ef
1051914 F20110331_AACWXD albritton_r_Page_59.jp2
3a89ae03ce2681c50be6f82c817c3728
1259b049828ddfe84a6fa9e8f4f57c36f1d5278a
F20110331_AACXBU albritton_r_Page_16.tif
c880d144a4e873be206206f47a18cb2e
130794a55f766e80c1dfff44c2dc4978ec694634
35896 F20110331_AACWWP albritton_r_Page_78.QC.jpg
9a8f9ee8379826aa9ad649c14cc5ef3c
b50ed3fcbb1c8d69ceafcb252ea6accd655b8abb
F20110331_AACXCK albritton_r_Page_38.tif
a2208354ff5d5c617f3cd66c46d0c2c1
44c89815936c58258cec5588f5e66c12d6c41ee3
56885 F20110331_AACWXE albritton_r_Page_52.pro
9f3f3375a3c30397d5234a843c82710d
aee5667942ba68c1ca40c853b28f40ffe4e58ab8
F20110331_AACXBV albritton_r_Page_17.tif
2e6025886ba9a9833be9af8c84877eb8
5fb137232ededf3918bc9851d2f6d0e446e5c47d
37996 F20110331_AACWWQ albritton_r_Page_28.QC.jpg
2eb3897db0dbbbae1293a4464658e0ab
b95bce6104052b5fcc791546465e1c568ae837f8
F20110331_AACXCL albritton_r_Page_39.tif
26b516c3c3f1871ab3a353ce4d18eb37
80a36a1f6abb1951a0ac503fe26577d88df97a00
975 F20110331_AACWXF albritton_r_Page_34.txt
eebc891c8924ed218c39c276a5c54acb
e2aed9d2ad0e25dcddd22195c7e33cd66ecff3d8
F20110331_AACXBW albritton_r_Page_18.tif
f429002c4a615c82485eb166a4d5c7f0
7df32cbe461f2716d0cb69ead507cc6993f375c8
F20110331_AACWWR albritton_r_Page_57.tif
1d5f0d7a433de0463af5179192b29271
5acffe70ba88f8936da6f5eef5394ed89afac9a4
F20110331_AACXDA albritton_r_Page_63.tif
3b90c218bcb09691670ef43e3ef0202f
b8354accc1ae7aaa30264f2612b8a58829d15ba7
F20110331_AACXCM albritton_r_Page_43.tif
4f781ceab2d88fbe46e6899fda00896d
5a64629da501377b7d7dfc2c01949ac972767aba
F20110331_AACWXG albritton_r_Page_03.tif
5ac181dfbcfe0fdf4a20b7ad566a4bee
e0d24fa70879ef457eb2f7ff85ec458e591b6d08
F20110331_AACXBX albritton_r_Page_19.tif
8ba626769a15925b963e387ff569a5a4
984aae3ebc4129b43f8743dafa3ab8b76f63f74a
35862 F20110331_AACWWS albritton_r_Page_08.jpg
d651538f96d43b5634f73a04069dcb99
fe0ec7f53bf4c9011bd273d057383351774a7c2b
F20110331_AACXDB albritton_r_Page_64.tif
f868589f639c1be28b94c041d345b94f
d067c56342cdbc679b7f7517c4515eb0beb846bb
F20110331_AACXCN albritton_r_Page_45.tif
bbe75ecd6bfcd116b440689ee864c0a6
265df8212aa8dd60206979f49845544540cf5832
18284 F20110331_AACWXH albritton_r_Page_36.QC.jpg
626dbc9581be6c1bbe81fd7774fd13df
90c6fd52b94d666ec60d44291c3ba5787819335f
F20110331_AACXBY albritton_r_Page_20.tif
6da044e4e002f8c5714e3a90e85fc2ae
66e613c1ae4804b05c0abc67cabb1264a7fadcfa
16252 F20110331_AACWWT albritton_r_Page_94.QC.jpg
0569c985447d27107af153d8744aabd1
d586a3951d8b0f54cdcb01fe65893cefb0500f74
F20110331_AACXDC albritton_r_Page_66.tif
70965dc801dc1ed50c94fcc18f97f61b
e50a4cb20f9b59ce798ec13de49a6dc73af95326
F20110331_AACXCO albritton_r_Page_46.tif
ce0696c5a41ce3379eec1320f9953abc
f4c45e68cdfb8264107646ec8e077faccb6c2ddb
23525 F20110331_AACWXI albritton_r_Page_08.pro
498c28b0041c2e49923e31e3bdd4df81
d1467bf7206e16562e7d4c3628360e67e8a1a968
F20110331_AACXBZ albritton_r_Page_21.tif
844249121fba1ceb9fe044910d637a0a
612c46d3e2b11a1de94b2f289eba2031588feef3
96839 F20110331_AACWWU albritton_r_Page_10.jpg
93ece9d1ff76216a7090ee08d9a40031
75930e5ef1feefd77653411283434ae5108c02b6
F20110331_AACXDD albritton_r_Page_68.tif
99ae15cbffdab4afbdb98d7920433759
6cabeeaa852f2e28d6bf79b50a29c1267eb2d3a3
F20110331_AACXCP albritton_r_Page_47.tif
1088d3e4d4b3e4a0d3ea671fecd8d037
eff95305cce40cb8e5fcf30a9cd246a0fa31ceb4
117062 F20110331_AACWWV albritton_r_Page_14.jp2
dec6d006973bdc2a51611144d5b3af6f
da721436205a34c296dde2298ba98c2e2f9afe42
F20110331_AACXDE albritton_r_Page_70.tif
5326383cc1b4f56e2c3e1ea8a91ed760
d004217abd2f118b28927ec40be6dd62476f36c8
F20110331_AACXCQ albritton_r_Page_48.tif
6f5d6cef502668535b2a7fb1f06f5d7f
18df840cf05657eac9b00372e27d842400f2f2a4
35157 F20110331_AACWXJ albritton_r_Page_12.QC.jpg
29400573ca8a253c707fd6632a85d520
155cf7a3ede1b6e43ecc8144f29d85c51bc7b22b
F20110331_AACWWW albritton_r_Page_26.tif
7a491b66201e7e1a2f1f7dffbc225832
7e894ee56b1997bca695e4ab9d60a949aabdd94e
F20110331_AACXDF albritton_r_Page_71.tif
54cdffd6957722b5504c23c38c641643
a5241648c5909c01a782db9b456852f78d6bbe50
F20110331_AACXCR albritton_r_Page_49.tif
6c5d7be59ec2bb0049256c61a86bea87
44b0f9d185f6644b80ad2943eec375e805867e4c
127810 F20110331_AACWXK albritton_r_Page_88.jpg
39d49acbfef16f58e7ae8d636b35e7a5
685c2f3170c06c28285f1f3f24186822dcdbacf4
1051986 F20110331_AACWWX albritton_r_Page_63.jp2
ac0cb9243582bea4e225916ef2da8f88
5d6c5aa67dc3f6a9fd2da2840e9d65e2777661c2
F20110331_AACXDG albritton_r_Page_73.tif
4e1d7318fd1700df870290e929dad7aa
bdd4abb7383d7f920fad6fe894e9982aae0315f6
F20110331_AACWYA albritton_r_Page_07.tif
05fcfea0f856d46e489b066da2eba2cb
a2d0c032e70398353f8bf075fb3fff079ba2ed74
F20110331_AACXCS albritton_r_Page_51.tif
e147604d6778865d94420096357cfd04
f4761dc529f96f373ad8d55d03556eee44e17292
2054 F20110331_AACWXL albritton_r_Page_17.txt
a2644cb4ca5f0f309cd1260fc9588754
8de4e0c1735e2ce2735780f9ce133b41c065e6b1
60977 F20110331_AACWWY albritton_r_Page_36.jpg
21535204c029f87fb41de12e27f3979d
491feda49280c71dd42311434cb940042b5ec481
F20110331_AACXDH albritton_r_Page_75.tif
3302dd58e7655134f7972ea1ae532060
9c53bbf9f3da8a41bd006c10b215db359663a3fb
29298 F20110331_AACWYB albritton_r_Page_74.QC.jpg
41f230fc920cbdab80515a9a58a8e8fc
e17d415c78f3a03b4eec4851640543dcca35df4c
36744 F20110331_AACWXM albritton_r_Page_54.QC.jpg
f112fac452e66f4f0aeee57d2dac955d
7eea92fa95f001416c1e5b3563169b2b1239c142
1883 F20110331_AACWWZ albritton_r_Page_45.txt
51975de58ffb35d79cba993d11c7e4a1
8d91dee99de289b1367f04f67a0c00636254f301
F20110331_AACXDI albritton_r_Page_76.tif
c305bfa4f869bbd2f94671a3ac1c1043
09cd9904bfdef3ce5134153b436b9ae72021c63b
119352 F20110331_AACWYC albritton_r_Page_46.jp2
c516903fe46dcac8cd668bcc01685d3a
81940563c2ffce1303ef1253a5f99c5cb4545b07
F20110331_AACXCT albritton_r_Page_52.tif
19f4a1c9494f2999433dc2f18095d706
e479b2a93c081b74621a97e659a41aa40bd04639
89014 F20110331_AACWXN albritton_r_Page_71.jpg
b043dcd441f2453013d1c26a6382fd9e
cee4ebe4d1bbb38fdebac130794922ad4f6034fa
F20110331_AACXDJ albritton_r_Page_77.tif
e7f7b3abb5fc3bc5c9463b1d750d3e18
053b3423714e8284edce12fe8a2379294de8efc5
56014 F20110331_AACWYD albritton_r_Page_19.pro
ad994ca4cba0ffed5db64e721d62eec4
4ce7eeb666905985afd6e6572f0bab1e97e9644f
F20110331_AACXCU albritton_r_Page_53.tif
d936a17345f7b84205e2c09aea3aa78e
615bb8f1832467ce9facdf352f0d200ba0fbe7cf
47547 F20110331_AACWXO albritton_r_Page_45.pro
942b2558281f6cb2b5fc5aedde5b827e
f7de1d4c63c5eece83ed33189bcbe3e89a5a876d
F20110331_AACXDK albritton_r_Page_78.tif
b3c246a2cdd0658612f1e0587243b5c3
9f54f939c1353405f92869e5cedb5fbc1d891339
68873 F20110331_AACWYE albritton_r_Page_81.jpg
9cec30fdda4b3703e9a167bdd8f1a42f
2bb4100f2d8656ecae1af5753aa764c5ceeeab87
F20110331_AACXCV albritton_r_Page_54.tif
ec28875bb1294b0f3ad8146ab091d673
e15d6cc75a4425b40fa8c74d38f15a31c1d7ebef
5591 F20110331_AACWXP albritton_r_Page_03.QC.jpg
1af176a386c1cc8519bd12261bbda750
93d42461aaebf2a2d1fae530bfc4d3e9dca47c44
F20110331_AACXDL albritton_r_Page_79.tif
c423111a0c17c7f75c5724106b169ecb
9d6114936ef413cd1d8fe2c5be97d2d19ae449db
20934 F20110331_AACWYF albritton_r_Page_58.QC.jpg
e26661f120200fba73747ea86c90621a
44166dda8d25c2dd4085d21267edb263f1a27276
F20110331_AACXCW albritton_r_Page_56.tif
be37957f27175c5e5057fa5f113d17ba
2a78e4721adcb49ab5144fecc56b8104ef9124a0
80324 F20110331_AACWXQ albritton_r_Page_61.jpg
9acd20393277ede6b9d0e83ab0a553d2
2effde7fa5c3bc9ddf296606521d4a3c1c4f6d47
F20110331_AACXDM albritton_r_Page_80.tif
2ca09274f9d400dbe6e7caeef645e4f8
9c5f22a29e5d228862da329a0bdea02441cf5722
F20110331_AACWYG albritton_r_Page_36.tif
75b38c69fda9fac38bc2c39ea2c3de57
5ca0610ed2b566a72ffc4cae8ea8beaac687da05
F20110331_AACXCX albritton_r_Page_58.tif
5d9856f3d399566ff3a399d8cf2ad268
dbc78dca2dcbdfa5bbf70e07cd3911489597636f
F20110331_AACWXR albritton_r_Page_40.tif
9a3f3f20c4416dec0ad0b6358e39770f
60f89601328774a3e46a59ab20c41481d3946a81
F20110331_AACXEA albritton_r_Page_94.tif
20c86ee83e970befc2198cc06d4d02f9
17b734e52fd9f28bc635cc4b7f57c06f00a4303c
F20110331_AACXDN albritton_r_Page_81.tif
db2096b24f2925d4d5ce79c7c80b65cd
ad6811681ec5cf2b5ffbf8ae5af4a6073bd0b0af
81971 F20110331_AACWYH albritton_r_Page_57.jp2
28cc447cf33d2df27682fd2430ef6249
88ec63f2a298c0b234738ccf7736e3702ec3dac9
F20110331_AACXCY albritton_r_Page_59.tif
4adba5f4f99f708b3f00779d57eb73ae
8ecbe4c399c7a26f2632b3a3b74fdaf348c30907
F20110331_AACWXS albritton_r_Page_74.tif
937a9791ee75e8a167c99118c3bc2677
cf49514b326519c9d4a70653a410b14e6314498f
500 F20110331_AACXEB albritton_r_Page_01.txt
ee822edab0e7f89121a9f4070978b242
e8ab0e00a0acbd3913477ab965b46e2d34749f41
F20110331_AACXDO albritton_r_Page_82.tif
1fe259a69ba3da54cafffcceca26275a
42e38a190821a777f077cc7465896a1dbc25f1fd
2021 F20110331_AACWYI albritton_r_Page_76.txt
530d34ff6018ae8fdb799975bb857050
0d6c19cc92aa23a5c72afd06b61a441df3675516
F20110331_AACXCZ albritton_r_Page_62.tif
1ed1955de7001f263acf4a1c5ab4cace
e8b3c584e3559b71a7e2d7c035347ffcf75f07ca
56930 F20110331_AACWXT albritton_r_Page_54.pro
1c6ad7d1379d72a6b40abc7fce2e83b7
b66d1a299f23722d03da82eabf44036471f76575
88 F20110331_AACXEC albritton_r_Page_02.txt
f8e3410b63cfc29030554971a229ec10
df0b18c91489b0b773587e799bf07fdd10d2b3e3
F20110331_AACXDP albritton_r_Page_83.tif
5166031e70c6ac6feb6064bb72c933eb
18d549ae4095705d9fa62ef9965bcfd6a098e81e
6870 F20110331_AACWYJ albritton_r_Page_85thm.jpg
107c658abcf12036b15687b546a0a6fd
31069d316fbc4bb2842b9075f563fe81695ef2f0
F20110331_AACWXU albritton_r_Page_41.tif
f97960f038b053ecb0f200cabb020fdc
7799adcae052de967dd86c1c3efa103a2524719c
412 F20110331_AACXED albritton_r_Page_03.txt
6f49d6bde8e8a4c928a5f8c858bd054f
9ef1fb1941c3e05ae74c5098ccd86b638114f069
F20110331_AACXDQ albritton_r_Page_84.tif
21ba4e58cca8bb1868c7376d00bf9f98
df532ca4dd6104e4a7817e539169020f810830a4
8988 F20110331_AACWXV albritton_r_Page_44thm.jpg
e9f527898ec9ed4b33ab1e460099c860
842734f0c5881ff2294040a175ef6f5ccc6442f7
1842 F20110331_AACXEE albritton_r_Page_04.txt
65fbc45105ff74c2f1106f0c2ae8de2f
7baccb458d1adc69a8c335f10d43cadb7c9acf1a
F20110331_AACXDR albritton_r_Page_85.tif
80b048793a5e44f89a3e475132a6a1d6
f2a45dc193fbc965e013b06b4b762b6213efd664
34673 F20110331_AACWYK albritton_r_Page_69.QC.jpg
5267bd05b6812db443b5ee701e4d0912
a364ebeee026f9519b4a5ff2b58f4f261e536ca0
8734 F20110331_AACWXW albritton_r_Page_29thm.jpg
b35c9316f32d6b1a40782fe9d2bc26b1
7563616da1a745ff398934d8af3b1ba7d5fc4f0b
4259 F20110331_AACXEF albritton_r_Page_05.txt
80c2badf27455012fca8d15091c5917b
9ebbfe6bb925700c10bb43afd3d46b60c1f7149b
6434 F20110331_AACWZA albritton_r_Page_09.pro
d2174deee3753aa2d8884ae13bc70c6a
6017dc2f07c48b30dae53139fd2a74c02d368446
F20110331_AACXDS albritton_r_Page_86.tif
3c46bc053be345ffec22c0b4ff6e991f
354793aa48e02b292ca9f863d8689e8b9ea75c14
45267 F20110331_AACWYL albritton_r_Page_04.pro
f91d6667ac39f631063a83fac2e5e951
1847dc70b6c63ba89ccb7f4a7e9f15d0af7a656e
112841 F20110331_AACWXX albritton_r_Page_40.jpg
d6ba2fd16b05df9c132a1d799fea2300
41f96dbc3cd46e809e526b28d0a3d7641db39c89
2262 F20110331_AACXEG albritton_r_Page_06.txt
a2599ecaeaec505d95d61e6abeb29248
5cf48ca534908363905c1db7d77ca8f2d669623d
47194 F20110331_AACWZB albritton_r_Page_34.jp2
793a6b61636a2e2b865935c277ada55a
47f2b4bfe9aaa331d24a54aac42f6d4c3f6b4ef6
F20110331_AACXDT albritton_r_Page_87.tif
f1bebbf74e45b4ee1ae883eab2d9783e
eb74bdd0fd72417f269591a8d1936fb5aeeeb09b
36103 F20110331_AACWYM albritton_r_Page_41.QC.jpg
ba9b93a9009a41ddc20d060534a0ffb7
35024a8d82f07f1e712c3b22f1641a5a10f18769
5966 F20110331_AACWXY albritton_r_Page_81thm.jpg
ae4241f5319a8e936b9b4b2dfb291a61
5d7cfdd55c587e3b7a3f1b99469611822701d2db
1134 F20110331_AACXEH albritton_r_Page_08.txt
4b0069f4ab6758a18ae5b8e4b4bda1f9
bc55a927d4b966ebed46ca9c5db30f6cd2bc2706
50189 F20110331_AACWZC albritton_r_Page_49.pro
13b673d186dc2ab45e71bb65aeea1a7a
3c950a350ac71913eb9821a0dca0c5e1593f4016
F20110331_AACWYN albritton_r_Page_72.tif
34ab49531ed5569fd3d2d02de9beb41f
e63c13ff1780425e55b2850108a9b2b3c2078688
9200 F20110331_AACWXZ albritton_r_Page_89thm.jpg
27a4a4434810a6e98c27ed8f787d9626
7bd04667bdc7a710f6752493bae953ee4f116322
331 F20110331_AACXEI albritton_r_Page_09.txt
7cee534c952d3309d18feeb5f2915675
412292edd4a7807e92a41fe2e090f1c23db924fd
6645 F20110331_AACWZD albritton_r_Page_07thm.jpg
459e66d00dda5f8a4181ab9846517739
00ab256bc4856810956863125daf895262b6c3b9
F20110331_AACXDU albritton_r_Page_88.tif
373baa506fd0be793249d35dba7cdb94
04cfb304743da37184a62034962af3c7f4fb817c
8438 F20110331_AACWYO albritton_r_Page_30thm.jpg
f24c49453b2d870460e8100527e6825c
49853e1a183f77ac0ec946120758e471e2de800b
1978 F20110331_AACXEJ albritton_r_Page_10.txt
86c2e717fb66d8d1555d613f30bc2e37
679a8f0b45b2c304797f64a9943b491b15bff096
140309 F20110331_AACWZE albritton_r_Page_90.jp2
54db1fe78134546d687521c2c9edb76f
a99b678bf536789f0437cd200f8c0cc082a2a084
F20110331_AACXDV albritton_r_Page_89.tif
27ff25087ec5cca18d668c2929d3221f
f7ff56ac003bd60fc10013f63a444a718e40d99c
118417 F20110331_AACWYP albritton_r_Page_29.jp2
b87dd055845b62cd92c40210f13230a2
cb6eab2bcbea9111de4d4c9c24662104d954fcad
802 F20110331_AACXEK albritton_r_Page_11.txt
be782499fcd4e34887a14904903d6cb1
6d06068ae2742b092992ba67656a0ecabc4be750
F20110331_AACWZF albritton_r_Page_65.tif
7847bfdd3e6dfe963c3c8ef83b51c96d
d3cb0bf173230cfda5ce94ea596e45124cfa69fc
F20110331_AACXDW albritton_r_Page_90.tif
fca2b3f2ff877059c289816293883ed1
0719bfcdf70aecf692642fcaf691945e363db77e
45181 F20110331_AACWYQ albritton_r_Page_67.pro
46de30b6930a2f2047610638dfb11e61
d088749ebadcc9c848cf79f77e0514092d77ca31
2155 F20110331_AACXEL albritton_r_Page_12.txt
d5765a399a306a050912486652d107c3
58c3933c4bbb80d2ae07e05046852eb4d228fd16
107225 F20110331_AACWZG albritton_r_Page_66.jpg
e09ef4037e847a8b5021592075399c93
45ab3be07e5fd08e6ae63a5639b7c6de3c6dd2f2
F20110331_AACXDX albritton_r_Page_91.tif
7abb3cfabf7e266fc35a6c26eb2f6736
1e9db58a886a46e74b9453534b217eb983e4272a
9017 F20110331_AACWYR albritton_r_Page_03.pro
ddf7057832c0edd55013c84df5e50265
a2974aa469297bd3e9c914e262991cdd83765efb
2074 F20110331_AACXFA albritton_r_Page_30.txt
f2c7dad4ced02cb70fbe530a1302f8c5
d809a6c5208450ee96ddb8adcb3b7ba6e79aedfa
2164 F20110331_AACXEM albritton_r_Page_13.txt
5efadd80a5ac8a03e2f66bb7f19ffbed
efab466976d1b222e3e297911ef829aa94402597
14387 F20110331_AACWZH albritton_r_Page_06.QC.jpg
e0e9c21f63d896a0e36951a20de1583a
0c852af1e516ee5610ee9212b106af7a239b12f6
F20110331_AACXDY albritton_r_Page_92.tif
5dcb6ed69271e340f20ec0efd42805bb
ebfe1865f7a4524ecb70e2b1ceb80a2f3f7fbfc8
37150 F20110331_AACWYS albritton_r_Page_92.QC.jpg
7d4226bb1d8953e02bc69aca49675044
1a649a37ee19e2eea4e2d70835fa40863ac49d96
2130 F20110331_AACXFB albritton_r_Page_31.txt
41faa1de864d96add853aca86014c7c5
98450148f05f675a825f2db3468796958119807d
1521 F20110331_AACXEN albritton_r_Page_15.txt
8afa2c3ada467284313b2a2dc11ed8c4
bf7068e6810b56676f7075eee58f4bedd169172c
33601 F20110331_AACWZI albritton_r_Page_65.QC.jpg
6395d58ea64f6428eb8a02133522b2c4
b115b3280028687139487ffecd879567d0611266
F20110331_AACXDZ albritton_r_Page_93.tif
5c750462dd58e6d7a41f3d4d59f5ac61
5ff230e14fb5035585d5b18cdd6f66ba2d8b208b
F20110331_AACWYT albritton_r_Page_67.tif
106a9550ee1f13d51185cf9b437e3f11
ed6721ddc2109ce90407a05179801814fdeb5edb
540 F20110331_AACXFC albritton_r_Page_32.txt
280477150f5a457712ee84a38acc5a45
148676642c7310fcfd76e8dd41584f7fc5ba21c7
2191 F20110331_AACXEO albritton_r_Page_16.txt
64423a5abfdf61632c8667be4e31f1d1
84513b9d6cc22933f9df1b921594001cbced6c84
3549 F20110331_AACWZJ albritton_r_Page_11thm.jpg
a34119ace431e78273ca688cc50fbb80
3043db086966c5395b7f5255bbc9c5bdbf598f71
F20110331_AACWYU albritton_r_Page_50.tif
3e77085f2be9cad0c472dd963d1e218f
1eec49e85be3491912080e1f0fe4a68509d4d65d
292 F20110331_AACXFD albritton_r_Page_33.txt
4bd8cb181bf4cf4e0e7abe72a744f2ab
7d2ff4454a5926d6153005423a7b2ef69e4b96fa
2110 F20110331_AACXEP albritton_r_Page_18.txt
b7ce80689a795fd081939c4885a68b7f
161a1c300f3fff14331de6b3cc49777cfe2fb455
116283 F20110331_AACWZK albritton_r_Page_39.jp2
18e3f2c2a0150b077926756004a1aedb
bea36ee6344332f6d967d118faea3e1d61d11733
108722 F20110331_AACWYV albritton_r_Page_80.jpg
1074ad326a84b82f3bc077d76117c32b
2bead2c9ef51cc0476a4e987e49d69fa1292f2f0
1256 F20110331_AACXFE albritton_r_Page_36.txt
ccb6080c0d85e9f4506455813faa76c4
425b3b44e2447b70a24f63a6c9d4ea9d2b089f59
2189 F20110331_AACXEQ albritton_r_Page_19.txt
8fff89be39dd1b6577e57594ad2e7da1
5bff2f7e1165b61ed04f0b6f9114e5b0cef579d7
8452 F20110331_AACWYW albritton_r_Page_66thm.jpg
badbd0b15bd0b5fae9a59b4bcc532865
85e3bb3c1927fa8a78603a65c02fe5b5840141dd
2266 F20110331_AACXFF albritton_r_Page_37.txt
d754e3a1c389994cc616af034ca8a2b9
91c0816d6bf23e38737d8594cd75e5570a117612
2141 F20110331_AACXER albritton_r_Page_20.txt
5dc6c98ba23a08c3ff932014ca960cc6
47d28e8f7a63befa1692ef4c0a9f12ba229c8205
115891 F20110331_AACWZL albritton_r_Page_27.jp2
1e40a45c81a94af8be453cbffb0daed5
7af1075c283b6cc74104cc03eb52fb04d9d08dc7
8656 F20110331_AACWYX albritton_r_Page_72thm.jpg
aa9aac3188431bb1b7be82ebf38aae28
46cbe347218fa22da916236df687bba6435f7352
2100 F20110331_AACXFG albritton_r_Page_39.txt
597052ae8243b8cce81ee5f576c56dd4
d1b417787264ff41d287e000d8ce8c05fe3b0645
2183 F20110331_AACXES albritton_r_Page_21.txt
462bea159f2220427e029d09a8c16f88
4c80d2f88869d79ff6dad9a26d47ca59937786df
F20110331_AACWZM albritton_r_Page_04.tif
040b99fcd76c9302f5b3976d826c5506
16b49d179f4056b139b0525ba6dc518e6889213e
10306 F20110331_AACWYY albritton_r_Page_08.QC.jpg
ebda159a0fb13737dd4df6fa7f9b0caf
3dbb9374f48de37fd2419690f53189480fc0a79f
2217 F20110331_AACXFH albritton_r_Page_40.txt
7ef15f73c6a478c7933bee4b841e6f61
4a63540bf353b881926ec8b904e090899657649d
2080 F20110331_AACXET albritton_r_Page_22.txt
c958e77abe6730a540eca44876599ad7
85dd44fa9ee8a368b461bf39252f89b2f6946de5
4802 F20110331_AACWZN albritton_r_Page_35thm.jpg
572bc9c9bfb9ba6c64b947723311e0b9
57ec02e8360254e6ec82820968a527dbd2c2f5d7
43066 F20110331_AACWYZ albritton_r_Page_11.jpg
6e3aeb6c33dfffb89442e1886728a6d1
efcea514fcab39a755ab8f504539c06965f60098
2193 F20110331_AACXFI albritton_r_Page_41.txt
acb2b551e170e94683442c07e90421de
6cf71a40c1820cd38ec7ecc8eedbe5c691a7252d
2011 F20110331_AACXEU albritton_r_Page_24.txt
0daf762f24b9d4d3568401648a9d122e
6d6170551deb1e4cc861aaf463f54595f28f4b96
2126 F20110331_AACWZO albritton_r_Page_38.txt
1afb10e28745f8d7ccaa02d5af9db1fd
e2b8245e2c1d6341bc454c0284df87a4b487ff1e
2108 F20110331_AACXFJ albritton_r_Page_42.txt
17592006b017b4b5db6f147bad76f1d7
0ad66227af017c72fd6953a21a45bdc7e2436906
8423998 F20110331_AACWZP albritton_r_Page_69.tif
8213d8345a06aa4792a9e8fca96f78f5
0d2f44e6130daeb3d57fe176e56cec3e5996f360
2195 F20110331_AACXFK albritton_r_Page_43.txt
84477d426220bdab510caf998c635427
9ba438fb08df49774b89b856f162f1f98b14c13b
1899 F20110331_AACXEV albritton_r_Page_25.txt
5e95075f6e8311b59cb7ad241c90c41e
a5e74d278e482ae77afb809f9ea4eeda2b3c3a52
110649 F20110331_AACWZQ albritton_r_Page_51.jpg
b2442e5c36ac200f3d597d1deb25d53e
c7754f5d67bb44e1c4339e27b8d0f8fb319ff98d
2256 F20110331_AACXFL albritton_r_Page_44.txt
706dc128a2d260001a5d2de1de755fa5
0646edd12564a363d6358248dcb28aad09c0629e
F20110331_AACXEW albritton_r_Page_26.txt
54eaffad719c22f64aea9a9a212e3295
46113060d9c63f9cc70adc25f866342deae007fe
36085 F20110331_AACWZR albritton_r_Page_51.QC.jpg
837fb8b1b45e2f788b3a6e590de21ac5
10e06520f17a51c048526d7ab3b1c06f3e381f73
430 F20110331_AACXGA albritton_r_Page_61.txt
ebfdecd3dbdc7dd3457363206e7feed8
de533d803198756d1e856416ee359c5eb37fb574
2157 F20110331_AACXFM albritton_r_Page_46.txt
f77da1b0ec377b18e9ce7405af864277
c71331af6af72b3ee0539361a5a4f2a36bfdf40b
2143 F20110331_AACXEX albritton_r_Page_27.txt
a3e798a83733d6fe19e9ce211920d593
11eab7b1f1e7c701d84cf66405e59906bcbade1e
1647 F20110331_AACXGB albritton_r_Page_62.txt
752f824371543e78a14ae4bc1194134c
a9db9a45433c154b8678d2ff8c8731ac0f719e10
F20110331_AACXFN albritton_r_Page_47.txt
8e4fb9ad04855f742eefbe2de69f8263
506eb1f5c158599f6b68d916179992b1bcf2981f
2255 F20110331_AACXEY albritton_r_Page_28.txt
1526ec7c4a79938e2fbb206edea0e0c7
a7c4550a2e667375cef955474b1671e879d17cae
34756 F20110331_AACWZS albritton_r_Page_80.QC.jpg
2f88e367ad8b11ec946d4300a451b9dd
24809a436a9be97bc3270b1f263527ca6c558992
704 F20110331_AACXGC albritton_r_Page_63.txt
01fcbedb17b336bb0a511010b572d95f
f56f7cf597522b308977b20a340db1c4ea3d3134
2235 F20110331_AACXFO albritton_r_Page_48.txt
73b81f8b5e46415dd145f55b6cede064
2710ed7de647b6e95499dbb4b7dd4834a620edb8
2135 F20110331_AACXEZ albritton_r_Page_29.txt
7b4d0131a1f34923062d0277f79249c8
0566774c4b49f60be84c133bc3fe0b560cb3801a
F20110331_AACWZT albritton_r_Page_35.tif
458ddfe9b920ccd7a4b7198ae5002cef
07f6e09289610d1c9e9067edc9b6176cea2fd7f9
479 F20110331_AACXGD albritton_r_Page_64.txt
fdf4a8974d3833e25ba764990da9509f
36d3699693e5fc00efadaff328c7bfe159dbaeca
1977 F20110331_AACXFP albritton_r_Page_49.txt
cc3f9c6164e7c193c622acd2612ea16b
03e403047cc0933b3456de2fbdca2e49ba912957
F20110331_AACWZU albritton_r_Page_68.pro
ef998d0820c42d5ef86a55df84104432
756954b0f14840b4f12a869c95c36663c1171f1d
2086 F20110331_AACXGE albritton_r_Page_65.txt
0b113a39e8e42111df8938d1175f66e3
9f8ccb25c3b558866acd0521ebe73a356b62ba1b
2275 F20110331_AACXFQ albritton_r_Page_50.txt
874ce46a60c90474f3b0cf1e97478d1a
a4978cdcfc4558c78d5635a555482b399731d79c
7661 F20110331_AACWZV albritton_r_Page_64.pro
de17e959ff8b319c8ae567f963920e62
595441cc0fe1faa0c3c8313470bc22b3023225f0
F20110331_AACXGF albritton_r_Page_66.txt
b003b443708a570eeb02e6e7ea067096
d0783cba59d956900e78b1bcc1acabf5fce28841
2175 F20110331_AACXFR albritton_r_Page_51.txt
fcea50099594e4daa561e6c48dff87ab
402c92db40ad9e8911a071e9c83007a5d83feb87
50089 F20110331_AACWZW albritton_r_Page_71.pro
5e7ab90e02c5f730c13b26b3c0f230b8
15874dbf612f8426fb852ae75f28a884d09f86dc
2061 F20110331_AACXGG albritton_r_Page_67.txt
8bbba79cec8762a6ec25aba58f3c3ed3
ddff5b67b62b74cbb6693e525a36bc422f256af6
2269 F20110331_AACXFS albritton_r_Page_52.txt
cc44e87cac7c7861fe17bf822b827775
b52a24bb6c770fb8ef6959adf72504f43496afa8
2190 F20110331_AACWZX albritton_r_Page_23.txt
135f8f2ec274fef4004ab8687a4078c4
0791fbcaa5eaa97f59f6852a815c40cd4db36b65
1724 F20110331_AACXGH albritton_r_Page_68.txt
8d2b6357898d992242e9a682bc1abc1d
58fb71c7f050db326c83be2b5963d400a27859d0
F20110331_AACXFT albritton_r_Page_53.txt
265bd4570837360a1db8e9f83d3a3fc1
d965462beccba59c1775b1cc085f5d680f3ffd4c
111142 F20110331_AACWZY albritton_r_Page_41.jpg
e2ba0921a288765646ca81c32fa687a6
f5df59e7dbd48d7132bf83241db0fd505ceae7a4
2894 F20110331_AACXGI albritton_r_Page_69.txt
57ce7fdfa97e963c82dacf78465a3c74
1560954304f8ec12554f6b4dcb061444bf62465d
2230 F20110331_AACXFU albritton_r_Page_54.txt
dff59e98665f0c119254ca395fe7942f
129d627d056d6c75fe8c0c487cde68566e62963a
F20110331_AACWZZ albritton_r_Page_42.tif
6b9591368a21516337e5d4d98d6eabbf
2d1652bf40502aa0e15ceeeca1be620d96f590a3
3132 F20110331_AACXGJ albritton_r_Page_70.txt
e78a81d0c1b4c019d2d73c401f65b28b
fa26f36b25d857a0fc71dfeff349fec8c57df89e
2237 F20110331_AACXFV albritton_r_Page_55.txt
5db70339f5a62b1dd26d198aadaf0b37
112bc3b76cccf42aaa17619636775cd41cd65a86
2623 F20110331_AACXGK albritton_r_Page_71.txt
455741c1f1e7187d00a61ff35ec650ec
406b0adf9f2e489a862683d39f2e5b1df35ffde4
3564 F20110331_AACXGL albritton_r_Page_72.txt
0b426479971f542dedc879d03b1594f7
8e318bebed7026df9a6603a55b8e064e8f557c28
1133 F20110331_AACXFW albritton_r_Page_56.txt
6cfd2609ef9a6f3cc167ec67fadd7bde
46cbbb6c0771b79f02ade159c3171bcfb7454f16
2832 F20110331_AACXGM albritton_r_Page_73.txt
bf7f6dbb918c6e83179a1e0532782d13
cdbc293d36ad4ca7f36aed21d8b30000dc8a3e2b
1692 F20110331_AACXFX albritton_r_Page_57.txt
b849cc11596ab62e51fbf8a8e3a47a47
6929f9ea99bb8dff9c81c919e6760559c02ebeec
2521 F20110331_AACXHA albritton_r_Page_89.txt
6268b673dc39f92ea488d052a32d6846
790742cd2bbc20e954b08909279c330af8b5dc5a
2704 F20110331_AACXGN albritton_r_Page_74.txt
00f1353dc9e9492c168b5f108f88c4bb
6d8c2bcd3c00758d28afa2d528e35cc38cd9942b
1652 F20110331_AACXFY albritton_r_Page_58.txt
0d0234769759aee4b9613110db12902f
176d4ec27ce40a67494cc6fc567f38460bd35438
2558 F20110331_AACXHB albritton_r_Page_90.txt
90863637880bb29768b93fde653286d8
1162f8e9839c63e60a451d508fddce43dde2f6ce
1516 F20110331_AACXGO albritton_r_Page_75.txt
709169b2e546c1d9261ffbf1116e6914
955b3e1d45bf2d5a043d3d085b8244d38a165ea7
370 F20110331_AACXFZ albritton_r_Page_59.txt
abbf8fbb1f06916afd4faaddd1e97a59
54bc98e59241b3091d49efc78d87f067b39769fd
2778 F20110331_AACXHC albritton_r_Page_91.txt
69dcfc1b0308c5c15f48533d33584197
fae4dd512be3d061b3cdfec3fe38eb19bebe054b
1902 F20110331_AACXGP albritton_r_Page_77.txt
1d595060744f387280bd4fe82698760b
51e6ad6288d71ee3123c3ef5da11a4881221a9a1
2577 F20110331_AACXHD albritton_r_Page_92.txt
c57cd3129a2d6276472dbf9f697da70e
058d2215e1318a782d49a47ab79cfba3fad81577
1662 F20110331_AACXHE albritton_r_Page_93.txt
01cb6a4304e37b88260c662f5e4cbb75
c3aef644cba289ba5fcc437bc4346c1d15dad1e9
2138 F20110331_AACXGQ albritton_r_Page_78.txt
6b9037591cf7afc2570b793d789656bd
7ffa931e9b6f7714f168d407323ea3827161ba7e
937 F20110331_AACXHF albritton_r_Page_94.txt
29d4e5dbd8ff79e90d58aa79f7bfdf27
f8c4ff758e77df7fc19e40d09ab73fa160765883
1857 F20110331_AACXGR albritton_r_Page_79.txt
c8c67c7ec8b0d6e8d4076a72f7d5bde7
20584cc3e1d8ad1847f3889be595f1b39d06d14f
F20110331_AACXHG albritton_r_Page_01.pro
6ef7fe726c18f218dfebde87b8a9c156
6fb5536f16767218cb2ee21454bb0835fdd0fc3a
2113 F20110331_AACXGS albritton_r_Page_80.txt
5388fd9e8a765976e0a241233fa77e7f
e8037d9e1647a07df101ca5d9668fceb6cd75372
888 F20110331_AACXHH albritton_r_Page_02.pro
a5f82116769b38c932edc244b6be320c
d69827f76f0d87523ec0c03cd90c32dc8454a305
1344 F20110331_AACXGT albritton_r_Page_81.txt
d95cc7d7e45c0c6147840f376e1f9679
42e66ade984c69f38432e5c3c448bcb23908b004
106475 F20110331_AACXHI albritton_r_Page_05.pro
19c3fa38f9d5296c3d9c66fe215856a3
b37cb4c4e71b30dba22bfc3366d965bc0bb6bf88
4888 F20110331_AACXGU albritton_r_Page_83.txt
ebe575b49cb770065b86d8551dd4f2d8
0b0403d4f20579616f6c2567c2ed518e07ed330b