Flight 93 National Memorial Reforestation Project (Phases I-IV)

Similar documents
Nova Scotia Forest Inventory

Simulating Regeneration Dynamics in Upland Oak Stands

INGHAM CONSERVATION DISTRICT SPRING 2016 TREE SALE ORDER FORM All proceeds benefit conservation stewardship efforts in Ingham County

8) Which of the following species is best adapted to poorly drained sites? a) Bur oak b) Eastern red cedar c) Black ash d) Yellow birch

Defining Forests. forestry hardwood log native forest old-growth forest. E-unit: Defining Forests Page 1

Inventory and Assessment of Mud Pond Country Park

APPENDIX 2 -- EASTERN U.S. SITE-TREE SELECTION CRITERIA AND FIA FOREST TYPE ALGORITHM FOR THE U.S. EASTERN U.S. SITE-TREE SELECTION CRITERIA

2015 Wisconsin Envirothon KEY Forestry Exam

Impact of American chestnut blight on forest communities

AVID. Assessing Vegetation Impacts from Deer. A citizen science project from the University of Minnesota Extension

The Ups and Downs of Final Harvests*

Forensic Forestry Reading the Land

Silviculture Assessments Procedures Manual

WV Project CommuniTree

Climate Change & New England Forests

Forestry. A Big Thanks

Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 5 July 2007

Nova Scotia Forest Inventory Based on Permanent Sample Plots Measured between 1999 and 2003

Evaluation of an Oak Woodland Restoration at Deer Grove Forest Preserve. Pete Jackson February 7, 2009

Tree Identification Topics: Original Bearing and Line Trees

Silviculture Research on the Penobscot Experimental Forest

Principles of Forest Ecology and Management. Forensic Forestry Reading the Land. Jonathan Kays University of Maryland Extension

Francis Carter Memorial Preserve The Nature Conservancy Charlestown, RI

Variable Method Source

NTRALHARDWOOD NOTES. Estimating Oak Growth and Yield. Managed Stand Yield. Individual Tree Growth and Yield Models

Northern deciduous forest as wildlife habitat. Tom Paragi Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fairbanks

FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN For the GLADDEN MEMORIAL WOODLAND

Reforestation and Biomass Production on Coal-Mined Lands:

Inventory and Assessment of Shelburne Farms Woodlots

Forest Health Monitoring in the Northeastern United States

SR 161: Jovita Boulevard to South 360th St. Stage 2 / WSDOT Stream Buffer Mitigation (Agreement Y-9403) 2012 Final Monitoring Report

State Forest Nursery Program

City of Hampton. Urban Forestry Project

Overland Park, KS Stream Riparian Corridor Quality Evaluation

Managing Forested Wildlife Habitats

Summary of 2012 Fire Effects Monitoring for the Southern Blue Ridge Fire Learning Network 1. Peter Bates 2 December 21, 2012

Uncompahgre Mesas Project Area 2015 Monitoring Report

The Hardwood Forests in Changing Times - Adapting to New Realities. Charlie Becker Utilization and Marketing Manager

Mined Land Reclamation for Reforestation and TACF s Conservation Innovation Grant

RAL HARDWOOD NOTES. Grazing In Central Hardwood Forests

Cooper Creek ECS Ecological Departure Analysis

ADVANCING INDIVIDUAL TREE BIOMASS PREDICTION: ASSESSMENT AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE COMPONENT RATIO METHOD

5&55' l-l1u~ no. L/J.o{)1! e..:l ~- CITY OF HAMPTON 5TH GRADE URBAN FORESTRY PROJECT. Protected by 18 usc 707

nventory and Ana ysis Unit's

DATA SIZE * S O L D * C U T * CLASS CLASS DESCRIPTION SALES VOLUME-MBF VALUE VOLUME-MBF VALUE

Buck Hill Management Area RI Department of Environmental Management Burrillville, Rhode Island

Notice is hereby given that bids will be received by the Unit Manager, ATLANTA MANAGEMENT UNIT, for certain timber on the following described lands:

Trees. And other things that get in the way of surveyors. Tom Mortensen, RLA, ASLA Site Planner / Landscape Architect RA Smith National

Development Zone Pateros Creek Tree Inventory Plan Date: March 2013 Prepared by: Russell + Mills Studios Tree # Species Trunk Diameter Condition/Healt

Carbon Sequestration on Surface Mine Lands. Quarterly Report. Reporting Period Start Date: 10/01/04 Reporting period End Date: 12/31/04

Non-Development Tree Permit Application. SITE ADDRESS: Property Owner (required): Property Owner Address: Property Owner Phone:

Global Warming. Potential Impact on the Tree species of P.E.I. Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry William M.

2019 Tree Sale Catalog

Environmental Benefits Analysis of Trees for Greenmount Cemetery in Springfield, Ohio

2017 Legislative Report

Habitat Management in Red Squirrel Reserves and Buffer Zones in Northern England

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT 1171 MAPLE AVENUE, MANOTICK

GSP Monitoring Team Baseline Data Report

MU Guide PUBLISHED BY UNIVERSITY EXTENSION, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATE OF MICHIGAN TIMBER SALE PROSPECTUS #6033

Envirothon New Brunswick

State Forest Nursery Program

Establishing Ground Cover for Forested Post-Mining Land Uses

Sustaining Northern Forests in the face of Climate Change

Making a Plan for Your Woods

Jim Burger, Don Graves, Patrick Angel, Vic Davis, and Carl Zipper

The Woods in Your Backyard: Learning to Create & Enhance Natural Areas Around Your Home

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATE OF MICHIGAN TIMBER SALE PROSPECTUS #6303

Underplanting response to Amur honeysuckle invasion and deer herbivory in mixed hardwood forests

The Hardwood Resource and Sawmilling Industry. William Luppold USDA Forest Service

Training community members in the proper planting, measuring and monitoring of new urban forests;

Chapter 11 B. Case study: Grouse Management at the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia

Adventures in Agroforesty. Janet E. Hawkes, PhD 5th National Small Farm Conference 17 September 2009

SPRING 18 Seedlings TREE PROGRAM

Muncaster Environmental Planning

Natural Area Mapping and Inventory of Vinmont Veteran Park 2011 Survey

Forestry CDE. Purpose. Sponsor. Superintendent. Eligibility. Dress Code

STANDARD FOR TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION. Definition

Establishing Groundcover for Forested Postmining Land Uses

Tree Water Loss. by Dr. Kim D. Coder, Professor of Tree Biology & Health Care Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia

Shrubs & Trees for Wildlife

Appendix A: Vegetation Treatment Descriptions and Unit Specific Design Criteria

P o w e l l Ri v e r Pr o j e c t

Assessment of the Benefits of Ecosystem Restoration with i-tree Eco

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA. County Board Agenda Item Meeting of April 21, 2018

TEMPERATE FORESTS Ed Jensen, College of Forestry, OSU. Temperate Deciduous Forests

FIELD ENHANCEMENT 2. Forest Mapping

Environmental Benefits Analysis of Trees for Beavercreek, Ohio T. Davis Sydnor and Sakthi Subburayalu School of Environment and Natural Resources

Lab #13 VECTOR GIS - SPATIAL ANALYSIS USING POINT DATA PART I

Landowner: PRE/POST Treatment Assessment Tally Sheet. Area: Prism Plot BAF = 2 Assessor: Stocking Plot Radius = 1.36 m (or 1/1736th ha) Date: # Plots

Valencia SWCD Project Site

Plantation Forestry: A Global Look

Conservation Seedling Order Form Gunnison Field Office

Environmental Benefits Analysis of Public Trees for Springfield, Ohio

Impacts of Deer Browse on Managed Grasslands, Sanford Farm Nantucket

Street and Park Tree Inventories - How It Improves Pest Management

Notice is hereby given that bids will be received by the Unit Manager, BARAGA MANAGEMENT UNIT, for certain timber on the following described lands:

Early Indiana Forestry. Current Forestry in Indiana

Clara Unit Card. Alternative 2 Acres: 19 Treatment Acres: 6 Stand Age: 106 Primary ELT: 16. Primary Treatment: Single-Tree Selection

Transcription:

Photo credit: National Park Service Flight 93 National Memorial Reforestation Project (Phases I-IV) M.C. Tyree 1, J. Larkin 1, S. Eggerud 2, P. Angel 2, M. French 3, C. Barton 4 1 Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Department of Biology 2 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 3 The American Chestnut Foundation 4 Department of Forestry, UK

Field collection Photo: Ian Forte (left) and Cassandra Krul (right) collecting field data at Flight 93 National Memorial. Posted 09.08.15 at http://www.iup.edu/newsitem.aspx?id=201760

Funded by: Green Forests Work The National Park Foundation (Permit #: FLNI-2015-SCI-0003) Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Department of Biology Additional thanks Leroy Renninger and MaryEllen Snyder from the NPS. Thanks to Emily Newton, Virginia Tech, The PINEMAP Undergraduate Fellowship Program for her assistance with data collection throughout the summer. Wesley Palmer and Wilson Hood for their GIS assistance throughout this project. Finally, to the hundreds of individuals that volunteered their time to help plant the site.

Flight 93 National Memorial Near Shanksville, PA (40.058, -78.905)

Flight 93 National Memorial September 10, 2011 The site was officially dedicated and opened to the public Photo credit: National Park Foundation. Accessed on 04.06.17 at http://www.honorflight93.org/remember/?fa=dedication

Flight 93 National Memorial 1950 s until mid-1990 s Surface mined and then most of the 890 ha of was re-contoured and seeded. https://www.arcc.osmre.gov/images

Flight 93 National Memorial 2012 - today National Park Service & Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement teamed with others to begin reforesting sections using native woody trees and shrubs Photo credit: National Park Service

Reforestation Project (2012-15; Phases I-IV) Phase Year Area ha (ac) No. of trees I 2012 7.7 (19) 14,369 II 2013 9.1 (23) 17,300 III 2014 11.3 (28) 20,550 IV 2015 11.2 (28) 22,000 Total 39.3 (98) 74,219 > 30 spp. of native trees and shrubs Photo credit: National Park Service

Planting List Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Total (2012) (2013) (2014) (2015) (All) Plant name # plants #/ha # plants #/ha # plants #/ha # plants #/ha # plants white pine 4,600 599 6,700 734 8,200 728 9,050 810 28,550 red pine 700 91 200 22 200 18 200 18 1,300 pitch pine 500 65 500 55 600 53 0 0 1,600 Virginia pine 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 31 350 eastern hemlock 0 0 1,200 131 800 71 700 63 2,700 red spruce 0 0 0 0 800 71 700 63 1,500 Conifer tree species subtotal 5,800 755 8,600 942 10,600 941 11,000 984 36,000 red oak 1,200 156 2,000 219 2,000 178 2,400 215 7,600 white oak 600 78 600 66 800 71 1,100 98 3,100 black oak 600 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 sugar maple 800 104 970 106 600 53 700 63 3,070 red maple 600 78 300 33 200 18 200 18 1,300 black cherry 600 78 800 88 1,000 89 500 45 2,900 black locust 600 78 800 88 900 80 900 81 3,200 quaking aspen 500 65 600 66 800 71 900 81 2,800 black walnut 100 13 200 22 400 36 400 36 1,100 blackgum 400 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 yellow-poplar 0 0 200 22 200 18 200 18 600 hickory species 0 0 0 0 500 44 1,100 98 1,600 American elm 0 0 150 16 150 13 0 0 300 American chestnut backcrosses *569 74 480 53 1,000 89 1,500 134 3,549 Deciduous tree species subtotal 6,569 855 7,100 778 8,550 759 9,900 886 32,119 American hazelnut 0 0 0 0 100 9 0 0 100 flowering dogwood 400 52 200 22 0 0 200 18 800 gray dogwood 300 39 200 22 0 0 0 0 500 silky dogwood 300 39 200 22 300 27 0 0 800 red osier dogwood 0 0 200 22 500 44 500 45 1,200 sweet American crabapple 300 39 200 22 0 0 200 18 700 Washington hawthorn 300 39 200 22 0 0 0 0 500 elderberry 200 26 200 22 0 0 0 0 400 staghorn sumac 100 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 mountain ash 100 13 0 0 0 0 200 18 300 ninebark 0 0 200 22 0 0 0 0 200 scrub oak 0 0 0 0 500 44 0 0 500 Wildlife trees & shrubs subtotal 2,000 260 1,600 175 1,400 124 1,100 98 6,100 GRAND TOTAL 14,369 1,869 17,300 1,895 20,550 1,824 22,000 1,968 74,219 Table. Absolute (total number) and relative (plants per hectare) abundance of woody trees and shrubs planted across the Phases I-IV of The Flight 93 National Monument Reforestation Project. Planting for each phase took place in the second half of April of each year.

Reforestation Project (2012-15; Phases I-IV) Objectives 1. Survival 2. Deer Browse 3. Competing Vegetation 4. Planting Position Summer 2015 each Phase was evaluated independently and represented 3, 2, 1, and 0.25 years following planting of Phase I, II, III, and IV, respectively.

Reforestation Project (2012; Phase I) Size = 7.7 ha (19 ac) No. of plots = 28 Percent sampling = 15%

Reforestation Project (2013; Phase II) Size = 9.1 ha (23 ac) No. of plots = 30 Percent sampling = 13%

Reforestation Project (2014; Phase III) Size = 11.3 ha (28 ac) No. of plots = 30 Percent sampling = 11%

Reforestation Project (2015; Phase IV) Size = 11.2 ha (28 ac) No. of plots = 30 Percent sampling = 11%

Plot Establishment Step 1: Plot boundary captured using Garmin 64s handheld GPS Step 2: Random plot centers generated using ArcGIS 10.2 Constraints > 30 meters between plot centers > 5 meters from boundary edge Phase Yr. planted Adj. area (ha) No. of plots % sample I 2012 7.68 28 15% II 2013 9.13 30 13% III 2014 11.26 30 11% IV 2015 11.18 30 11% Total 39.25 118 12%

Plot Establishment Step 1: Navigate to pre-established plot centers using Trimble Juno T41 GPS unit. Step 2: Drive 30 cm piece of rebar at plot center for relocating in future. Step 3: Plot photo taken Plot layout with 0.04 ha (0.10 ac) survey plot with four 1 m 2 nested subplots for percent cover determination. Step 4: Measure whole-plot data

Whole-Plot Measurements All planted woody plants within plot boundary were measured Measurements (Obj.) Height (Obj. 1) Basal diameter (Obj. 1) Species (Obj. 1) Vigor index (Obj. 1) Browse index (Obj. 2) Planting position (Obj. 4) Image: Posted 09.08.15 at http://www.iup.edu/newsitem.aspx?id=201760

Nested Sub-Plot Measurements Competing vegetation (Obj. 3) Categories (nearest 5%) Bare soil Rock Woody debris Grass/sedge Fern Forb Rubus spp. Woody vegetation Other Totaled 100%

Data Analysis Phases were treated as a separate experiments Plot-level variables that were calculated for each species (Table) Variable Description Symbol Units Species Abundance Number of individual plants for each species found within the n # or no. phase Relative abundance Number of plants relativized by plot size (0.04 ha) and expressed plants/ha #/ha (observed) on an area basis Mean height Mean height of all plants for each species within the plot Avg HT cm Minimum height Shortest individual for each species within the plot Min cm Maximum height Tallest individual for each species within the plot Max cm Mean diameter Mean basal diameter of al plants for each species within the plot Avg DIA mm Mean vigor Mean vigor value for each species within the plot. Vigor index Percent BO Percentage of plants that show no sign of deer browse % B0 % Percent B1 Percentage of plants with light deer browse % B1 % Percent B2 Percentage of plants with moderate deer browse % B2 % Percent B3 Percentage of plants with heavy deer browse % B3 % Phase-level data was averaged and standard error calculated. Treatments (position) were tested using ANOVA PDIFF Option for mean separation.

Overall Survival A total of 74,069 trees were planted across phases I-IV Overall survival was 55% Range was 93% - 37% within individual phases Phase I (2012) 93% (adj. 75%) Phase II (2013) 54% Phase III (2014) 41% Phase IV (2015) 37%

Phase I Survival (Obj. 1) + + +?? - [3 yrs.] PHASE I: Survival Planted Observed ± se Diff. Survival Distrib. Tot. Plants ± se Plant name (#/ha) (#/ha) (+/-) (%) (# plots) (#/phase) white pine 599 380 ± 2.0-219 63 26 2,920 ± 15.5 red pine 91 20 ± 0.1-71 22 17 152 ± 1.1 pitch pine 65 43 ± 0.3-22 66 21 331 ± 2.2 Virginia pine 0 - - - - - eastern hemlock 0 - - - - - red spruce 0 - - - - - Conifer tree subtotal 755 443-312 59-3,403 red oak 156 131 ± 0.8-25 84 23 1,006 ± 5.9 white oak 78 52 ± 0.3-26 67 21 397 ± 2.6 black oak 78 34 ± 0.3-44 44 17 258 ± 2.3 sugar maple 104 47 ± 0.3-57 45 21 358 ± 2.6 red maple 78 115 ± 1.4 +37 147 19 881 ± 11.1 black cherry 78 68 ± 0.4-10 87 23 523 ± 3.0 black locust 78 78 ± 0.4 0 100 24 602 ± 3.2 quaking aspen 65 38 ± 0.3-27 58 17 291 ± 2.4 black walnut 13 0-13 0 0 0 blackgum 52 46 ± 0.7-6 88 8 351 ± 5.5 yellow-poplar 0 - - - - - hickory species 0 - - - - - American elm 0 - - - - - American chestnut backcross 74 28 ± 0.3-46 38 16 212 ± 2.0 Deciduous tree subtotal 854 637-217 75-4,879 93% (adj. 75%) *

Phase II Survival (Obj. 1) + + - + + + [2 yrs.] PHASE II: Survival Planted Observed ± se Diff. Survival Distrib. Tot. Plants ± se Plant name (#/ha) (#/ha) (+/-) (%) (# plots) (#/phase) white pine 734 434 ± 2.1-300 59 29 3964 ± 18.7 red pine 22 3 ± 0.1-19 11 3 23 ± 0.5 pitch pine 55 48 ± 0.4-7 87 15 434 ± 4.1 Virginia pine 0 - - - - - eastern hemlock 131 53 ± 0.5-79 40 13 479 ± 4.9 red spruce 0 - - - - - Conifer tree subtotal 942 537-405 57-4,900 red oak 219 102 ± 0.4-117 46 30 928 ± 3.9 white oak 66 25 ± 0.2-41 38 20 228 ± 1.5 black oak 0 1 ± 0.0 +1-1 8 ± 0.3 sugar maple 106 57 ± 0.4-50 53 23 517 ± 3.4 red maple 33 13 ± 1.4-20 38 10 114 ± 1.4 black cherry 88 74 ± 0.4-13 85 26 677 ± 3.3 black locust 88 36 ± 0.3-52 41 18 327 ± 3.0 quaking aspen 66 46 ± 0.3-20 70 24 418 ± 2.4 black walnut 22 18 ± 0.3-4 84 9 167 ± 2.7 blackgum 0 - - - - - yellow-poplar 22 7 ± 0.1-15 30 5 61 ± 1.1 hickory species 0 - - - - - American elm 16 0-16 0 0 0 American chestnut backcross 53 38 ± 0.2-15 71 25 342 ± 2.2 Deciduous tree subtotal 778 415-363 53-3,789 54% *

Phase III Survival (Obj. 1) + - - - + + + [1 yrs.] PHASE III: Survival Planted Observed ± se Diff. Survival Distrib. Tot. Plants ± se Plant name (#/ha) (#/ha) (+/-) (%) (# plots) (#/phase) white pine 728 382 ± 1.8-346 52 29 4298 ± 19.8 red pine 18 2 ± 0.0-16 9 2 19 ± 0.5 pitch pine 53 14 ± 0.3-39 27 6 160 ± 3.6 Virginia pine 0 - - - - - eastern hemlock 71 14 ± 0.2-57 20 8 160 ± 2.7 red spruce 71 8 ± 0.2-63 12 3 94 ± 2.7 Conifer tree subtotal 941 420-521 45 4,729 red oak 178 74 ± 0.5-104 42 25 835 ± 5.8 white oak 71 7 ± 0.1-64 9 7 75 ± 1.1 black oak 0 4 ± 0.1 4-4 47 ± 0.9 sugar maple 53 22 ± 0.2-31 41 16 244 ± 2.2 red maple 18 8 ± 0.1-10 46 9 94 ± 1.1 black cherry 89 42 ± 0.3-47 47 22 469 ± 3.3 black locust 80 41 ± 0.2-39 51 22 460 ± 2.8 quaking aspen 71 33 ± 0.2-39 46 20 366 ± 2.8 black walnut 36 1 ± 0.0-35 2 1 9 ± 0.4 blackgum 0 - - - - - yellow-poplar 18 6 ± 0.1-12 32 6 66 ± 1.0 hickory species 44 11 ± 0.2-33 25 9 122 ± 1.8 American elm 13 - - - - - American chestnut backcross 89 34 ± 0.4-55 38 14 385 ± 4.2 Deciduous tree subtotal 747 282-464 38 3,172 41% *

Phase IV Survival (Obj. 1) + - + * [3 mo.] PHASE IV: Survival Planted Observed ± se Diff. Survival Distrib. Tot. Plants ± se Plant name (#/ha) (#/ha) (+/-) (%) (# plots) (#/phase) white pine 810 288 ± 1.2-522 36 26 3224 ± 13.1 red pine 18 0-18 0 0 0 pitch pine 0 1 ± 0.0 1 * 1 9 ± 0.4 Virginia pine 31 25 ± 0.2-6 81 16 280 ± 2.8 eastern hemlock 63 15 ± 0.2-48 24 8 168 ± 2.6 red spruce 63 22 ± 0.9-41 34 1 242 ± 9.7 Conifer tree subtotal 984 351-633 36 36 3,922 red oak 215 90 ± 0.5-125 42 26 1006 ± 5.6 white oak 98 45 ± 0.3-53 46 20 503 ± 3.7 black oak 0 - - - - - sugar maple 63 26 ± 0.2-37 41 21 289 ± 2.2 red maple 18 8 ± 0.1-11 42 8 84 ± 1.1 black cherry 45 33 ± 0.3-13 72 16 363 ± 3.3 black locust 81 18 ± 0.2-63 23 10 205 ± 2.7 quaking aspen 81 42 ± 1.0-39 51 3 466 ± 10.9 black walnut 36 22 ± 0.3-14 60 10 242 ± 3.4 blackgum 0 - - - - - yellow-poplar 18 6 ± 0.1-12 32 4 65 ± 1.4 hickory species 98 3 ± 0.1-96 3 2 28 ± 0.8 American elm 0 - - - - - American chestnut backcross 134 57 ± 0.4-77 42 23 634 ± 4.3 Deciduous tree subtotal 886 348-539 39 39 3,885 37% *

Deer Browse (Obj. 2) Deer browse was extremely low across all four phases (3%) Phase I showed the greatest with 5% Quaking aspen (19%) and blackgum (18%) showed highest level. ***Caution, Caution, Caution, Caution, Caution, Caution, Caution***

Competing Vegetation (Obj. 3) 100 80 Percent Cover (%) 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 Bare Ground Years Since Planting

Competing Vegetation (Obj. 3) 100 80 Percent Cover (%) 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 Bare Ground Grass/Sedge Years Since Planting

Competing Vegetation (Obj. 3) 100 80 Approx. 10% woody vegetation in year 3. Percent Cover (%) 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 Bare Ground Forbs Grass/Sedge Years Since Planting

Planting Position (Obj. 4) Conifers Average plant height for bottom (B), middle (M), and top (T) planting locations for each plant group. Different letters indicate significant (P<0.05) location differences within each plant group.

Planting Position (Obj. 4) Across all four phases Average vigor by planting location. Different letters indicate significant (P<0.05) location differences.

Planting Position (Obj. 4) *Different letters indicate significant (P<0.05)

Future Work Summer 2017 we will remeasure phases I-IV and establish permanent plots in Phases V & VI. More intensive sampling in specially designated sections where red spruce and resistant American elm were planted (line-intersect method with multiple transects) Long-term - Continue to track stand development across all planted sites.