ࡱ> DFABC%` bjbj ;̟̟%5  zzz8 70% closure b. Crown structure (vertical levels in the canopy) 1 - singlestory (one level of overstory trees) 2 - twostory (overstory trees and a second level of regeneration) 3 - multistory (greater than 2 distinct vertical levels in the canopy, stems smaller than 3 cm in dia. are not considered) c. Ground cover of ferns, herbaceous plants, woody shrubs, and ground vines estimated 4 categories): 0 = none 1 = <30% 2 = 30-75% 3 = >75% d.. Site quality (original plot establishment). In the opinion of the observer, past growth of sugar maple on the plot (before decline, if present) apparently was: 1  average; similar to maples nearby (about 10 km2 area) 2  less than maples nearby 3  better than the maples nearby The notes are used to show why the stand quality is below average, if known. Stand age Stand age was determined from five increment cores, one per plot, taken at the time of plot establishment. The stand age is assumed to be the age of the oldest of the five trees sampled. A codominant sugar maple was selected from the buffer zone adjacent to each plot. Unusual trees, such as severely damaged or wolf trees, were avoided. Trees with seams or cankers in the lower bole were avoided also because of the likelihood of rot. If a sample tree was hollow, another tree was chosen. The cores are taken at breast height.. When a core breaks, pieces are placed in sequence into the storage container. The storage container is a firm cardboard tube or straw. The ends of the tube are crimped and stapled. The plot identification number and the date of collection are recorded on the tube. Long cores require several straws; each part is labeled clearly. The cores are kept dry without chemical additives. Laboratory core analysis follows standard operating procedures (Zedaker and Nicholas 1990). The tree age is determined at the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Tree Ring Laboratory, Durham, New Hampshire. REGENERATION: Seedling/Sapling Count In 1998 through 2002, regeneration was recorded on each plot-cluster as a measure of the 1998 ice storm impact, but this was discontinued in 2003. The procedure was as follows. Regeneration was collected on each of the 5 plots within the plot-cluster. It was counted on a circular milacre plot (3.7 foot radius) located at 6.6 m (20 feet) from the plot center, in the East direction (90 degrees) If E was unavailable, a second choice was made going clockwise (S, W, N). The milacre plot was permanently marked at the center with a inch pvc pipe. Regeneration was counted on the milacre plot in 3 categories: Sugar maple, Other hardwoods, and Conifers. Other hardwoods included all commercial tree species. Each category contained 2 divisions: Seedlings < 1 m in height, and Seedlings & Saplings > 1 m in height, but < 10 cm dbh. Further, the Seedling < 1 m was divided into 2 classes: < 30 cm in height, and from 30 cm to 1 m in height. All seedlings/saplings with greater than 2 leaves (cotyledons) were counted for each category and recorded in the appropriate box. If stump sprouts or coppices generated multiple shoots, each shoot was considered a separate seedling. Only those seedlings whose stem was within the milacre plot were counted. The data sheet included: RECORD NUMBER IN EACH CATEGORY CLASS 1: <=30 cm CLASS 2: BETWEEN 30 cm & 1 m SEEDLINGS<1 mSEEDLINGS > 1 mCLASS 1CLASS 2SAPLINGS < 10 cm dbhSUGAR MAPLEOTHER HARDWOODSCONIFERS Lecanium Scale Population Survey From 2005-2007, visual estimates were made of scale populations on understory and lower branches of sugar maple using the abundance rating system listed below. Ten branches per subplot were examined and rated, using the branch portion with the most scales. Ratings were made to estimate the surface area covered with scales on 12 inches of growth, wherever the scale is heaviest. The maximum rating only were recorded in 2007 for each the 5 subplots. When scales were not present or visible, other evidence of scales was recorded: honeydew, sooty mold, crawlers on leaves. If no sugar maple was within touch or sight, that is recorded as 6. Lecanium scale abundance rating system = None = Trace : spotty single scales = Light : less than 30% of twig surface area with scales = Moderate : 30-60% of twig surface area with scales = Heavy : more than 60% of twig surface area with scales = Other evidence of scale presence: honey dew, sooty mold, crawlers = No understory sugar maple to rate TREE MEASUREMENTS The following section describes methods used to inventory individual tree condition. All the data were recorded at the time of plot establishment (Fig. 4). Thereafter, the primary emphasis is to record crown condition, with periodic accounting of ingrowth and DBH changes. Evidence of new bole or trunk damage and tree crown position changes are recorded annually. Tree Selection and Identification All the trees 10 cm (4 in) and larger were marked with aluminum tags and nails at d.b.h. (later replaced with twist ties and tags for lower tree impact); identified to species, or as close as possible; and inventoried for condition and damage. Major emphasis was placed on proper identification of sugar maple. Difficulties were encountered separating black maple from sugar maple so a few black maples may be included among the sugar maples. Common names used were from Little (1953). Each species, or species group is assigned a code number. Unused code numbers are added to accommodate other species not listed below. The new code number is marked with an asterisk on the data sheet, and the species name recorded in the notes when used the first time on a plot. The ingrowth was measured in 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2007. Angiosperms Gymnosperms 10 Maple 30 Birch 91 E. White pine 11 sugar 31 yellow 92 Other pine 12 black 32 paper 93 Hemlock 13 red 41 Ash 94 Balsam fir 14 silver 42 Hickory 95 Spruce 15 striped 43 Poplar, Aspen 96 white 20 Oak 44 Basswood 97 red, black 21 white 45 Ironwood, 98 Tamarack 22 bur Hophornbeam 99 Other conifers 23 northern red 46 Cherry 24 black 47 Elm 48 Beech 49 Other hardwoods Diameter Tree diameter was measured at d.b.h., 1.37 m or 4.5 ft above ground, in 1988, 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2007. The diameter measurement is taken every 5 years. The diameter measurement was not a critical measurement at the time of establishment because tree growth was not expected to be significant during the first 3 years. Tree diameter is measured on the uphill side of tree, or if tree is tagged with nail still present, just above the nail. If there is a bulge at DBH, the measurement is taken just above the bulge, where the bole returns to normal. If a tree is forked below 1 foot, consider each fork as a separate tree, and measure at 4.5. If tree is forked greater than 1 foot above ground or at 4.5 or above, measure diameter up 3.5 feet from pith joining forks. Trees forked above 4.5 are considered one tree. The measurements are recorded to the nearest 1 cm. Crown Position (All species - changes only) Crown position ratings were recorded for all the species in 1988, and changes are recorded annually. Crown position rating of each tree was done by two observers. The lower rating was given when the two raters failed to reach an agreement. When crown positions had changed during the previous 5 years because of a disturbance the rating was given according to the best estimate of what the crown position was at the time of disturbance (tree and crown size were weighed more heavily than the light factor). Changes observed after the original plot establishment are entered as corrections of the previous entry. The following codes and definitions were used (USDA 1984): 1 dominant (trees with crown extending above the general canopy and receiving full light from above and partly from the sides; larger than the average trees in the stand; crowns well developed, but somewhat crowded on the sides) 2 codominant (trees with crowns forming the general level of the canopy and receiving full light from above, but relatively little from the sides; usually with medium size crown, more or less crowded on the sides) 3 intermediate (trees shorter than in the preceding classes, but with crowns just below or extending into the canopy of dominant and codominant trees; receiving little direct light from above and none from the sides; usually with small crowns considerably crowded from the sides) 4 suppressed (trees with crowns entirely below the main canopy and receiving no direct light from above or sides) Vigor Rating (All species) General crown vigor was recorded for all species in 1988, and changes are recorded annually. The vigor rating is done in broad classes similar to those used in other forest decline projects. Although these were not initially considered critical measurements, in 1994, the definitions were clarified, and vigor became part of the training and certification. The acceptable error is plusorminus one vigor class. Vigor ratings must be done before crown ratings, and refer to the appearance of the crown using factors of percent of crown missing or broken, and abundance of dieback. The percentages of damage used for defining vigor rating classes are independent estimates, not related to the sums of crown rating percentages. The codes are used as follows: 1 healthy; tree appears to be in reasonably good health; no major branch mortality; crown is reasonably normal within the stand situation; less than 10 percent branch or twig mortality, defoliation or discoloration present. 2 light decline; branch mortality, twig dieback, or foliage discoloration present in 10 to 25 percent of the crown; broken branches or crown area missing based on presence of old snags is less than 26 percent. 3 moderate decline; branch mortality, twig dieback, or foliage discoloration in 26 to 50 percent of the crown; broken branches, or crown area missing based on presence of old snags is 50 percent or less. 4 severe decline; branch mortality, twig dieback, or foliage discoloration present in more than 50 percent of the crown, but foliage is still present to indicate the tree is alive; broken branches, or crown area missing based on presence of old snags is more than 50 percent; branch breakage and crown missing are recorded in the 5percent classes in the notes. 5 dead, natural; tree is dead, either standing or down; phloem under bark has brown streaks; few epicormic shoots may be present on the bole; no further entries needed. dead, human caused; tree removed; tree has been sawed or girdled by humans. dead, other; may include research purposes dead and down Tree Height In 2007 tree height, from ground to top of live crown, was recorded for all trees. A clinometer is used to measure one tree on each plot and this is used to estimate the other trees. Measurements are recorded to the nearest 5 feet. Tapping Record (Sugar maple only) From 1988 through 2004, taphole closure was recorded. The number of tapholes was recorded annually for all the sugar maples. One entry was made for the total number of open tapholes. A taphole is considered open when the point end of a pencil pushed into the hole hits cambium. When not certain the hole was not counted. Unusual observations, such as predominance of multiple taps on one side of a tree, are recorded in the notes. This measure was discontinued in 2005 because many sugarbushes had begun using smaller diameter spouts, and it was difficult to determine taphole closure. Starting in 2005, the new tapping data consisted of: tapped or not tapped; and the size of the tap being used on each of the 5 plots (7/16 (standard), 19/64 (health spout), or smaller (micro)). Bole Quality (All hardwoods) No individual Bole Quality was taken starting in 2007. Instead, a Bole Damage Code is used for sugar maples (see separate section below). Originally, severe bole damage that might affect tree vigor was recorded for all species in 1988. Annually, new damage thought to have occurred since previous year, is recorded. The Field Form permits entry of a maximum of three types of damage. If more damage is noted, the numbers may be entered in the notes. Location of bole defects 1  lower half (above the stump, 30 cm above ground, but in the lower half of the bole) 2  upper half (upper half of the bole, but below crown or branch forks) 3  whole bole (defects in both halves or continuous) 4  stump/roots (defects visible on the buttress roots or stump within 30 cm from the ground) 5  whole tree (includes bole, stump, and roots) Type of injury,damage, and defects on the bole As many as three major defects or type of damage on the bole were recorded in 1988. Thereafter, any new growthimpairing injury is added annually. These defects are registered as: 21 sweep or crook (at some point within a 3m length, curve of bole sufficiently severe that the curved section is completely outside the cylinder, above and below). 22 swelling (the swollen area exceeds one quarter of the bole diameter; slowly healing branch stubs with large swellings are included) 23 dead branches or stubs (dead branches larger than 10 cm on the bole or any dead stubs of that size creating open wounds; bole above the base of the crown, or any major branch fork, not included) 31 large open wounds (area of exposed wood larger than 4 cm2; includes cankers that have exposed wood) 32 small open wound (area of exposed wood 4 cm2 or less; holes created by tapping not included) 33 dead bark, dry & tight (old bruise or other damage extending more than 10 cm, covered by dead bark; includes cankers) 34 sloughing bark (bark is splintering and separating from the wood) 35 closed wound (large wounds healed and completely closed as indicated by overgrown live bark; may include large overgrown branch stubs) 36 seams or cracks (elongated narrow wounds, at least 1 m, not more than 2 cm wide; open or closed, including scars) 37 other (damage described in the notes) Causal agents for trunk or bole defects The probable agents responsible for trunk or bole defects are entered only when the observer is reasonably sure of the cause of damage. If more detailed identification is possible, such as woodboring insect, it is recorded in the notes. Observations such as "windthrow", "hail damage", "frost damage" also are recorded in the notes. Probable agent groups and their designated codes are: 0  causal agent not identified; or no damage present. 1  insect  In the notes record what signs were present. 2  fungus  Describe fruiting bodies or other signs. 3  weather  Blowdown, leafscorch, hail, water level change, frost, etc. 4  animal  Rubbing, gnawing, girdling, birdpecking, root damage from grazing, etc. 5  human  Logging, blazing, girdling, etc.(Do not include tapping). 6  fire  Fire scars near base, burnt wood. 7  silvicultural  Damage probably caused by shading, competition, rotten branch stubs. 8  tapping  Wound or decay that appears to have started at the taphole. 9  overmaturity (only the largest trees affected; hollow bole; tree appears to be over 150 years old) Bole Damage Codes (In 2007 and later) Damages on the bole and roots will be recorded for sugar maple trees in place of Bole Quality in 2007. For each sugar maple tree, examine the bole for the damages below and record all that are significant. Bole damage agentBole damage codeporcupine damage445sapsucker damage446other animal damage447eutypella canker 203nectria canker 202other canker207Armillaria root rot704other conks208logging damage (>20% of circumference)702sugar maple borer108other borers109cracks and seams708wind thrown/uprooted501broken bole709other weather damage505 Notes The notes section of the data sheets was used to record any unusual damage not covered in the Methods Manual, such as causes of defoliation, occurrence of heavy seed crops, presence of tattered or wrinkled leaves. Causal organisms also were recorded in the Notes when the observers could identify them. CROWN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT Crown measurements in 1988 included estimates of dieback, crown transparency, discoloration, dwarfed foliage, and presence of epicormic shoots. These were selected for the purpose of measuring annual changes and not to evaluate tree vigor or condition. Therefore, the emphasis in method selection was placed on repeatability of measurements between individual raters and timing of the measurements. Initially, crown condition ratings were made for sugar maples only. However, the following year (1989) the cooperators agreed to expand crown condition estimates to include all hardwood species. In the original plan, all the crowncondition rating elements were considered as critical measurements. However, because of difficulties of repeating measurements, the rating of dwarfed foliage and epicormic shoot measurements was dropped. When the situation suggests that these may provide additional information on tree health, estimates may be added in the notes. Uncertainty about definitions for discoloration resulted in removal of this measurement from the critical measurement list, but the measurement continued to be collected. Estimates of branch dieback and foliage transparency of sugar maples are retained as critical measurements. Originally these were collected based using a 12-class rating system. In 2003, this was changed to 21-class rating system that rates crown health in 5 percent categories, which is more compatible with other Vermont forest health surveys (Table 1). Data quality guidelines are followed for the critical measurements in order to determine measurement errors between individual raters. The acceptable variation between observers is 2 percentage classes higher or lower than the average, for dominantcodominant and intermediate trees; and a 4percentageclass difference for suppressed trees. Two certified raters are required to make the estimate. When the two estimates disagree, the percentage class nearest the average of the two is recorded. The timing of measurements extends from late June to the end of August. The purpose is not to initiate crown rating until leaves are mature and to complete the rating before the appearance of fall colors. Description of Crown A tree crown may be described in many ways. In this project, the crown is the silhouette, or single plane, outlined by the periphery of branch tips. The bottom of the crown is the lowest foliated area (excluding epicormics); it does not include the large branch stems that support the crown. For percentage estimates, large open areas within the crown are excluded; for example, openings created by the breakage of large branches. Likewise, areas on the periphery of the crown where the remnants of dead branches still remain, so called "snag" branches without small twigs, are excluded. The assumption is that the size of the crown remains relatively similar over time, but dieback, crown transparency, and discoloration are likely to change annually. A training aid and a calibration technique, the Crown Grid, are used for beginners to measure total crown and proportions of crown affected by dieback and other stressinduced symptoms. Foliage Crown grid The Crown Grid (Fig 7a) was developed from similar grids used to estimate areas on maps. The crown grid area does not represent a quantitative measure of the crown, rather it is used to determine the proportions of damage. The central square has 100 dots, and each peripheral square has 25 dots. Instructions for use of the Crown grid: 1. Hold the transparency approximately 30 cm (1 ft) from the eyes. 2. Center the crown outline on the grid so that the entire middle square is within the crown perimeter, but none of the crown is outside the margins of the grid. This is done by moving the grid closer or farther from the eye. After the crown is centered, do not change the distance while the crown and damage are being outlined. 3. Draw the outline of the entire tree crown by connecting the tips of major branches and branch clusters, that is, draw a curve of the lines from branch tip to branch tip to avoid creating large open spaces between branches on the periphery of the crown. When outer portions of branches are dead, draw a line between terminals of dead twigs in order to obtain the crown outline. A very large hole in the crown, such as that caused by broken branches, should be excluded. 4. Trace the outline of the damaged portion of the crown within the outline produced in step 3. 5. Determine the number of dots or squares encompassed by the whole crown and the damaged portion separately. 6. Divide the smaller number (damaged area) by the larger number (entire crown) and multiply by 100 to get the percentage of crown damaged. Record the damage in one of the 21 damage classes (Table 1). This procedure is intended to help the beginner gain confidence, to calibrate estimates, and to learn the areaestimation method. It is recommended that during the training phase, the observer first make an estimate of the percentages, and compare this with the value obtained from the Crown Grid. Twentyone-class Damage Rating System In 1988, the regional cooperators agreed to a 12class system which was used from 1988-2002 (0=0, 1-5=5%, 6-15=10%...). In 2003, Vermont implemented a 21-class damage rating system that was more consistent with other forest health surveys, and provided finer resolution data (Table 1). The class codes are recorded on the tree measurement data forms, and represent a 5 point range in damage. Acceptable data quality includes 2-class above or below the class code. Two observers are required for crown rating. When there are difference between the 2 observers, observation points are first compared to account for rating differences. If no agreement can be reached, the 2 ratings are averaged. Branch Dieback (All hardwoods) Branch dieback is used as a measure of an unhealthy condition and is defined as branch mortality that begins at the terminal portion of a limb and progresses downward. Branch dieback is assumed to be the result of stress on the tree. Shortterm stresses such as excessive seed production, weather extremes, or insect defoliation may cause temporary dieback, but when the stress is removed the trees may recover. Prolonged stresses may result in increase of dieback, and eventual decline and death of the tree. This measurement is an estimate of the proportion of the crown silhouette involved in dieback. Two certified raters are required to make the estimate from opposite sides of the tree. Branches with prematurely dead terminals are considered to have dieback down to the next lower fork of equal size branch. Assume that large dead branches within the upper crown area died from the terminal down unless signs of girdling or breakage are present indicating that they died at the base first. To be considered for dieback, a branch must be 1 inch or less in diameter, at the point of attachment of the branch to another branch or bole. Snag branches  large branches without small twigs under 2.5 cm (1 in) diameter, and usually with the bark absent or with dead bark peeling away  are assumed to have died much earlier. They are not considered as part of the crown and are not included in the dieback percentage. Likewise, branch mortality at the base of the crown, assumed to be the result of shading, is not included in the measurement. The proportion of crown with crown dieback is rated using the 21percentageclass system (Table 1). Table 1.New Twenty-one-class Rating System used since 2003. Percentage classes and acceptable range of observer variability for estimates of branch dieback, foliage transparency, and discoloration. Class codeClass rangeAcceptable observer variability000-1051-50-15106-100-201511-151-252016-206-302521-2511-353026-3016-403531-3521-454036-4026-504541-4531-555046-5036-605551-5541-656056-6046-706561-6551-757066-7056-807571-7561-858076-8066-908581-8571-959086-9076-1009591-9581-1009996-10086-100 The presence of one dead branch tip, at least 10 cm (4 in) long, in the upper portion of the tree crown, is rated as the lowest class with dieback in the 5percent class. When dead twigs are scattered throughout the crown, an estimate is made of the approximate proportion of foliage lost from the dead twigs, which is then recorded as the dieback percentage. In addition to normal dieback, extensive branch mortality, including snag branches, that might be affecting tree growth will be recorded in the notes The extent of the crown lost will be recorded in the same 5percent classes. Foliage Transparency (All hardwoods) Foliage transparency is determined by estimating the amount of skylight visible through the foliated portions of branches and averaged for the crown as a whole. It includes normal tree characteristics of foliage density as well as reduced foliage density resulting from insect damage, disease, or environmental stresses. Areas included in dieback are not rated for foliage transparency. It is assumed that an increase of foliage transparency over time indicates reduced tree vigor that eventually may lead to branch dieback. Recovery is expected from short periods of defoliation events. Two certified raters are required to make the transparency estimates from opposite sides of the tree. The 21-class rating system will be used to estimate foliage transparency (Table 1). Foliage transparency is a critical measurement that requires extensive training to achieve standardization among observers and consistency among years. Foliage transparency grid The Foliage Transparency Grid (Fig. 5b) is a visual presentation of varying proportions of black and white squares. The black areas represent the foliated portion of the crown, while the white areas represent the skylight visible through the crown. The percentage class is shown beneath the square. The Foliage Transparency Grid is used as a training aid. Comparisons are made between the grid and foliated portions of the branches on the periphery of the crown as well as in the midcrown areas. Foliage transparency standards The Foliage Transparency Standards (Fig. 6) are used to standardize foliage transparency estimates among observers and to provide a reference guide for subsequent years. These are photographs of actual sugar maple crowns showing the amount of skylight visible through the crown. The "0" class, not shown, indicates a very dense crown where practically no skylight is visible through the crown (a rare condition). Pocket size laminated cards of the standard is issued to every certified rater. Foliage Discoloration (All hardwoods) The estimate of foliage discoloration is based on the foliated portion of the crown and does not include areas where branches are dead or absent. Foliage is considered discolored when the overall appearance of a leaf is more red or brown than green. Fifty percent or more of the leaf has to be discolored for the leaf to be rated as discolored. Then, the area of the crown occurpied by leaves with that condition is rated with the 21-class scale. When the observer is not sure whether the foliage is green, it is rated green. Two certified raters are required to make the discoloration estimates from opposite sides of the tree. Patterns and types of offgreen coloration on diseased trees are reconized as an indicator of tree health problems. These indicators are not measured in this study, because of the difficulty of standardization between raters. However, the condition may be recorded in the notes. Marginal leaf scorch and similar partial discoloration will not be recorded unless more than half of all the leaves are affected. Premature fall coloration of leaves has been associated with the decline of sugar maple. Rapid changes over time and regional differences preclude use of early fall coloration as a critical measurement. After the 1988 field season, foliage discoloration was removed as a critical measurement, but its presence is still documented. Early leaf coloration and partial leaf discolorations may be recorded in the notes. When special conditions exist, a special rating scheme may be developed to measure the unique foliage damage condition. Data entries may be made in the blank columns provided for that purpose and a detailed description will be provided to the national coordinator and the data analyst. Defoliation (All hardwoods) Early defoliation (pear thrips, forest tent caterpillar, gypsy moth, etc) could substantially modify the overall crown condition ratings made in late summer, and so the impact from these pests could be missed with a single mid or late summer visit. The early entry is made when most of the defoliation by a given pest is expected to be complete. If it is determined during the spring visit that none of the trees is expected to have greater than 30 percent defoliation at the end of the feeding period, a 0 value is entered on the Tree Data Field Form under Early Defoliation Rating and a line is drawn vertically to the bottom of the page, indicating that an individual tree defoliation rating was not made. If one or more trees on a plot is likely to have moderate or greater defoliation, all trees on that plot are individually rated and recorded on the data sheet. Defoliation is estimated in four classes: 0 - none to light defoliation. 1 - less than 30 percent of crown defoliated. 2 - 31 to 60 percent defoliation. 3 - more than 60 percent defoliation. The causal agent, if identifiable, is recorded in the Notes section. No other tree condition ratings are made during the spring defoliation visit. Occasionally, late season defoliation may occur (for example, saddled prominent). When the potential for this is detected during the scheduled crown rating visit, a return visit to more accurately rate the degree of defoliation is encouraged. Seed Production (Sugar maple only) Excessive seed production is believed to weaken a tree and result in increased dieback the following year. Therefore, it was agreed by cooperators in 1993 to have seed abundance recorded as follows: 1. None (no seed is visible with binoculars) 2. Light to moderate seed present, BUT NOT abundant enough to cause noticeable discoloration in the upper crown 3. Heavy (branches in the upper crown with reddishbrown cast in mid to late summer as a result of color change of samara from green to reddishbrown) EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES At the time of plot establishment, several land surveying and forestry tools were used. Binoculars, however, are the only specialized equipment used for crownrating remeasurements. The crownrating guide is carried by the crews for field reference. The following list includes most of the equipment and supplies used by the field crews in: Plot establishment: Compass Increment borer, 3 to 5 mm dia. Tree identification manual Measuring tape (metric) Clinometer PVC pipe, 2 cm dia., 1 m long; 5 per plot, 25 per cluster Numbered aluminum tree tags and aluminum nails or Twist tie in place of tree nails Cardboard tubes or paper straws for increment cores Stand and Plot Description Form Tree Data Field Form Tree flagging Indelible pen Annual crown rating: Binoculars Foliage Transparency Standards Tree Data Field Form Indelible pen Quality Assurance and Quality Control Quality assurance consists of an organized group of activities defining the way in which tasks are to be performed to ensure an expressed level of quality. These activities ensure that the operations and procedures requiring control are defined, documented, and implemented. Because of the large number of different field crews in the project, quality assurance activities in the NAMP are of major importance. Data Quality Crown-condition measurements are critical for determining changes in the condition of sugar maple. The crown-condition ratings are subjective, quantitative, ocular estimates. The repeatability of measurements is assured through intensive training, standardized guides, and the use of two persons, to rate each tree. The first 2 years of cross-checking showed that approximately 95 and 90 percent of remeasurements were within one class (+ or 10%) for dieback and crown trandsparency, respectively. Crews are trained and tested annually for satisfactory performance. Standards and Critical Measurements Data quality requirements for critical measurements were established at 10% or 1 class for dominant, codominant and intermediate crown-class sugar maples, and 20% or 2 classes for suppressed trees. Critical measurments are: dieback, foliag transparency, and vigor. Exceeding these limits is considered an error in measurement. Plot measurements were acceptable with less than 10 percent error. Audits The purpose of the audit is to determine if the field data precedures are being implemented correctly. Any field crew that is new will be audited. Likewise, where testing or field data collectiong has not been in accordance with guidelines in the past, the State Coordinator will perform an audit for corrective measrues. Remeasurements The precision of critical crown-rating measurements is determined each year using QA/QC remeasurements by an experienced crew. Ten percent of sites are revisited and independent ratings of critical measurements are taken on a minimum of 20 trees per site. Data quality is reported in comprehensive reports of results. Data entry Data entry is completed by one experienced administrative assistant in the Waterbury office. Two copies of field data are made upon completion of collection. The original is sent to the State Coordinator. A copy is sent to the data entry staff, and the other copy is kept by the field crew. Data is entered into excel and sent electronically to the State Coordinator by October 1st. The State Coordinator maintains the data, and performs a series of ACCESS queries to ensure that the data were correctly entered. Annual results are produced and published in the Vermont Insect & Disease Conditions Report, posted on the Forestry Division web site, and used in producing highlights for sugar makers and for the US Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. Periodice comprehensive reports, such as the 20 year report, will involve a more thorough analysis of data, including statistical verifications. Upon completion of annual reports, data will be forwarded to the Vermont Monitoring Cooperative for archiving and web access. LITERATURE CITED Addison, P.A.; Rennie, P.J. 1988. The Canadian Forestry Service air pollution program and bibliography. Information Report D.P.CX26. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Forest Science Directorate. 133 p. Allen, D.C.; Barnett, C.J. 1989. Summary Progress Report of Data Management and Analysis for the North American Sugar Maple Decline Project (Presented by State and Province, 22 p. ea.). Ƶ. Syracuse, N.Y. Allen, D.C.; Barnett, C.J. 1990. North American Sugar Maple Decline Project: 1990 Data Analysis Annual Report. Ƶ. Syracuse, N.Y. 45 p. Allen, D.C.; Molloy, A.W.; Cooke, R.R.; Lachance, D.; Barnett, C. 1997. North American Maple Project - Seven Year Report. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area Report. 57 p. Blair, R.; Carey, A.; Janetos, A.C. 1986. Responses of forests to atmospheric deposition  National research plan for the Forest Response Program. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report, December, 1986: 67 p. Burkman, W.G. 1990. Quality assurance aspects of the joint USA  Canada Sugar Maple Decline Project. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Ecological Quality Assurance Workshop, April 2426, 1990, Burlington, ON: Canada Centre for Inland Waters. p. 8398. Burkman, W.G.; Millers, I.; Lachance, D. 1990. Quality assurance/quality control implementation and evaluation in the North American Sugar Maple Decline Project. In: Proceedings of the XIX IUFRO World Congress; 1990 August 515; Montreal, ON: Canadian IUFRO World Congress Organizing Committee. Carrier, L. 1986. Decline in Quebec's forests  Assessment of the situation.Report by Service de la Recherche Applique. Quebec City, PQ: Direction de la Recherche et du Developement, Ministere de l'Energie et des Resources. Sept. 1986. 30 p. Cline, S.P.; Burkman, W.G.; Geron, C.D. 1989. Use of quality control procedures to assess errors in measuring forest canopy conditions. In: R.K. Olson; Lefohn, A.S.; eds., Transactions: effects of air pollution on Western forests. Pittsburgh, PA: Air and Waste Management Association. 379394. Environment Canada. 1986. Forest decline workshop, Wakefield, PQ. 1986 October 2022. LRTAP Workshop No. 6. Downsview, ON: Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Services. 223 p. Gagnon, G.; Roy, G.; Gravel, C.; Gagne, J. 1986. State of dieback research at the Ministere de l'Energie et des Resources. In: Maple decline; maple producers information session, 4380. SaintFoy, PQ: Quebec Ministere de l'Agriculture, des Pecheries et de l'Alimentation. C.P.V.Q. AGDEX 300/637. 44 p. Little, E. L. 1953. Checklist of United States Trees (native and naturalized). Agriculture Handbook No. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. MacConnell, W.; Goodwin, D.; Jones, K.; Kelty, M. 1986. Color infrared detection of stressed, declined and harvested forests in Massachusetts. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Food and Natural Resources. 47 p. McFadden, M.W. 1987. U.S./Canada Sugar Maple Decline Workshop Meeting Summary. Eastern Hardwoods Research Cooperative Memorandum to Workshop Participants. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 19 p. McFadden, M.W. 1988. Eastern Hardwoods Research Cooperative: a program description. Broomall, PA: Eastern Hardwoods Research Cooperative. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 53 p. McLaughlin, D. L.; Dimma, D.E.; Linzon, S.N.; McIlveen, W.D. 1985. Sugar maple decline in Ontario. Rep. ARB14485Phyto. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Environment. 18 p. Magasi, L.P. 1988. Acid Rain National Warning System: Manual on plot establishment and monitoring. Information Report DPCX25. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service. 85 p. Millers, I.; Lachance, D.; Burkman, W. G.; Allen, D. C. 1991. North American Maple Decline Project: Organization and Field Methods. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE154. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 26 p. Millers, I.; Shriner, D.S.; Rizzo,D. 1989. History of hardwood decline in the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE126. Broomall, PA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 75 p. Missouri Department of Conservation. 1982. Forest Diseases: Missouri forest pest report 1982. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation, Forestry Division. 2 p. Morselli, M.F. 1985. Sugar maple research news. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Agricultural Experiment Station, Botany Department, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Vol.3, 37 p. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1985. Forest Pest Management News, June 1985. Middletown, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Forestry, Division of Forest Pest Management. 5 p. Rush, P.A. 1986. Forest pest conditions report for the Northeastern Area 1985. NAFR33. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Northeastern Area. 35 p. SAS Institute Inc. 1985a. SAS User's Guide: basics, version 5 edition.Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. 1290 p. SAS Institute Inc. 1985b. SAS User's Guide: statistics, version 5 edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. 956 p. Sisterson, D.L.; Bowersox, V.C.; Olsen, A.R.; Meyers, T.P.; Vong, R.L. Deposition monitoring: methods and results. State of Science Report No. 6. Washington, DC: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1982. Forest insect and disease conditions in the United States 1981. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 51 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Forest insect and disease conditions in the United States 1982. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 51 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1984. Field instructions for Southern New England. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis Unit. 129 p. Zedaker, S.; Nicholas, N. 1990. Quality assurance methods manual for forest site classification and field measurements. EPA/600/390/082, Corvallis,OR: Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 47 p.     PAGE  PAGE 1 Vermont North American Maple Project Manual - 2008  !01 ^ c d CEXZnoBy%/=>vw}~ ޹޹޹޹޹޹޹޹޹ޱ޹޹޹ަhx6CJOJQJhF?OJQJh:OJQJhxCJOJQJhpFOJQJhx5CJOJQJhxOJQJhx56CJOJQJhxjhxUA !12`a< > DEZ[  !82 HrP 82 HrP> uv~8A $ ~ a$ ~  82 HrP"""""$$$$D% $ ~ a$ ~ ( ) ` a """"&&&(((((())**z*******U,W,--@-- .999b:k:p:t:::::hRYNOJQJh^OJQJhx5OJQJh)3OJQJhpFOJQJh*OJQJhx6OJQJhx6CJOJQJh:56CJOJQJhxH*OJQJhxCJOJQJhx56CJOJQJhxOJQJ3D%E%%%B&C&&&&&''((((****;+<+++++,, $ ~ a$ ~ ,,---@-A- . .?.t.../W///-0.0u00,1i112O22233`3 ~ `3a333L4M4?555567696{6666666 77 8~  $   ~  $  ~  ~ 7'7;7M7777g88889999::<<<<7=8=h== ~ gdRYN $ ~ a$ ~  $  ::8;:;;;;;7<=<><@<<<<<<2C3CDDDWEwExEEEEEE7F9FCFDFJFSFFFFFFGGGGYGƼӴ۬ۤƙӑӑӅ|pӑӑh B}hx5OJQJhY>5OJQJhk'@hY>5OJQJh2lOJQJhx6CJOJQJhY>OJQJhAOJQJh^OJQJhxCJOJQJhx56CJOJQJhxOJQJhIOJQJh B}OJQJhRYNOJQJh)3hRYNH*OJQJ,==>p>q>>>"???s??@@8@R@@@@@AA/AFAaAAAAAA ~ ACCDDxEyEEE>F?FSFdFwFFFFFGGGGGG.H ~ ^gd2l Z~ gdY> ~ gdY> ~ YGGGGGGHH.H/H7H8HYH[H^H_HkHHIIIaNmNNNNSSSUTVTwTxT|TTTTTTTT𻣻𒎈vrnrnrgrnr h7gh)#hh B}h)#h"h)#hh)#h56CJOJQJaJ hxCJhxhx56OJQJ hxCJhY>56CJOJQJhx6CJOJQJhx56CJOJQJh B}hx5OJQJhY>OJQJh B}h2l5OJQJh?OJQJhxOJQJh2lOJQJ(.H8HBHNHXHYHI=I\IIIIIIIvMwM`NaNNNPP=R>R $ ~ a$ ~ ^gd2l ~ >RSSSSSSSSSS$&#$/If^ $ ~ a$ SSSTT#TfWWWW$&#$/Ifkd$$IfTl\q^ \ T04 laT#T$T0T1T2T3TfWWWW$&#$/Ifkd$$IfTl\q \ fT04 laT3T4TDTETFTGTfWWWW$&#$/Ifkd$$IfTl\q \ fT04 laTGTHTQTRTSTTTfWWWW$&#$/Ifkd$$IfTl\q \ fT04 laTTTUTVTwTxTVV$Wf`VVVII hh^h`hgd)#h gd)#h^kdP$$IfTl\q \ fT04 laTTTU)U,U0U1U3U7U=U>U?UUUUUUUUUV VVV"V&V*V+V;V>V?VGVKVLV{V|V}VVVVVVVV$W&W+W-WJWLWWWWWWWWWX X4X7XXXYXZXlXYZZʽʬhx6OJQJhxOJQJhx56CJOJQJhx56OJQJ h-h)#hh"h)#h5 h B}5hY>hdh B}h)#h h7gh)#hD$W+WJWWWW5XYXZXlXmXYYZZ[[]]?]@]d]e] N  ~  $ ~ a$ & Fgd)#h & Fgd)#hZZZZ]0]4]=]$_,_._r__s```cbbbbhhhjjj.k/kSkTkkkkllmmvnnoooopppppݷ}h#OJQJhgr5OJQJhvx hvx OJQJhvx hvx 5OJQJhvx 5OJQJhx5OJQJhx56CJOJQJhY>OJQJhoOJQJhx6OJQJhx56OJQJh%$OJQJh B}OJQJhxOJQJ.e]]]]]^A^f^^^^^^"_$_| # * \ r  * r b d * d  * d *  *   $_._/_bbbblemeWfXff4g5gQhRhhhhkkllmmrnsnoo ~ ropppp qqqq+q,qrr9r:rttOuPuoupuuv ~ rgdA ~ rgd%V & F ~ rgd%V ~ rpqq+q,qHqfqrr#r:rprrrrrmsqssCtStttttOuPu\upusuuuuuuuuuuuuuu vmvpvqvwvιƜƜƜƌƤxhx>*ϴԭ5>*ϴoϴBϴϴԭϴԭ56Cϴ䴳ϴ#ϴϴ䴳ϴ56Cϴϴ%ϴ/ɱ汹~`~~~Ղ˃̃̓$h*MehA59\^JmH nH u hA5hAOJQJhoOJQJhtg56CJOJQJhB56CJOJQJhxH*OJQJhx56OJQJhx6CJOJQJhx56CJOJQJhxOJQJhx5OJQJ-v;w "-.ᾱzzvzpzvj hxCJ$ h2t0Jhx hx0Jjhx0JUh 3jh 3Uhj$OJQJhxOJQJhTphxOJQJhx56CJOJQJh2tOJQJhTphTpH*OJQJh2thTpCJOJQJaJhTpOJQJh9NOJQJh2th9NCJOJQJaJ)KZ-.|}/0=gd;=>34ab !VW&'34"#xy()YZ ~ r r ~ r&`#$ hxOJQJhx hxCJ$ h:CJ$90 &P:p:/ =!"#$%` P $$If!vh5555T#v#v#v#vT:V l05555T/ /  / 4T$$If!vh555f5T#v#v#vf#vT:V l0555f5T/ 4T$$If!vh555f5T#v#v#vf#vT:V l0555f5T4T$$If!vh555f5T#v#v#vf#vT:V l0555f5T4T$$If!vh555f5T#v#v#vf#vT:V l0555f5T4T$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l6,51 5W/ /  / p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l6,51 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l6,51 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh5J 5f#vJ #vf:V l651 5W/ / / /  p$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4 555J/  / / 44 zf4pT$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/  / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/ / / / 44 zf4T$$If!vh555J#v#v#vJ:V z4555J/ / / / 44 zf4TB@BNormal9_HmHnHsH tH uZ@Z Heading 1$@& 82 HrP56CJOJQJ>@> Heading 4 h^h>*CJ:@: Heading 5 ^5:@: Heading 6 ^>*:@: Heading 7 ^6:@: Heading 8 ^6: @: Heading 9 ^6DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 4 @4Footer  !4@4Header  !D&D Footnote ReferenceCJEH6@"6 Footnote TextH@HTOC 1x (56CJOJQJkHFFTOC 2x (5CJOJQJkHBBTOC 3 (^ OJQJkHBBTOC 4 (^ OJQJkHBBTOC 5 (X^X OJQJkHBBTOC 6 ( ^  OJQJkHBBTOC 7 (^ OJQJkHBBTOC 8 (^ OJQJkHBBTOC 9 (x^x OJQJkH.)@. Page NumberTB@T Body Text 82 HrP56CJ OJQJTP@T Body Text 2$a$5B*CJ0hmH sH tH u447 !12`a<>DEZ[>  uv~8ADEBC """";#<#####$$,%-%@%A% & &?&t&&&'W'''-(.(u((,)i))*O***++`+a+++L,M,?----.7.9.{....... //'/;/M////g000011112244447585h5556p6q666"7?7s778888R8888899/9F9a999999;;<<x=y===>>?>S>d>w>>>>>?G????.@8@B@N@X@Y@A=A\AAAAAAAvEwE`FaFFFHH=J>JKKKKKKKKKKKKLL#L$L0L1L2L3L4LDLELFLGLHLQLRLSLTLULVLwLxLNN$O+OJOOOO5PYPZPlPmPQQRRSSUU?U@UdUeUUUUUVAVfVVVVVV"W$W.W/WZZZZl]m]W^X^^4_5_Q`R````ccddeerfsfgghhhh iiii+i,ijj9j:jllOmPmompmmn;o34ab !VW&'34"#xy()YZ00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 00 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0000 0 0 0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 00@000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0X00@0X00@0X00@0X00@0@0@0@0@0@0X00L00X007S>>N+OJOOOO5PYP{{{||||||1|5|6|H|L|M|]|a|b|o|s|t||||||||||||||||}} }}"}#}/}3}4}I}M}N}/09:EFSTbcqrѝҝ!"12ABRScduv @0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0{0 0 @00000@0 0000@0 0000@0 0000@0 0000@0 0 0 0 0 @0 0 0 0 0 @0 00 00 @0 00 00 @0 00 00 @0 0000@0 0000@0 0000@0 0000@0 0000@0 0000@0 j00D0* j00@0||j00D@0"j00@03j00 @0aj0 0 %A03;j0 0 @ 036j00@03:j00@70.3>j00@03Jj00@0,Kj00@0aj00aB0ffj00@0j00A038j00@0=j0 0!@0j0"0#h0dj0$0%a0j0 j0&0'9@0j0 j0(0) @60j0j0*0+@0(j0{00{00 00 $$$':YGTZpwv0uzD%,`37=A.H>RS#T3TGTTT$We]$_ov_~6a#Msݚ/9ESbqѥ!1ARcuK=vxy{|}~w  '!!8@(  n  c $̙ " B S  ?`p0*@tm mCmm m mLCm CmBmBmmm|m<mm$mmmdm$mmmdm$mmmmmDmm|m<mmm|m<"m!m!m|!mn3?nT3@n AnT Bn Cn Dn EnT Fn Gn Hn InT Jn Kn Ln MnT Nn On^]]c$ZZYYnz~ r,6^^      !"$#%'&(*)+,-/.0213546879:;<=>?@ABCDFEGHIKJLNMOPQRSUTVWXYZ\[]^_`abcdefghikjlmnoprqstuvwyxz|{}~==++ee{6OF^F^F V VZZeeOSvT_kss +7??ouuTT/cc+//tt|RYY[__*.4s]eiu'.3[_8<Bdaee"&&^^ ffx|x58bb  !"$#%'&(*)+,-/.0213546879:;<=>?@ABCDFEGHIKJLNMOPQRSUTVWXYZ\[]^_`abcdefghikjlmnoprqstuvwyxz|{}~9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypeB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region tC6|?|M|T|t|~|:sK !IuF6W*"^]zcnxX<nvx+<hh^h`o(.hhh^h`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh88^8`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hHohxx^x`OJQJo(hHhHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH((^(`5o( ^`hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH. h h ^h `hH. 8L8^8`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.88^8`OJPJQJ^J ^`OJQJo("    ^ `OJQJo("    ^ `OJQJo("  xx^x`OJQJo("  HH^H`OJQJo("  ^`OJQJo("  ^`OJQJo("  ^`OJQJo(" 88^8`o( ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.:sKcnxnvx!IuF*"^]         J        Jns~ ܜl$dR4iǺ>&ywH        :D7LGM(CW:9pF@ vx %VSBM?tgj$n/)36)4F?9NRYN)#h6kgr2t}{ B}xY~omUO.|m&\#%$=:xtdgJATpI+5B 3^;:>3Y>2l*A8cjm AI?KKKKKKKKLL#L$L0L1L2L3L4LDLELFLGLHLQLRLSLTLUL{{{{||||||1|5|6|H|L|M|]|a|b|o|s|t||||||||||||||||}} }}"}#}/}3}4}I}M}N}/0249:<@EFINSTW]bcflqru{ŝ˝ѝҝ՝۝ !"%+125;ABEKRSV\cdgnuveF@\\fprdhr30t31\HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCLNe11:winspoolHP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL\\fprdhr30t31\HP LaserJet 12004C odXXLetterDINU"4J4\\fprdhr30t31\HP LaserJet 12004C odXXLetterDINU"4J4<`@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial9CG Times?5 z Courier New;Wingdings V&&Fxˆr!s!sYV4d2QVHX?*2FUnited States NORTH AMERICAN Forest Health Protection Sandy Wilmot      Oh+'0 ,8H `l    HUnited States NORTH AMERICAN Forest Health ProtectionNormalSandy Wilmot6Microsoft Office Word@,@8hZ@-@ *!՜.+,0P px  /USDA FOREST SERVICEN1s' GUnited States NORTH AMERICAN Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./02345678:;<=>?@ERoot Entry F GData 1TableWordDocument;SummaryInformation(1DocumentSummaryInformation89CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q