National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Rare Woodland and Forest Community Monitoring 

Protocol for Acadia National Park 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRR—2012/529 
ON THE COVER 

Pitch pine broom crowberry woodland near Wonderland Trail in Acadia NP 

Photograph by: K. Miller 
Rare Woodland and Forest Community Monitoring 

Protocol for Acadia National Park 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRR—2012/529 

Geraldine L. Tierney 

Department of Environmental & Forest Biology 

SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry 

Syracuse, NY 13210 

Kathryn M. Miller 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Acadia National Park 

P.O. Box 177 Eagle Lake Road 

Bar Harbor, ME 04609 

Brian R. Mitchell 

Northeast Temperate Network 

54 Elm Street 

Woodstock, VT 05091 

June 2012 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado 
ii 

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, 

Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and 

applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource 

management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse 

audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management 

applicability. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

This report received formal, high-level peer review based on the importance of its content, or its 

potentially controversial or precedent-setting nature. Peer review was conducted by highly 

qualified individuals with subject area technical expertise and was overseen by a peer review 

manager. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not 

necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. 

This report is available from the Northeast Temperate Network, 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/netn/monitor/monitor.cfm) and the Natural Resource 

Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Tierney, G. L., K. M. Miller and B. R. Mitchell. 2012. Rare woodland and forest community 

monitoring protocol for Acadia National Park: Northeast Temperate Network. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/NETN/NRR—2012/529. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

 NPS 123/114640, June 2012 
iii 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version 

# 

Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 July 2007 Geri Tierney Initial draft 

1.01 January 

2008 

Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

White Pine / Red pine forest to be 

sampled using NETN forest protocol, 

rather than this protocol. Corrected 

locations of Pitch pine and Jack pine 

woodlands in Table 1. Added text on 

fire history, citing Patterson et al. 1983. 

1.02 February 

2008 

Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Minor editorial changes. 

2.00 March 

2009 

Geri Tierney 

Brian Mitchell 

Kate Miller 

Added comment about potential pitch 

pine/ broom crowberry woodland at 

Ship Harbor. Added justification. 

Updated objectives to conform to NPS 

guidance. 

Added LAR SOP. Minor editorial 

changes 

Conform to NPS 

guidance. 

2.01 June 2009 Geri Tierney Added sections on Field Methods, Data 

Man., Analysis, and Reporting, 

Personnel Requirements and Training, 

and Operational Requirements. 

Added SOPs for GPS and EI Reporting. 

Included cutoff of 2 m patch size for 

inclusion in monitoring program. 

Editorial changes 

Conform to NPS 

guidance. 

2.02 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Changed sampling frequency from 

biennial to annual. Minor editorial 

changes and clarifications 

Sampling plan 

changed to balance 

crew work load. 

2.03 June 2010 Geri Tierney 

Brian Mitchell 

Kate Miller 

Added Safety, LAR and Data 

Management & QA/QC SOPs. 

Corrected and standardized reference 

to White Pine / Red Pine Forest 

community. Changed from biennial to 

annual sampling. Increased sample size 

in Wonderland broom crowberry patch. 

Established QA/QC resampling 

schedule. Removed goal of calculating 

distance to coast. Formatting changes. 

Annual sampling fits 

crew schedule better 

and improves 

understanding of 

annual variation. 

QA/QC resampling 

needed to ensure 

data quality. 

2.04 December 

2010 

Kate Miller Added note that PPC is not at Ship 

Harbor. 

Editorial changes, formatting 

Conform to NPS 

standards 
iv 

Version 

# 

Date Revised by Changes Justification 

2.05 April 2012 Kate Miller Minor editorial changes Response to 

external reviewer 

comments. 

 
v 

Contents 

 Page

Revision History ............................................................................................................................ iii

Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii

Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vii

Background and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1

Description of Rare Communities ........................................................................................... 3

Woodlands........................................................................................................................... 3

Forest .................................................................................................................................. 4

Stressors ................................................................................................................................... 4

Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 5

Sampling Design ............................................................................................................................. 9

Site Selection ........................................................................................................................... 9

Sampling Frequency and Number of Plots .............................................................................. 9

Power to Detect Change ........................................................................................................ 10

Field Methods ............................................................................................................................... 12

Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting ................................................................................ 15

Personnel Requirements and Training .......................................................................................... 17

Operational Requirements ............................................................................................................ 19

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix A. Datasheet for Rare Woodland Community monitoring (Version 3.1). ................... 23

SOP 1 – Safety .............................................................................................................................. 27

SOP 2 – Preparation and Equipment List ..................................................................................... 29

SOP 3 – Using the Global Positioning System (GPS) .................................................................. 35

SOP 4 – Using the Laser Rangefinder (LAR) .............................................................................. 37
vi 

Contents (continued) 

 Page

SOP 5 – Data Management and Quality Assurance/Quality Control ........................................... 39

SOP 6 – Site Selection, Plot Establishment, and Remeasurement ............................................... 41

SOP 7 – Photopoint ....................................................................................................................... 51

SOP 8 – Site Measurements .......................................................................................................... 55

SOP 9 – Tree Measurements ......................................................................................................... 63

SOP 10 – Tree Regeneration......................................................................................................... 69

SOP 11 – Quadrat Measurements ................................................................................................. 73

SOP 12 – Broom Crowberry Population ...................................................................................... 79

SOP 13 – Landscape Context ....................................................................................................... 85

SOP 14 – Analyzing and Reporting Ecological Integrity ............................................................. 89

SOP 15 – Deviations, Differences, and Summary of Major Changes ........................................ 105
vii

Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. NETN rare community plot with three nested 9 x 1 m regen belt transects and nine 1 x 

1 m veg quadrats.. ......................................................................................................................... 13

Tables 

Page 

Table 1. Rare communities at ACAD.. .......................................................................................... 2

Table 2. Key community members in each rare community of interest. ....................................... 7

Table 3. Panel design and number of plots per community type. ................................................ 10

Table 4. Northeast Temperate Network rare community reporting schedule. ............................. 15

1 

Background and Objectives 

Acadia National Park (ACAD) lies within a transition zone of the Maine coastline, containing 

ecological communities typical of both southwestern and “downeast” coastal Maine. Eleven of 

these communities, or “associations” as defined within the United States National Vegetation 

Classification (Jennings et al. 2003), are rare within the state of Maine (Brooke Wilkerson, 

Maine Natural Areas Program, personal communication), and one is globally rare (Lubinski et al. 

2003; see Table 1). The NPS Northeast Temperate Network (NETN) is establishing a long-term 

forest monitoring program in 10 national park units within the northeastern US. This program is 

designed to detect trends in forest condition. At ACAD, the network has installed 176 permanent 

forest plots. This sample size will allow detection of trends in park forests overall, as well as in 

some specific ecological communities. However, this effort will not yield sufficient sample sizes 

in rare community associations to assess trends in the condition of these communities. Rare 

communities are of particular management and conservation interest at ACAD, because they are 

rare and because they may be particularly sensitive to anthropogenic (human caused) impacts. 

This protocol was designed to provide data for the assessment of status and trend in rare 

woodland and forest communities within ACAD, and was adapted from the NETN Long-term 

Forest Monitoring Protocol. Because these communities are rare in Maine, and are not found in 

other NETN parks, rare communities will be monitored using a separate sampling frame (i.e., a 

different series of randomized plots) and modified procedures that are specific to the target 

communities. However, methods were kept the same between protocols where possible to 

facilitate data comparison and ensure the forest crew, which will be implementing this protocol, 

can quickly transition to this protocol. Where methods are the same, we refer the reader to the 

standard operating procedures in the forest monitoring protocol both to maintain consistency and 

because the forest crew receives more thorough training on the forest monitoring protocol. 

Therefore, this rare community protocol is not a stand-alone document, and should be used in 

conjunction with SOPs in the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol. 

Of the rare communities at ACAD, four terrestrial forest or woodland communities are 

recommended for long-term monitoring at this time: a) the globally rare Pitch Pine / Broom 

Crowberry Woodland (PPC); b) the Pitch Pine / Black Chokeberry / Wavy Hairgrass - Little 

Bluestem Woodland (PPW or Pitch Pine Woodland); c) the Jack Pine / Sheep Laurel - Blueberry 

species Woodland (JPW or Jack Pine Woodland); and d) the Eastern White Pine - Red Pine / 

Canadian Bunchberry Forest (WRP or White Pine / Red Pine Forest). The latter three 

communities are considered rare (S3) in the state of Maine. NETN originally targeted the Pitch 

Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland for monitoring due to its globally rare (G2) status. The Pitch 

Pine and Jack Pine Woodlands share many structural, compositional and functional 

characteristics with the Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland and can effectively be 

monitored with this rare woodland protocol. The White Pine / Red Pine Forest community shares 

fewer characteristics with these woodlands, but, like the woodlands, is a relatively open and fireassociated forest community. The White Pine / Red Pine Forest will be sampled using the 

sampling frame described in this narrative, but will use the field methods and data forms 

described in the NETN long-term forest monitoring protocol (Tierney et al. 2010). 

The remaining eight communities that are ranked as rare in Maine are not recommended for 

monitoring at this time. The Pitch Pine - Heath Barren has been found only on Long Island and is 
2 

2 

Table 1. Rare communities at ACAD. Communities shown in bold are recommended for monitoring. Rarity is denoted by T

ranking system where G = global, S = state, 1 = critically imperiled, 2 = imperiled, and 3 = vulnerable. The Mount Desert Isabbreviated as MDI, and the Isle au Haut subunit is abbreviated as IAH. 

Rarity Maine Classification National Vegetation Classification Association NatureServe Code Area (ha) Polygons mapped Avg. patch size (ha) G2 Pitch Pine Woodland Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland CEGL006154 5.5 1 5.5 S1 Pitch Pine - Heath Barren Pitch Pine / Blueberry species - Black Huckleberry Woodland CEGL005046 9 3 3 S2 Dune Grassland American Beachgrass - Beach Pea Herbaceous Vegetation CEGL006274 1 1 1 S2 White Cedar Woodland 

Northern White-cedar / Black Huckleberry - Northern Lowbush Blueberry Woodland AND/OR Northern White-cedar - Green Ash / Striped Maple Woodland 

CEGL006411 AND/OR CEGL006508 

S3 Birch - Oak Talus Woodland 

(Rock Polypody, Appalachian Rockcap Fern) / Lichen species Nonvascular Vegetation 

CEGL006534 11 12 1 

S3 Brackish Tidal Marsh Narrowleaf Cattail - Eastern Rose- mallow Herbaceous Vegetation CEGL004201 

S3 Crowberry - Bayberry Headland Northern Bayberry - Black Crowberry Dwarf-shrubland CEGL006510 14 4 4 S3 Hardwood Seepage Forest Red Maple - Ash species / Mountain- holly - Highbush Blueberry Forest CEGL006220 

S3 Jack Pine Woodland Jack Pine / Sheep Laurel - Blueberry species Woodland CEGL006041 84 40 2 

S3 Pitch Pine Woodland Pitch Pine / Black Chokeberry / Wavy Hairgrass - Little Bluestem Woodland CEGL006116 380 47 8 S3 Red Pine - White Pine Forest Eastern White Pine - Red Pine / Canadian Bunchberry Forest CEGL006253 17 9 2 S3 Three toothed Cinquefoil - Blueberry Low Summit Bald Northern Lowbush Blueberry - American Mountain-ash / Mountain- cinquefoil Dwarf-shrubland CEGL005094 375 129 3 
3 

not accessible. The Dune Grassland and Crowberry-Bayberry Headland communities are 

particularly sensitive because of their restricted occurrence within ACAD, but they are not 

appropriate for monitoring with this protocol. Any future monitoring of those communities 

would need to take extensive precautions to avoid trampling. The White Cedar Woodland and 

Hardwood Seepage Forests were not sufficiently delineated on the Acadia Vegetation Map (and 

the latter has not officially been documented as occurring within ACAD; Lubinski et al. 2003). 

The Birch-Oak Talus Woodland occurs on steep slopes, and is not suitable for plot-based 

monitoring. The Brackish Tidal Marsh is a wetland community that is not appropriate for 

monitoring with this terrestrial protocol. Finally, the Blueberry Low Summit Bald is the typical 

open upland community type seen across Mount Desert Island (MDI) and also on Isle au Haut 

(IAH). While this woodland protocol was not designed for monitoring that open upland 

community, the protocol could be adapted to serve that purpose at a future time. 

Description of Rare Communities 

Woodlands 

The Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland typically occurs on acidic rocky outcrops along 

the Maine coast, though disjunct patches occur in coastal MA and inland NY. This community is 

influenced both by its coastal position and poor edaphic (soil) conditions, and is typically firedependent for regeneration of pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and broom crowberry (Corema conradii) 

(Dunwiddie 1990, Martine et al. 2005, NatureServe 2006). However, the open conditions 

required by these species may have been maintained by disturbance associated with proximity to 

the coast rather than by fire. The tree canopy is dominated by an open canopy of stunted pitch 

pine (up to 5 m height), and broom crowberry is a characteristic dwarf-shrub. This community 

has been mapped at one location on MDI, but may also be present on IAH (Lubinski et al. 2003). 

An additional potential location, on MDI along the Ship Harbor trail, was investigated by NETN 

staff. While broom crowberry was fairly common at this location, pitch pine was absent, and the 

canopy was dominated by red spruce and tamarack (Larix laricina). 

 

The Jack Pine / Sheep Laurel - Blueberry species Woodland (Jack Pine Woodland) reaches its 

southern terminus along the Maine coast within ACAD. This community develops on shallow, 

acidic, well-drained soils and bedrock outcrops. The tree canopy is dominated by an open canopy 

of stunted jack pine (Pinus banksiana; up to 5 m height) with some red spruce (Picea rubens), 

and is underlain by a well-developed heath shrub layer. Black chokeberry (Photinia 

melanocarpa) and mountain holly (Nemopanthus mucronata) are characteristic shrubs. Jack pine 

is typically a fire-dependent species. However, research indicates that jack pine woodlands in 

coastal Maine are maintained in the absence of fire (Conkey et al. 1995, Barton and Grenier 

2008). Conkey et al. (1995) found jack pine serotiny (delayed seed release in response to an 

environmental trigger, such as fire) to be low and regeneration to be continuous within a stand on 

MDI, although regeneration was less vigorous in a stand on Schoodic Peninsula. 

 

The Pitch Pine / Black Chokeberry / Wavy Hairgrass - Little Bluestem Woodland (Pitch Pine 

Woodland) community occurs on dry, acidic, bedrock slopes and crests. The open tree canopy is 

dominated by pitch pine (up to 14 m height) with some red spruce and bear oak (Quercus 

ilicifolia). The dwarf shrub layer is well developed and typically includes black huckleberry 

(Gaylussacia baccata) and lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium). The rare (S3) 

Appalachian stitchwort (Minuartia glabra) may be present. Like the compositionally similar 
4 

Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland, this community is typically fire-dependent (Lubinski 

et al. 2003). 

Forest 

The Eastern White Pine - Red Pine / Canadian Bunchberry Forest (White Pine / Red Pine Forest) 

occurs on well-to excessively-drained soils. This community is characterized by red pine (Pinus 

resinosa) as a co-dominant canopy species, typically with white pine (Pinus strobus), red spruce 

and red maple (Acer rubrum). The forest canopy is somewhat open (but not more than 40%) and 

16-22 m in height. The extent of this community is restricted to nine identified patches at ACAD 

totaling only 17 ha, and this community is probably fire-dependent (Lubinski et al. 2003). 

Patterson et al. (1983) suggest that these pine forests may have been more common at Acadia a 

century ago than they are now. 

Stressors 

Key stressors potentially impacting these rare woodland and forest communities include lack of 

fire or other disturbance, forest succession, coastal erosion, climate change, trampling, deer 

browsing and invasive species. 

All four of these rare communities are typically fire-dependent, and may be negatively impacted 

by the park’s fire suppression policies. Jack pine, pitch pine, red pine and broom crowberry are 

all species that regenerate following fire disturbance, though the historic role of fire in 

maintaining ACAD's pine communities is unclear. Analysis of a lake sediment core taken from 

the Bowl (near the Beehive on MDI) showed some evidence of fire prior to European settlement 

(Patterson 1983). Many current forest and woodland stands in ACAD established after fires 

during the l9th and early- to mid-20th century (Patterson 1983). However, fires caused by natural 

ignition sources (lightning strikes) are infrequent in coastal Maine (Patterson et al. 1983) and the 

cool, moist climate is not conducive to fire. In the three woodland communities considered 

herein, harsh edaphic conditions and disturbance from salt spray may limit tree incursion and 

play a role in allowing these communities to persist in the absence of fire. Broom crowberry 

typically germinates after fire, however, it has also been observed to germinate following 

mechanical disturbance (Martine et al. 2005). Jack pine exhibits considerable plasticity in 

morphological characteristics such as cone serotiny. Populations at the edge of the species range 

seem to persist without fire on rock outcrops where thin soils reduce competition and provide 

sites for regeneration (Conkey et al. 1995, Barton and Grenier 2008). However, Conkey et al.'s 

research indicated that jack pine regeneration at their Schoodic Peninsula site has decreased in 

recent decades, while red spruce regeneration increased. Despite the lack of a clear 

understanding of fire's natural role here, these rare communities may benefit from the 

disturbance caused by prescribed fire. If monitoring shows that maintenance of these 

communities is threatened by tree incursion, or by regeneration failure of fire-dependent species, 

prescribed fire may be a useful management tool. 

The three rare woodland communities occur in close proximity to the coast, and thus may be 

threatened by coastal erosion and sea-level rise over the mid- to long-term. In addition, because 

pitch pine is near its northern range limit and jack pine is near its southern range limit in ACAD, 

altered temperature, precipitation and disturbance regimes associated with climate change could 

substantially impact community composition and structure. 
5 

ACAD is a highly visited national park, receiving over 2,000,000 visitors annually, and 

trampling of sensitive communities is a concern. Trampling is likely to be a bigger issue for the 

pine woodlands on Mount Desert Island, which attract more visitors than the remote Schoodic 

Peninsula and Isle au Haut. 

Broom crowberry populations in New York and Massachusetts have been stressed by deer 

browsing (Huth and Smiley 1982). Deer populations in ACAD are lower than in those regions 

(Miller et al. 2011), but still may be of concern. Finally, invasive species are always of concern; 

these pine woodlands and forest communities may be particularly at risk from incursion by Scots 

pine (Pinus sylvestris; Catling and Carbyn 2005) and Norway spruce (Picea abies; Kilgore and 

Telewski 2004). 

Goals and Objectives 

The overall goal of this protocol is to monitor status and trend in indicators of condition of 

selected rare woodland and forest communities at Acadia National Park in order to inform 

management decisions affecting those communities. Specific monitoring objectives are listed 

below, and are discussed in more detail in the Analyzing and Reporting Ecological Integrity 

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): 

 Determine status and trend in spatial extent of rare woodland and forest communities in 

Acadia NP to assess if community patch sizes are stable, declining, or increasing over 

time. 

 Determine status and trend in community structure as percent cover in the tree canopy 

and high shrub layers, tree height and diameter-at-root-crown. Specifically we will 

evaluate whether non-focal tree and tall shrub species are sufficient in size or abundance 

to outcompete key community members (Table 2), all of which are shade-intolerant, by 

producing excess shade. 

 Determine status and trend in the presence and relative abundance of key community 

members and invasive species by analyzing average species quadrat frequency and 

percent cover, regeneration composition and abundance, and canopy dominance by 

species for each community. 

 Determine presence or absence of established seedlings and saplings of key community 

members and deciduous tree species to evaluate the ability of each community to 

maintain key community members as older individuals die off. Lack of disturbance may 

inhibit regeneration of key community members and may also encourage incursion of 

non-focal species, such as deciduous trees. Therefore this objective will focus both on 

overall abundance of deciduous tree regeneration and presence of key community species 

in the regeneration layer, 

 Determine status and trend in the condition of broom crowberry populations including: 

presence, size, proportion of dead branches, and presence of reproductive structures. 
6 

 Determine status and trend in exposed mineral soil and litter thickness to examine if lack 

of exposed mineral soil and/or excess buildup of leaf litter due to lack of disturbance are 

inhibiting seedling establishment of jack pine, red pine, and broom crowberry. 

 Qualitatively assess disturbance impacts, with special attention on trampling, to 

determine impacts that can be mitigated through management action (i.e., installing signs 

to discourage off-trail foot traffic). 

Table 2. Key community members in each rare community of interest. 

 Key Species 

Community Code Scientific Name Common Name 

Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland PPC Pinus rigida pitch pine 

Corema conradii broom crowberry 

Jack Pine Woodland JPW Pinus banskiana Jack pine 

Pitch Pine Woodland PPW Pinus rigida pitch pine 

White Pine/ Red Pine Forest WRP Pinus resinosa red pine 

All Communities Deciduous tree species 

Extra precautions must be taken to protect these rare and sensitive communities from trampling 

impacts. Their restricted spatial extent means that monitoring impacts affect a larger proportion 

of existing patches. In addition these communities occur on shallow soils and exposed terrain 

positions, which are more sensitive to trampling. This protocol was developed with this 

programmatic objective in mind, and is the result of 4 years of field testing to find methods that 

are repeatable, essential for assessing condition of each community, and minimize trampling. 

Therefore, the following objectives from the NETN Long-Term Forest Monitoring Protocol that 

were not essential for assessing condition in the rare communities were dropped from this 

protocol: individual tree condition, coarse woody debris volume, and forest soil chemistry. For 

more information on procedural differences between the forest protocol and rare community 

protocol, refer to the Deviations, Differences, and Summary of Major Changes SOP. 

Another important distinction between the goals and objectives of this protocol and the NETN 

Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol is that we are not tracking the growth and mortality of 

individual trees in the rare woodland communities. Growth rates in the rare woodland 

communities are slow and diameter at root crown measurements are not precise enough to 

warrant the extra time and potential trampling impacts that would be required to accurately 

quantify growth rates. Tree height and relative dominance by species are easier to measure, 

require less precision, and are more important for understanding rare woodland community 

dynamics than individual stem growth. Another deviation from the NETN long-term forest 

monitoring protocol is that trend analyses will primarily take place at the scale of the plot, and all 

quadrat, regeneration, and tree data will be first averaged at the plot level before further 

analyzing data for trends. 

Finally, while understory diversity is not one of the stated objectives for this protocol, the 

diversity in these communities is quite low, and collecting percent cover data for all vascular 

species in the quadrats can be done with minimal time, effort and impact. Besides the key 

community members, most species found in these communities are also common in forest plots, 
7 

and trends in these species will likely be detected first in the forest plots. However, it will also be 

important to know if similar patterns are occurring in the rare woodland communities. Therefore, 

while this is not one of the stated objectives, the protocol was designed to make this analysis 

possible. 
8 
9 

Sampling Design 

Site Selection 

Generalized random tessellation stratified (GRTS; McDonald 2004, Stevens and Olsen 2004) 

sampling will be used to select a spatially balanced random sample within patches of each 

community identified on the Acadia Vegetation Map (Lubinski et al. 2003). The GRTS design 

employs random plot selection, which allows for statistical inference while also providing 

balanced spatial coverage and flexibility for post-stratification of plots based on ecological 

system, association, or other criteria as needed over the long-term. Further, GRTS sampling 

allows for sample size to be adjusted as needed after sampling has begun without sacrificing 

spatial balance. The GRTS design was also chosen because it is compatible with the sampling 

design of other NETN protocols. Further details on the reasons GRTS is preferable to alternative 

designs (e.g. simple random or systematic sampling) can be found in the NETN Vital Signs 

Monitoring Plan (Mitchell et al. 2006). 

Community type will be evaluated at each selected site prior to establishing plots using rules 

derived from the community key and description (Lubinski et al. 2003) and described within the 

Site Selection, Plot Establishment and Remeasurement Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). If a 

site is determined to be a different community type than that sought, the site will be excluded and 

the next potential site from the GRTS sample will be visited. Also, in order to reduce impacts on 

small patches and reduce edge effects, plots will only be installed within patches that are at least 

2 hectares in size. Thus, for each rare community type, the population being monitored is patches 

(≥ 2 hectares) that were correctly mapped circa 2001, in addition to selected patches identified by 

further investigation. The sampling frame will need to be reevaluated and adjusted on a regular 

basis (every 20 years or so) to accommodate natural shifts in locations of these rare communities. 

Sampling Frequency and Number of Plots 

Sampling of rare communities was originally scheduled to occur each year in two of the four 

monitored communities. In this scenario permanent plots will be revisited every 4 years, so one 

half of the plots in each community will be monitored during each sampling year. Ten permanent 

monitoring plots are recommended within each rare community occupying at least 10 hectares 

within the park, for a maximum total of 40 plots (Table 3). 

The sample design was a compromise between available staff time (2-3 days of the forest crew’s 

schedule per year), and sampling frequency necessary to detect changes in these communities. 

Ideally each community of interest would be visited every year. However, communities tend to 

be clustered in certain areas of the park, and considerable travel time may be involved to get to 

plots. Therefore it is most efficient for field crews to sample multiple plots in a specific 

community in a day. It is equally important that community responses to disturbance be observed 

soon after they happen. Therefore, each community of interest will be sampled every other year. 

It is important to note that this protocol was designed primarily with the globally rare Pitch Pine/ 

Broom Crowberry Woodland (PPC) community in mind. However, since the three other state 

rare communities in the park also happen to have similar species, disturbance dynamics, 

structure and potential stressors, those habitats were also included in this protocol. However, 

since this protocol was originally developed, we have had to scale back to only monitor plots in 
10 

the PPC community to shift limited staff time and resources towards other important monitoring 

protocols. 

The Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland has been positively identified and mapped at a 

single 5.5 ha. patch on MDI near the Wonderland Trail. However, it may also be present on IAH 

(Lubinski et al. 2003). Six plots are recommended within the mapped patch on MDI. Depending 

upon the location and size of additional patches, four more plots may be installed. 

The Jack Pine and Pitch Pine Woodlands cover 84 and 380 ha, respectively in 40 or more 

locations each within ACAD. The Jack Pine Woodland occurs primarily on the Schoodic 

Peninsula, but two patches have been identified on MDI. The Pitch Pine Woodland occurs 

primarily on MDI, but some patches have been identified on IAH. Ten plots are recommended 

within each of these communities. 

The White Pine / Red Pine Forest covers just 17 ha at nine locations within ACAD, most within 

the 1947 fire boundary on MDI. Ten plots are also recommended within this community. 

Table 3. Panel design and number of plots per community type. 

Community Year 1 

Panel 1A 

Year 2 

Panel 2A 

Year 3 

Panel 1B 

Year 4 

Panel 2B 

Total 

Number of 

Plots 

Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland1 3 3 6 

Pitch Pine Woodland 5 5 10 

Jack Pine Woodland 5 5 10 

White Pine / Red Pine Forest 5 5 10 

1

Additional PPC plots will be established in Panel 1A and 1B if a new patch is identified. 

Power to Detect Change 

At a minimum, the goal is to detect a trend of 40% effect size in any metric after two survey 

cycles, while controlling type I error at 10% and type II error at 20%. A formal power analysis 

for this protocol has not been conducted. However, because this protocol is based on the NETN 

Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol (Tierney et al. 2010), it is possible to apply power 

analysis results for a few metrics from the forest protocol to this protocol, including regeneration 

stocking index and native species richness. Power analyses on forest metrics that relate to trees 

and understory composition are less applicable to this protocol because individual trees are not 

monitored through time with this protocol, and understory diversity and variability are 

considerably greater in forest plots than in the rare community plots. For example, the average 

number of species in an ACAD forest plot is 17. The average number of species detected in the 

pilot PPC plots is 10. Species similarity is also very different. The average Sørensen similarity 

(statistic used for comparing the similarity of two samples) of quadrat species between pilot PPC 

plots is 67% (i.e., plots share on average 67% of the same species). In ACAD forest plots, the 

average Sørensen similarity is 34% between plots. 

Using the methods described in Miller et al. (in press) power simulations were performed on the 

forest data for regeneration stocking index and native species richness assuming six plots in 

ACAD (instead of 176). With only six plots, simulations were able to detect a 40% change in the 

stocking index at 80% power and alpha = 0.1. Native richness power was even better, and we 
11 

were able to detect a 10% change in richness with only six plots. A complete power analysis, 

including evaluation of metrics that are new to this protocol, will be performed after a suitable 

data set is collected (likely 2012 or 2013). If after two sample cycles power analyses suggest that 

the current design does not provide adequate power for some or all key variables, more plots 

may be added to the survey and methods will be reviewed to determine if any metrics should be 

refined or dropped. Power is also likely to increase over time as multiple cycles of data are 

collected. 

 
12 
13 

0° 1 m

120°

240°

Field Methods 

Field methods for data collection have been adapted from the NETN Long-term Forest 

Monitoring Protocol (Tierney et al. 2010). Methods have been modified to focus on indicators 

specifically related to condition of these fire-dependent woodlands and open forest communities, 

and to limit trampling and other monitoring impacts in order to protect these sensitive 

communities. Methods for the rare woodland communities differ from the rare White Pine / Red 

Pine Forest community, which closely follows the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol 

with only a few exceptions. 

Woodland site and tree data are collected within 9-m radius circular permanent plots (Figure 1). 

Tree regeneration data are collected within three, 9 x 1 m belt transects. Vegetation diversity (all 

woodland plots) and broom crowberry condition data (in the Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry 

Woodland only) are collected within nine, 1-m2 quadrats that are nested within the belt transects. 

Many of the field methods that differ from the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol 

were developed through multiple years of field testing in the rare woodland communities. 

Figure 1. NETN rare community plot design with three 9 x 1 m belt transects (surveyed for tree 

regeneration) and nine 1 x 1 m quadrats (surveyed for plant community diversity and health of broom 

crowberry) nested within a 9-m radius plot (surveyed for tree structure and site conditions). indicates a 

permanent plot marker. 
14 

For example, the 2-m height that distinguishes juveniles (i.e., regeneration) from live trees was 

determined in the field, because a decent separation was observed around this height where trees 

below 2-m tall tend to be very spindly, small and shaded by larger trees. Trees over 2-m tall tend 

to be more dominant in diameter, canopy size and height, and this is the cohort of trees we are 

interested in tracking. In addition, circular plots were found to result in less trampling than 

square plots. While it is typically easier to mark the boundary of a square plot, the rare 

community protocol only requires the boundary to be determined for trees, which can easily be 

done with the laser rangefinder from plot center. Forest plots are square because there are more 

measurements that require the boundary to be easily determined. 

The standard operating procedures (SOPs) which follow this narrative provide detailed, step-bystep instructions for data collection and analysis. The SOPs include instructions on preparation, 

site selection and plot establishment, data collection, and analysis. Carefully following the 

established methods is essential for successful long-term monitoring.
15 

Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting 

Data will be stored in an MS Access database designed by NETN staff or a cooperator and 

adapted from the database for the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol. When possible, 

data will be entered directly into the database as they are collected using a field computer. When 

the field computer is not used, data will be collected using NETN datasheets designed for 

accurate and complete data collection (Appendix A). The procedures for careful and accurate 

data collection outlined in the Data Management & Quality Assurance/Quality Control SOP of 

the NETN Long-term Forest Protocol will also be adhered to by this protocol, with exceptions 

listed in the Data Management & Quality Assurance/Quality Control SOP of this rare 

community protocol. In particular, QA/QC resampling has been adjusted for these rare 

communities to minimize trampling. One plot per year is scheduled to be resampled for QA/QC 

during the first full 4-year cycle (that is, 10% of plots), in order to ensure procedures are 

sufficiently repeatable (i.e., have low sampling variability) in each rare community. Thereafter, 

two plots are scheduled to be resampled every 4 years (that is, 5% of plots), sampling each rare 

community once in 8 years. However, this schedule can be altered at the discretion of NETN 

staff either to reduce trampling impacts or to increase data collection, with the limit that no plot 

be sampled more than four times in 12 years. Results from QA/QC resampling will be reported 

as an appendix in annual monitoring reports and will cover any data quality issues that were 

detected as well as protocol changes that were made to reduce sampling error. 

In order to interpret and report condition of these rare communities, "ecological integrity" will be 

assessed and reported from field data as described in the Analyzing and Reporting Ecological 

Integrity SOP. NETN will use data from the scientific literature to evaluate levels of ecological 

integrity as “Good”, “Caution” or “Significant concern” for specific metrics of community 

structure, composition and function as well as metrics indicative of key stressors or management 

actions affecting these communities. Ratings are based on assessment points that may be derived 

from natural ranges of variation, or alternatively from levels associated with negative or 

undesired outcomes. The interpretation of ecological integrity is a useful but developing 

conservation application, and ratings will be reviewed and updated as new information becomes 

available. A scorecard format will be used to clearly and concisely report the integrity of these 

rare communities to multiple audiences including park managers and decision-makers. 

In addition to Ecological Integrity Scorecards, results of rare community monitoring will be 

reported together with results of the forest monitoring program in: 1) annual Implementation 

Reports, and b) periodic Integration and Synthesis Reports (Table 4). 

Table 4. Northeast Temperate Network rare community reporting schedule. 

Report Purpose Audience Frequency 

Implementation Report Summarize information from 

protocol implementation Parks, Network Annual 

Integrity Scorecard Report Ecological Integrity Parks, Network, 

Public Annual 

Integration and Synthesis 

Report 

Report trends in rare 

communities. Integrate with other 

Vital Signs and regional data. 

Parks, Network, 

Cooperators, 

External scientists 

Every 4 or 5 years 
16 
17 

Personnel Requirements and Training 

This protocol for rare community monitoring is best undertaken by a crew of two in addition to a 

contract botanist as needed. The small crew size will help protect rare communities from excess 

trampling. The crew should be fully trained in the procedures of the NETN Long-Term Forest 

Monitoring Protocol (Tierney et al. 2010). Either a crew member or the contract botanist, if used, 

should be well trained in local flora at ACAD. The protocol also requires GIS mapping 

capabilities, and support by NETN personnel including the data manager. 

Each year, the crew will participate in an on-site training session for this protocol, as described in 

the Preparation and Equipment List SOP. 
18 
19 

Operational Requirements 

Sampling will occur annually, in late July or August. Assuming the crew can sample two plots in 

a 10-hour day, 1.25 weeks should be allotted for field work. Data management and analysis will 

require additional staff time. A list of necessary equipment and materials is included in the 

Preparation and Equipment List SOP. Many of these items are also used by the NETN Longterm Forest Protocol (Tierney et al. 2010). 
20 
21 

Literature Cited 

Barton, A. M. and D. J. Grenier. 2008. Dynamics of jack pine at the southern range boundary in 

downeast Maine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38(4):733-743. 

Catling, P. M., and S. Carbyn. 2005. Invasive Scots Pine, Pinus sylvestris, replacing Corema, 

Corema conradii, heathland in the Annapolis valley, Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

119(2):237-244. 

Conkey, L.E., M. Keifer, and A. H. Lloyd. 1995. Disjunct jack pine (Pinus-banksiana Lamb) 

structure and dynamics, Acadia National Park, Maine. Ecoscience 2(2):168-176. 

Dunwiddie, P. W. 1990. Rare plants in coastal heathlands - Observations on Corema-conradii

(Empetraceae) and Helianthemum-dumosum (Cistaceae). Rhodora 92(869):22-26. 

Huth, P. and D. Smiley. 1982. Chronology of Corema conradii in the Shawangunk Mountainsthe only New York State location, 1881 - 1981. Research Report. Mohonk Preserve, Inc. 

Jennings, M., O. Loucks, D. Glenn-Lewin, R. Peet, D. Faber-Langendoen, D. Grossman, A. 

Damman, M. Barbour, R. Pfister, M. Walker, S. Talbot, J. Walker, G. Hartshorn, G. 

Waggoner, M. Abrams, A. Hill, D. Roberts, and D. Tart. 2003. Guidelines for describing 

associations and alliances of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification. The Ecological 

Society of America, Vegetation Classification Panel, Version 3.0 November 2003. 100 pp. (+ 

Appendices). 

Kilgore, J. S. and F. W. Telewski. 2004. Reforesting the jack pine barrens: a long-term common 

garden experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 189(1-3):171-187. 

Lubinski, S., K. Hop, and S. Gawler. 2003. U.S. Geological Survey-National Park Service 

Vegetation Mapping Program: Acadia National Park, Maine. United States Geological 

Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, WI. 110 pp + 

Appendices. 

Martine, C. T., D. Lubertazzi, and A. DuBrul. 2005. The biology of Corema conradii: Natural 

history, reproduction, and observations of a post-fire seedling recruitment. Northeastern 

Naturalist 12(3):267-286. 

McDonald, T. L. 2004. GRTS for the Average Joe: A GRTS Sampler for Windows. 

http://www.west-inc.com/biometrics_reports.php (accessed 14 January 2011). 

Mitchell, B.R., W. G. Shriver, F. Dieffenbach, T. Moore, D. Faber-Langendoen, G. Tierney, P. 

Lombard, and J. Gibbs. September 2006. Northeast Temperate Network Vital Signs 

Monitoring Plan. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2006/059. National Park Service, 

Northeast Temperate Network, Woodstock, Vermont. 

Miller, K. M., B. R. Mitchell, G. L. Tierney, and J. S. Wheeler. 2011. Northeast Temperate 

Network forest health monitoring report: 2010. Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRR—

2011/399. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 
22 

Miller, K. M., B. R. Mitchell, and J. S. Wheeler. In press. Northeast Temperate Network forest 

health monitoring report: 2011. Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRTR—2012/XXX. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 6.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: June 27, 2007). 

Patterson, W. A., K. E. Saunders and L. J. Horton. 1983. Fire regimes of the coastal Maine 

forests of Acadia National Park. US Dept of Interior NPS OSS 83-3. 

Stevens, D.L., and A.R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal 

of the American Statistical Association 99: 262-278. 

Tierney G., B. Mitchell, K. Miller, J. Comiskey, A. Kozlowski, and D. Faber-Langendoen. 2010. 

Northeast Temperate Network Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol: 2010 revision. Natural 

Resources Report NPS/NETN/NRR--2010/195. National Park Service. Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 
23 

Appendix A. Datasheet for Rare Woodland Community monitoring (Version 3.1). 

Plot# GRTS# Date

Recorders:Slope UC: BC: Plot Notes

Notes:

Tree Seedling Tally

Trans Species 0-15cm 15-30cm 30cm -1m 1-2m

CanopyCover: Litter %Cov Low (<0.5m): 0°%Cov Mid (0.5-2m): 120°%Cov High (2-5m): 240°% Cov Non-Vasc: %Rock: %Bare Soil: %Trampled: 

turbance Code Threshold %Class

Dist 1: 1 2 3 4 Dist 2: 1 2 3 4 Dist 3: 1 2 3 4 Water on Plot: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Physiographic Class: Dry Top Dry Slope Other XericNotes: Browse Index:Page____ of ____NETN Rare Community Datasheet 3.1

Rare Community: ParkStand Info% Cover Classes: <1, 1-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100%Plot InfoTime IN: OUT: UTME:Directions

Elevation:UTMN:GPS Accuracy: 

Camera:Weather:Photopoint

Aspect:

Photographer:

2 8 5

Purpose Color Date Initials

Field Check Entered to DB 100% Check 10% Check Validation 


Appendix A. Datasheet for Rare Woodland Community monitoring (Version 3.1) (continued). 

Park Plot D

Tr# Fork Third Species DRC Status

Pine Foliage 

Condition

Pine Foliage 

%

Pine Crown 

Dieback Height Azimuth Distance 

Page____ of ____Trees ( >= 10 cm DRC) Distance and Azimuth is only for dead trees. Tree height is only for 5 tallest live trees. Crown dieback 1:>95% foliage intact, 2: >50% foliage intact, 3: >50% of foliage absent, 4: >95% foliage absent, 5: Dead tree, no live foliage present

NETN Rare Community Datasheet 3.1 Rare Community

Field Che
25 

Appendix A. Datasheet for Rare Woodland Community monitoring (Version 3.1) 

(continued). 

Rare Community: Park Plot# Date

G? Coll?

Quad 369369369

Sampled

%Trampled

%Bare Soil

%Rock

%Stem

%Wood

% Litter

Sphagnum 

NS Moss

% Lichen

Quad notes:

Page____ of ____

NETN Rare Community Datasheet 3.1

Species Diversity (Cover classes = <1, 1-2, 2-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100%)

Transect 0° Transect 120° Transect 240°

Field Check Initials:
26 

Appendix A. Datasheet for Rare Woodland Community monitoring (Version 3.1) (continued). 

Intercepts Quad 0°/ 3m 0°/ 6m 0°/ 9m 120°/ 3m 120°/ 6m 120°/ 9m 240°/ 3m 240°/ 6m 240°/ 9m NOTES

Height (cm)

# Live Branches

# Dead Branches

Reproduction

Height (cm)

# Live Branches

# Dead Branches

Reproduction

Height (cm)

# Live Branches

# Dead Branches

Reproduction

Height (cm)

# Live Branches

# Dead Branches

Reproduction

Height (cm)

# Live Branches

# Dead Branches

Reproduction

Height (cm)

# Live Branches

# Dead Branches

Reproduction

Height (cm)

# Live Branches

# Dead Branches

Reproduction

Height (cm)

# Live Branches

# Dead Branches

Reproduction

Height (cm)

# Live Branches

# Dead Branches

Reproduction

Page____ of ____Corema Stem Measurements. NETN Rare Community Datasheet 3.1

Rare Community: Park Plot# Date:

MLUC

UL

Center

UR

MR

BRBC

BL

Field Check Initials:
27 

SOP 1 – Safety 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.02 

Overview 

The Northeast Temperate Network (NETN) considers the occupational health and safety of its 

employees, cooperators, and volunteers to be of utmost importance, and is committed to ensuring 

that all seasonal field technicians receive adequate training on National Park Service (NPS) 

safety procedures, incident reporting, and emergency response prior to field work. This SOP is 

designed to provide a summary of safety issues that should be covered during the pre-season 

employee training, and to serve as a first reference in case of an incident. Topics covered include 

emergency procedures and contacts, incident reporting, field preparation, safe field procedures, 

vehicle safety, and workers compensation procedures. This SOP does not cover first aid. 

Procedures 

Follow the procedures described in the current version of the Safety SOP of the NETN Longterm Forest Monitoring Protocol. 
28 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Initial version 

1.01 June 2010 Geri Tierney Editorial changes 

1.02 December 

2010 

Kate Miller Editorial changes, formatting Conform to NPS standards 
29 

SOP 2 – Preparation and Equipment List 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.08 

Overview 

This SOP delineates preparations for rare community monitoring at Acadia National Park 

(ACAD), and includes a list of necessary field equipment. Preparations should occur before 

sampling begins. 

Staff 

This rare community monitoring protocol is best undertaken by a crew of two in addition to a 

contract botanist as needed (a crew of three is acceptable in the White Pine / Red Pine Forest 

plots). The small crew size will help protect these rare communities from excess trampling. The 

crew should be fully trained in the procedures of the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring 

Protocol (Tierney et al. 2010). Either a crew member or the contract botanist, if used, should be 

well trained in local flora at ACAD. The protocol also requires GIS mapping capabilities, and 

support by NETN personnel including the data manager. 

Planning and Coordination 

NETN personnel should ensure that the park natural resource manager has an up-to-date version 

of this protocol including all SOPs, as well as an up-to-date map of sampling locations. Plot 

marking procedures must be cleared with the park natural resource manager prior to plot 

establishment. 

Site Pre-selection Using GRTS 

During years in which new plots are installed, GRTS will be used to preselect a spatially 

balanced random sample within patches of each community identified on the Acadia Vegetation 

Map (Lubinski et al. 2003) and mapped to be at least 0.5 ha in size. This minimum patch size 

was included in order to reduce impacts on small patches and reduce edge effects. For each rare 

community, GRTS (via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s spsurvey package in R, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/analysispages/software.htm) will be used to generate 

an ordered list of potential site locations at least three times larger than the sample size needed. 

This number of potential locations will ensure that sufficient locations are available after 

exclusion of sites for non-matching community types, as well as safety and boundary issues. The 

random seed used to generate the GRTS sample will be saved in case additional sites need to be 

generated. 

Maps 

Prior to each field season, NETN personnel should prepare both GIS maps and aerial 

photographs showing sampling locations in the annual panel at scales of 1:24,000 or larger. 

Maps should clearly show the location of all plots in relation to topography, roads, trails and park 

features. Line and point symbols for roads, streams, plots and other features should be clearly 
30 

visible but not large enough to obscure other features. Scale bars should show miles in addition 

to kilometers, to aid navigation by car. If possible, smaller locator maps should be included on 

large scale maps. These maps and aerial photographs should be printed on Rite-in-the-Rain paper 

using a color LaserJet printer. Note that inkjet printing does not properly adhere to Rite-in-theRain paper. The crew should also be supplied with road maps for the region surrounding the 

park. Coordinates of each plot should be exported, printed and downloaded directly into the 

NETN GPS unit. 

Schedule 

Rare communities will be monitored every year at ACAD only. Plot establishment and tree 

mapping may take place up to a year prior to the vegetation sampling in each plot, and does not 

count as one of the four visits in 12 years that can occur in a plot. Vegetation sampling should be 

done at the same time each sampling year – preferably late in the field season in woodland 

communities, when broom crowberry is fruiting and any woody germinants from the current year 

are evident. If possible, the forest crew should sample rare communities as their last job at 

ACAD in July. However, if the forest crew has insufficient time to sample rare communities, the 

NETN plant ecologist (or other NETN staff) should arrange to sample these communities before 

the end of August, using additional personnel as necessary. Note that any sampling of rare 

communities on Isle au Haut (IAH) is preferentially done while the seasonal ferry to Duck 

Harbor on IAH is operating (mid-June until late September in 2010). 

Training 

Prior to commencement of monitoring, NETN must ensure that field personnel fully understand 

this protocol by conducting in-situ training sessions. Field crew preparation should involve 

careful review and discussion of all procedures. If possible, designated personnel should lead 

sessions in which training plots are established and measured. Crew must be given sufficient 

time to read the entire protocol thoroughly. It may be useful to divide the training into discrete 

“phases” – so that a particular SOP or set of SOPs can be read, learned and practiced before 

moving onto the next. 

In addition to topics covered during training for forest monitoring (see the most current version 

of the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol), training for rare community monitoring 

should include: 

 Introduction to rare woodland and forest communities at ACAD 

 Review of common trees and shrubs including broom crowberry (Corema conradii) 

 Rare community plot layout and installation 

 Practice estimating percent cover classes 

 Procedures for measuring litter depth 

 Procedures to minimize plot trampling 
31 

Training should include both demonstration of all measurements by trainers, and hands-on 

practice of all measurements by trainees. Training groups should be small to ensure that all 

trainees have sufficient opportunity to practice measurements thoroughly and question the trainer 

as needed. 

Training must emphasize the critical importance of careful plot behavior to minimize plot 

trampling. Crew should not enter the plot or move within the plot without a specific reason to do 

so. Crew should arrange the taking of measurements to minimize walking within the plot. Crew 

should plan ahead to retrieve all gear needed for a particular set of measurements at once, rather 

than taking multiple trips back and forth across the plot. Extra-care must be taken to avoid 

trampling rare woodland community plots, especially belt transects and vegetation quadrats. 

Equipment 

Equipment and supplies on the attached equipment list will be needed for establishment and 

monitoring of rare woodland plots; all of these items (with the exception of the drill and 

hardware used for plot establishment) are also used by the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring 

Protocol (Tierney et al. 2010). For White Pine / Red Pine Forest plots, use the equipment list in 

the current version of the Preparation and Equipment List SOP of the NETN Long-term Forest 

Monitoring Protocol. Equipment should be kept organized and maintained in good working 

condition. At the end of each season, the crew leader should inventory the condition of all 

equipment and prepare a list of equipment that needs to be repaired or replaced. 

General Field Equipment 

Park topo maps with plot locations 

Road map for park region 

Protocols 

Slope conversion table 

Park permits 

Park plant species list 

Datasheets (on Rite-in-the-Rain paper) 

Enclosed clipboard 

GPS unit 

Compass (2) 

Clinometer 

NETN Park Radio 

Batteries- 9v(4), AA(8), C(8) 

30-m tape (2) 

Pencils and permanent markers 

Daypacks 

First aid kit 

Insect repellent 

Water 

Field vest and work belt (optional) 

Raingear 

Lens tissues 

Back in Field Office 

Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern 

and Adjacent Canada (Gleason & 

Chronquist) and Illustrated Companion 

 (Holmgren) 

Flora of Maine (Haines) 

Full-size plant press 

Acid-free copy paper 

Plot Measurements 

Small survey flags1

Digital camera 

Quadrat frame (1x1m) 

Bungee cords to locate quad midpoint (2)2

7.5m telescoping pole for tree height 

Sturdy 30cm ruler 

Herb identification guide 

Sealable plastic bags (both small and large) 

10x hand lens (2) 

1

For temporary use only 

2

For Pitch Pine Broom Crowberry Woodland only 
32 

Plot Establishment 

35-cm fiberglass stakes 

1⁄4" x 2 1⁄2" stainless steel lag screws 

1⁄4" x 4" stainless steel lag screws 

1⁄4" plastic screw anchor 

Hammer 

Mallet 

36 volt Cordless rotary impact drill 

 with two 1/4” carbide tipped drill bits 

Plastic blow bulb 

Socket wrench with 1⁄4" hex bolt socket 

Pre-numbered stainless steel plot tags 

Plastic research tags 

UV-stabilized nylon cable ties or stainless Steel wire to attach plot tags 

Sonin electronic distance measurer 

Metal detector 

Laser hypsometer, GIS pole and tripod (optional) 
33 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 June 2007 Geri Tierney Initial version. 

1.01 August 2007 Geri Tierney Editorial changes 

1.02 January 2008 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Revise equipment list for plot 

marking and added park radio 

Minor editorial changes 

1.03 January 2009 Kate Miller Added that plot establishment and 

tree mapping in plot can take 

place up to a year before 

vegetation sampling 

Added laser hypsometer and plot 

establishment equipment to list 

1.04 June 2009 Geri Tierney Added description of site 

preselection using GRTS 

Added requirement that only 

patches >= 2ha are suitable for 

plot installation 

Added telescoping pole 

Minor editorial changes 

1.05 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Added reference to spsurvey, and 

requirement to save the random 

seed used in the GRTS draw 

Minor editorial changes 

1.06 June 2010 Geri Tierney Changed to annual sampling, 

adjusted schedule and plot 

behavior 

Editorial and formatting changes 

1.07 December 

2010 

Kate Miller 

Jesse 

Wheeler 

Adjusted schedule of communities 

in panels 

Changed end range for plot 

sampling to end of August 

Added metal detector to list 

Editorial and formatting changes Conform to NPS standards 

1.08 April 2012 Kate Miller Minor editorial changes In response to external reviewer 

comments 
34 
35 

SOP 3 – Using the Global Positioning System (GPS) 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.02 

Overview 

This Standard Operating Procedure explains the methods that all observers should follow to learn 

to use Global Positioning System (GPS) with the Garmin GPSMAP 60CSX unit. Forest 

monitoring crews use GPS to help navigate to and locate pre-existing plots as well as document 

the location of new plots. 

Procedures 

Follow the procedures described in the current version of the Using the Global Positioning 

System (GPS) SOP of the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol. 
36 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell New SOP 

1.01 June 2010 Geri Tierney Editorial and formatting changes 

1.02 December 

2010 

Kate Miller Editorial and formatting changes Conform to NPS standards 
37 

SOP 4 – Using the Laser Rangefinder (LAR) 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.02 

Overview 

This SOP describes proper use of the Laser Ace GIS Pole (MDS model 5502) and Laser Ace 

Hypsometer (MDS model 5402). In this SOP, the combination of the GIS Pole and Hypsometer 

are referred to as the Laser Ace Rangefinder (LAR). 

Procedures 

Use of the LAR for establishing and sampling plots is optional, as most procedures can also be 

accomplished with compass, tapes and Sonin electronic distance measurers. To use the LAR, 

follow the procedures described in the current version of the Using the Laser Rangefinder SOP 

of the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol, with the following exceptions: 

 Setting Up the Plot: Follow the instructions in the Site Selection, Plot Establishment and 

Remeasurement SOP of this protocol, using the measurement tools specified in that 

protocol. 

 Mapping Trees: Only dead trees greater than 2 m tall within the 9 m radius plot are 

mapped. Note that the horizontal angle (HA) to the tree should be taken at the middle of 

the trunk, but the horizontal distance (HD) should be taken with the reflector to the side 

of the trunk, and at the middle of the trunk’s depth. 

 Stand Height: Tree heights are recorded for the tallest five trees in the plot. This will 

usually be accomplished with a telescoping pole, but in some situations (e.g., tree is taller 

than 7.5m) the LAR will be used to determine tree heights by following the procedures 

described in this section. 
38 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell New SOP 

1.01 June 2010 Geri Tierney Now only map dead trees to allow 

calculation of mortality rate 

Clarified that tree heights are 

needed for tallest 5 trees only 

Added use of subtended distance 

for DRC. 

Editorial and formatting changes. 

1.02 December 

2010 

Kate Miller 

Jesse 

Wheeler 

LAR for plot establishment and 

measurement is optional 

Removed option for using LAR 

subtended distance to measure 

DRC. 

Editorial and formatting changes. Conform to NPS standards 
39 

SOP 5 – Data Management and Quality Assurance/Quality 

Control 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.02 

Overview 

Careful, accurate collection of data as directed in these SOPs is critical to the success of Vital 

Signs monitoring. This SOP describes quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures for 

accurate data collection, transcription and stewardship, and assessment of data quality. NETN 

will use a field computer database or standardized datasheet for data collection, as weather 

conditions and technology permit. 

Procedures 

Follow the procedures described in the current version of the Data Management and Quality 

Assurance/Quality Control SOP of the NETN Long-Term Forest Monitoring Protocol, with the 

following exceptions: 

 One plot per year is scheduled to be resampled for QA/QC during the first full 4-year 

cycle (that is, 10% of plots), in order to ensure procedures are sufficient in each rare 

community. Thereafter, two plots are scheduled to be resampled every 4 years (that is, 

5% of plots), sampling each rare community once in 8 years. However, this schedule can 

be altered at the discretion of NETN staff either to reduce trampling impacts or to 

increase data collection, with the limit that no plot will be sampled more than four times 

in 12 years. 

 Rare woodland community data are recorded in a rare community database or on 

datasheets that were adapted from the forest protocol, and that include a special section 

for broom crowberry (Appendix A). Rare forest community data are collected using the 

standard forest database or datasheets.
40 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell New SOP 

1.01 June 2010 Geri Tierney Inserted QA/QC resampling 

exception 

Editorial and formatting changes 

1.02 December 

2010 

Kate Miller 

Jesse 

Wheeler 

Clarified that rare woodland 

communities have separate 

datasheets/database from forest 

communities. 

Editorial and formatting changes Conform to NPS standards 
41 

SOP 6 – Site Selection, Plot Establishment, and 

Remeasurement 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.10 

Overview 

This SOP provides instruction for establishing monitoring plots and collecting site information in 

rare woodland and forest communities at Acadia National Park (ACAD). The Site Selection and 

Data Collection sections apply to all four rare community types. For Site Establishment in the 

rare White Pine / Red Pine Forest community, follow the procedures outlined in the current 

version of the Site Selection, Plot Establishment and Remeasurement SOP of the NETN LongTerm Forest Monitoring Protocol. Prior to the field season, plot locations will be selected within 

rare community patches ≥ 0.5 ha using GRTS, as described in the protocol narrative. Locations 

which present a safety hazard or do not match the rare community targeted will be discarded. 

Definitions 

Horizontal distance is the straight line distance between two objects. This contrasts with slope 

distance which is measured parallel to the ground. Slope distance and horizontal distance are 

equivalent on flat land. On sloped land, the horizontal distance between two objects is less than 

the slope distance. 

True north is the direction of the North Pole relative to your position. This contrasts with 

magnetic north, which is the direction towards which a compass needle points, and which varies 

across the landscape and over time. To find true north, use a magnetic declination chart or table 

to find the correct declination between true north and magnetic north for your position at the time 

you wish to navigate (such as at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomagmodels/Declination.jsp). 

Then, adjust your compass by dialing this declination into the faceplate. All azimuths referred to 

herein are based on true north. For 2009 through 2014, use 17 degrees west declination for 

ACAD. 

Procedure 

Site Selection 

Examine park topographic maps to determine the best route to preselected plot locations. Using 

GPS and compass, travel to a proposed plot location. The GPS and compass should be held 

sufficiently far apart to avoid the GPS influencing the compass needle. Do not take safety risks 

when traveling to plots – if off-trail topography becomes too steep or difficult find an easier 

route to the plot location. If a safe route does not exist, discard the location and record the reason 

for doing so. Take care to minimize trampling of these rare communities as you travel to plot 

locations by planning your route in advance, making sure you have all necessary equipment 

before you start, and including only necessary field personnel. 
42 

As you near the pre-selected location, use the following protocol to locate the plot – do not spend 

time trying to find the exact pre-selection location. As soon as the GPS indicates you are within 

15 m of the pre-selected location, continue exactly 10 steady paces (20 steps) in the direction of 

the pre-selected location and stop. Do not veer off course to avoid obstacles. This is the plot 

location. 

Upon arrival at this plot location, visually examine the location to ensure it is a rare woodland or 

forest and matches the rare community type sought. The White Pine / Red Pine Forest (WRP) is 

dominated by a somewhat open forest canopy (> 60 but < 100% canopy cover) of red pine 

(Pinus resinosa) and white pine (Pinus strobus), with ≥ 40% relative dominance of red pine. Red 

spruce (Picea rubens) and red maple (Acer rubrum) may also be prominent in the canopy. 

The rare woodlands are dominated by an open canopy (20 – 65% cover) of either open-grown 

jack pine (Pinus banksiana) or pitch pine (Pinus rigida) trees, over a low shrub layer upon 

bedrock ledges and thin organic soil. Jack Pine Woodlands (JPW) are dominated (≥ 60% relative 

dominance) by jack pine. Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodlands (PPC) are dominated 

(≥ 60% relative dominance) by pitch pine with broom crowberry (Corema conradii) in the 

understory. Pitch Pine Woodlands (PPW) are dominated by pitch pine without broom crowberry 

present. Another variant of rare pitch pine woodland (Pitch Pine / Blueberry spp. - Huckleberry 

Woodland) occurs on sandy soils and has been documented on Long Island but not elsewhere in 

Acadia NP, and thus is not currently monitored by this protocol. 

Next, verify that plot center is ≥ 10 m (for woodland plot) or ≥ 15 m (for forest plot) from an 

obvious change in vegetation type, the park boundary, a road, a carriage road, a perennial stream, 

a water body, a mowed area, or any obstacle that would interfere with plot establishment. This 

will ensure that no part of the plot will fall outside the park boundary, and that roads, carriage 

roads and water bodies will not fall within the plot. If the plot does not meet the criteria listed 

herein, or if the plot presents a safety hazard such as extremely steep slopes or unstable snags, 

discard the plot and record the reason for doing so in the database. Proceed to add the next 

backup location to the list of plot locations for establishment. Then proceed to the next nearest 

pre-selected location currently included in the annual sample. 

Plot Establishment 

Follow this establishment procedure for woodland plots only; plot establishment in the rare 

White Pine / Red Pine Forest follows the procedures documented within the current version of 

the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol. 

If the woodland plot meets all criteria listed above, mark a waypoint and install a permanent 

marker at plot center along with a pre-printed plot tag and plastic ACAD research tag with the 

study number (#82) clearly written with permanent marker. 

Soil depth within each site will determine the methods used to permanently mark plots. Where 

soil is greater than 10 cm deep, install a 35 cm fiberglass stake. Soil depths between 5 and 10 cm 

require a 1/4” by 4” stainless steel lag screw. Soil depths less than 5 cm require a 1/4” by 21⁄2” 

stainless steel lag screw. To install a lag screw, first drill a 5 cm deep hole into the bedrock using 

a cordless rotary hammer drill (e.g. Hilti TE 6-A Li Standard Drill) and a 1/4” drill bit with a 
43 

Figure S6.1. 

Illustration of plastic 

anchor with a 1/4” x 

11⁄2” stainless steel 

washer.

carbide head. After drilling a hole, clean it out with a lag screw or blow bulb. Hand screw a 1/4” 

lag screw about half-way into a plastic anchor with a 1/4” x 11⁄2” stainless steel washer in 

between (Figure S6.1). Insert the anchored lag screw slightly into the drilled hole, 

and strike it with a hammer until the top of the anchor is flush with bedrock. At this 

point, use a socket wrench or cordless drill to drive the screw in until it is about 2 

mm above the bedrock (if using a 4” lag screw, allow screw to remain 5 cm above 

bedrock). 

For the rest of plot setup use the laser rangefinder (LAR), the Sonin electronic 

distance measurer or measuring tapes. The plot layout is shown in Figure S6.2. 

Three 9 x 1 m regeneration belt transects are laid out at 0°, 120°, and 240°, each 

with 1 x 1 m vegetation quadrats at distances of 3, 6 and 9 m, respectively. 

Permanent markers should be installed at the end of each transect, as shown in 

Figure S6.2. Distances should be measured as horizontal distance to within 0.1 m 

error, and bearings should be sighted to within 0.5 degrees error. When sighting 

compass bearings, crew members must take care that metal objects such as 

survey flags do not affect the compass needle. Metal survey flags should not be 

carried by the crew member sighting the compass during plot setup. 

Figure S6.2. NETN rare community plot with 3 nested 9 x 1 m regen belt transects and nine 1 x 1 m veg 

quadrats. indicates permanent plot marker. 

North

1 m
44 

When using measuring tapes, hold the tape horizontally level rather than parallel to the slope. On 

slopes, this will result in the upslope tape end held low to the ground while the downslope end is 

held high. This method should also be applied to the Sonin electronic distance measurer. On 

steep slopes, it may be necessary to measure the horizontal distance in sequential short 

increments that can be held level, or alternatively to use the slope conversion table (Table S6.1). 

For a given slope and horizontal distance, this table provides the corresponding slope distance, 

allowing a plot side to be measured and laid out using slope distance. 

If a plot is visible from a major trail or visitor location at ACAD, take care to ensure that plot 

markers are not visible from the trail or visitor location. The crew may temporarily use brightcolored survey flags to make plot makers more visible during measurement. It is important that 

these flags be collected and removed from the site after measurement. 

Plot Remeasurement 

Read the directions and plot notes that were recorded during the original and subsequent 

sampling events. Use the notes and field maps to find the safest and most efficient route to the 

plot. 

Once at the plot, use the LAR, Sonin distance measurer and/or compass and tapes to locate the 

permanent marker at the end of each transect. As needed, use a metal detector to locate lag 

screws. If permanent markers are missing, replace them and record this in the notes. If at all 

possible, find plot center and set up the plot from that point. If plot center can't be relocated, use 

existing plot markers and dead tree data to reestablish plot center. If there aren't enough plot 

markers (i.e., less than two) or dead tree data to recreate plot center, reestablish plot center 

following the same procedures as described in the site establishment section, and give the plot a 

new number in the database. Be sure to record thorough notes in these situations so future 

sampling and analyses can account for these issues. 

Once data collection is complete and before leaving the plot, the crew must perform several 

checks between the previous sampling event and the current sampling event. Crew must visually 

check all plot level data to ensure accuracy, and run the database check on tree, sapling and stand 

level data. If inconsistencies between the previous sampling event and current event are detected 

in the check, the crew must verify that the data collected in the current sampling event are 

correct, and record any inconsistencies in the notes. The crew must NOT write over any data 

collected during previous sampling events. 

 
45 

Table S6.1. Slope conversion table. 
46 

Table S61. Slope conversion table (continued). 
47 

Table S6.1. Slope conversion table (continued). 
48 

Data Collection 

Follow data collection procedures found in the current version of the NETN Long-term Forest 

Monitoring Protocol, with the following exceptions: 

Rare Community 

Record community code describing the vegetation at this site (JPW, PPC, PPW, or WRP), 

respectively for Jack Pine Woodland, Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland, Pitch Pine 

Woodland, or White Pine / Red Pine Forest. If during plot establishment phase the site 

vegetation does not match the community sought, record ‘No match’ in the database, do not 

collect data on the plot, and proceed to the next backup location. 

Plot number 

Record the plot identification number (#1 - 40), which corresponds with the number on the preprinted plot tag. 

Slope 

Slope across the plot may be measured with clinometer rather than LAR. 
49 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 July 2007 Geri Tierney New SOP 

1.01 August 2007 Geri Tierney Increased plot size to 9 m radius. 

Adjusted distance to obstacle for 

plot establishment to be 10 m. 

1.02 January 2008 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Amended plot marking procedure 

pending further evaluation. 

Plot setup to use laser 

hypsometer. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.03 February 

2008 

Kate Miller Replaced terrain position with 

physiographic class. 

1.04 April 2008 Kate Miller Added instruction to visually 

assess vegetation before installing 

plot. 

1.05 January 2009 Kate Miller Changed permanent markers to 

only be located at plot center and 

at the end of each 9m transect. 

Added directions to install lag 

screws with washers where soil is 

too thin for fiberglass stakes. 

1.06 June 2009 Geri Tierney Clarified that potential sites will be 

pre-selected using GRTS 

Added requirement that only 

patches >= 2 hectares are 

suitable for plot installation. 

Clarified that rare forest sites will 

be evaluated using criteria 

included herein. 

Clarified that rare forest plots will 

be established and monitored 

using NETN Forest Protocol. 

Added identification criteria for 

rare forest. 

Added slope conversion table as 

Table 1. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.07 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Bearings for plot establishment 

using the LAR should be within 

0.5 degrees. 

Added GRTS number to data 

collected. 

Minor editorial changes. 
50 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.08 June 2010 Geri Tierney Clarified procedures for White 

Pine / Red Pine Forest. 

Changed plot setup to use Sonin 

and tapes, rather than LAR, to 

improve accuracy. 

Plot slope can be measured with 

compass. 

Referred to Forest Protocol for 

Data Collection. 

Editorial and formatting changes. 

1.09 December 

2010 

Kate Miller 

Jesse 

Wheeler 

Changed SOP name to Site 

Selection, Plot Establishment and 

Remeasurement. 

Added Remeasurement section. 

Added use of metal detector to 

locate lag screws. 

Added that plots are numbered 

consecutively (1-40). 

Added new slope conversion table 

that uses degrees instead of % 

slope. 

Editorial and formatting changes Conform to NPS standards 

1.10 April 2012 Kate Miller Minor editorial changes In response to external reviewer 

comments. 
51 

SOP 7 – Photopoint 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.07 

Overview 

This SOP documents the procedure for photographing plots in rare woodland communities at 

Acadia National Park (ACAD). Photopoints for White Pine / Red Pine Forest community plots 

are collected according to the current version of the Photopoint SOP of the NETN Long-term 

Forest Monitoring Protocol. Photographs will be archived and used as visual reference for 

change in appearance of plots over time. Photographs should be taken shortly after plot setup in 

order to visually record the plot before significant field crew impacts occur. 

Data collection 

A total of five photographs are taken at each plot prior to beginning a survey. Four scenes are 

photographed at each plot – the first three scenes document the plot overall and the fourth is a 

close-up of the ground vegetation. The first three scenes are photographed from plot center and 

face the 0°, 120°, and 240° transects. The scene facing 0° is oriented in the portrait position, and 

the 120° and 240° scenes are oriented in the landscape position. The fourth photo is a close-up of 

the vegetation along the 0° transect at the first quadrat location (2 - 3 m). The veg quadrat should 

be placed on the transect for this photopoint, and the photograph should be taken from a position 

standing directly above the quadrat. After the scenes are photographed, a final picture is taken of 

the plot tag, clearly showing the plot number. 

Capture one digital photograph of each scene. Do not zoom in on the scene. Allow the camera to 

automatically select the appropriate aperture for the given light conditions. Allow the camera to 

use flash if necessary for the close-up, but do not use a flash for the overall plot scenes. Photos 

should be 24-bit color photographs, taken at the highest resolution available on the network 

camera. Photos should be compressed using the high-quality JPEG compression setting on the 

camera. If the camera has a date stamp function, make sure the date and time are set correctly 

and turn this function on. Use the macro setting (flower icon) for the plot tag photo. 

In re-measured plots, the field crew should examine photographs from previous visits and 

attempt to recreate the position and angle used. 

Camera

Use a designated network digital camera for all pictures. Record the brand and model number of 

this camera. 

Time 

Record the time of day at which the photograph was taken. 
52 

Weather 

Record the presence of sun, clouds or fog. 

Data Management 

After field work is complete for the day, download the photos to the laptop photograph directory. 

View the photos and rename them using the following format. 

NETN uses a 4-character park code + 3 digit habitat code (PPC, PPW, JPW) + 3 digit plot code 

+ Scene (000, 120, 240, Quad, ID = ID photo) + Date (YYYYMMDD), with each element 

separated by an underscore ( _ ). An example of a valid photo name is: 

 ACAD_PPC_001_000_20090714 

White Pine / Red Pine Forest plot photos will be named as described in the current version of the 

Photopoint SOP of the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol. The exception is that the 

community code (WRP) will be included in the file name. An example of a photo name for this 

community is: 

 ACAD_WRP_004_UR_20100801 
Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 July 2007 Geri Tierney New SOP 

1.01 August 2007 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Adjusted location of close-up for 

new plot size. 

1.02 January 2008 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Added backup photo locations in 

case view is obstructed 

Clarified instructions for ID card 

Added record of transect used for 

location 

1.03 January 2009 Kate Miller Changed protocol to correspond 

with newest version of the forest 

protocol photopoint SOP. 

1.04 June 2009 Geri Tierney Minor editorial changes 

1.05 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Minor editorial changes 

1.06 June 2010 Geri Tierney Editorial and formatting changes 

1.07 December 

2010 

Kate Miller Clarified directions for naming 

WRP community photopoints 

Editorial and formatting changes Conform to NPS standards 
 54 
 55 

SOP 8 – Site Measurements 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.09 

Overview 

This SOP describes site measurements within 9-m radius circular plots in rare woodland 

communities at Acadia National Park (ACAD). White Pine / Red Pine Forest plots are monitored 

using the current version of the Stand and Site Measurements SOP of the NETN Long-term 

Forest Monitoring Protocol with one exception noted below. These data allow proper 

interpretation of other measures, and will be used to assess site factors and disturbance. This 

SOP is designed to be used only during the leaf-on period of the summer months (about June 1 to 

August 31). 

The crew may temporarily enhance plot edge markers with bright-colored survey flags to make 

them more visible during measurement. It is important that these flags be collected and removed 

from the site after measurement. 

When canopy closure and cover class are assessed, notice the exact breakpoints (e.g., 25%) are 

not included in any class. Classes are either above or below each breakpoint. This is not a 

mistake – it is to allow the crew to better manage their time budget and not spend time trying to 

decide if the correct value is exactly 25%. The most suitable class should be rapidly assessed and 

recorded. 

Data collection 

In the White Pine / Red Pine Forest community, follow the NETN Long-term Forest 

Monitoring Protocol with this exception: 

 For Crown Closure, use the following classes: 

1 < 10% 

2 10 to 25% 

3 25 to 65% 

4 65 to 85% 

5 > 85 % 

Note that Crown Closure classes were adjusted from the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring 

Protocol to better assess structural changes in this relatively open forest community (see 

Ecological Integrity SOP). 

In the three rare woodland communities, collect the following data.

% Vascular cover by layer 

Estimate the total cover of vascular plant foliage by layer within the plot. A rapid cover estimate 

is made, ignoring overlap among species. It may help to visualize cover by collapsing each layer 
 56 

into a 2-dimensional space, ignoring normal spaces occurring between leaves. Estimate total 

cover for each layer: Ground (< 0.5 m above ground); Mid-understory (0.5 – 2 m above ground); 

High-understory (2 – 5 m above ground); and Canopy (≥ 5 m above ground). Use these cover 

classes: < 1, 1-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-40, 40-60, 60-95, 95-100%. Note that many broom crowberry 

and jack pine woodlands are likely to lack vegetation cover above 5 m. 

Note the difference in % cover classes and addition of the Canopy layer from the NETN Longterm Forest Monitoring Protocol. These measurements were adapted to assess status and trend in 

woodland structure (see Ecological Integrity SOP). 

% Cover rock 

Record the percentage of the plot covered by exposed bedrock or rocks, including gravel (> 2 cm 

maximum diameter of piece) as: < 1, 1-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95 or 95-100%. 

% Cover bare mineral soil 

Record the percentage of the plot covered by bare mineral soil as: < 1, 1-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 

50-75, 75-95 or 95-100%. Bare mineral soil is defined as exposed mineral soil with no leaf litter 

or duff layer (i.e., O horizon) present. Include fine gravel (particle size ≤ 2 cm maximum 

diameter of piece) and bare soil area beneath water drainage channels. 

Note that crews should not spend a lot of time distinguishing between bare mineral soil and rock, 

and should not measure more than a few pebbles to assess whether the gravel is rock or mineral 

soil. If gravel sizes are fairly uniform and around 2 cm diameter, crew should assess if gravel 

pieces are generally over or under 2 cm at their maximum diameter and classify the whole group 

as either bare soil or rock. 

% Trampled 

Record the percentage of the plot showing evidence of trampling by humans, wildlife or 

livestock. Trampling is assessed relative to the conditions of adjacent undisturbed substrate. 

Include visible disturbance to rock surfaces, including damage to lichens on the rock surface or 

newly exposed rock surface. Include area occupied by established or unofficial trails traversing 

the plot, and record type of trail in Site Notes. Estimate the percentage as: < 1, 1-5, 5-10, 10-25, 

25-50, 50-75, 75-95 or 95-100%. 

Deer Browse Index 

Visually inspect the plot and record the level of deer impact observed (adapted from Brose et al. 

2008). In ACAD use the following codes and criteria: 

1 Very low impact: No observed browse. Found only inside well maintained, deerexclosure fences. 

2 Low impact: No observed browse. If browse-preferred (Table S8.1) regeneration or 

stump sprouts are present, there is no evidence of browse. In some cases browse preferred 

regeneration or stump sprouts are not present on a plot in ACAD for reasons other than 

deer browse. In these situations, crew should record “2” unless there are other signs of 

deer activity on the plot, including a deer trail, deer scat and/or browse of any plant 

species on the plot. Be sure to distinguish between hare and deer browse. Hare browse is 

low to the ground and is a clean, angled cut on the twig (i.e., looks like it was cut by 
 57 

clippers). Because deer lack teeth on the upper jaw, deer browse appears more ragged on 

one end and can occur at varying heights. 

3 Moderate impact: Browse evidence is observed but not common in browse-preferred 

regeneration or stump sprouts. Other signs of deer activity are observed on the plot, 

including a deer trail, deer tracks and/or deer scat. 

4 High impact: Browse evidence is common. Non-preferred and browse-resilient 

regeneration (Table S8.2) shows signs of browse and browse preferred species are absent. 

5 Very high impact: Browse evidence is omnipresent. Browse-resilient regeneration shows 

signs of heavy repeated browsing and a browse line is evident. 

Table S8.1. Preferred browse regeneration species. 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Acer rubrum red maple 

Acer saccharum sugar maple 

Magnolia acuminata cucumbertree 

Prunus pensylvanica pin cherry 

Sorbus americana mountain ash 

Thuja occidentalis northern white cedar 

Tsuga canadensis Eastern hemlock 

Table S8.2. Non-preferred / browse resilient regeneration and herbaceous plant species. 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Abies balsamea balsam fir 

Acer pensylvanicum striped maple 

Fagus grandifolia American beech 

Pinus resinosa red pine 

Pinus rigida pitch pine 

Pinus strobus white pine 

Disturbance code 

Visually inspect the plot and record any disturbances observed that seem to have occurred since 

the previous monitoring visit and have caused “significant threshold” damage as defined here. 

“Significant threshold” damage affects either 1) 25% of trees in a plot, 2) 50% of an individual 

tree species’ count (but must include at least two trees in or near the plot), 3) disturbance to at 

least 25% of the soil surface or understory vegetation; or 4) disturbance to at least 25% of the 

broom crowberry population. If you record an unknown disturbance, attempt to capture a picture 

illustrating the disturbance. On the first visit, record any disturbances which are evident, 

regardless of when they may have occurred. 

00 None – no observable disturbance 

10 Insect damage 

 11 insect damage to understory vegetation 

 12 insect damage to trees, including seedlings and saplings 

20 Disease damage 
 58 

 21 disease damage to understory vegetation 

 22 disease damage to trees, including seedlings and saplings 

30 Fire – prescribed or natural 

40 Animal damage – identify animal in Site Notes or photograph 

50 Weather damage 

 51 ice/snow 

 52 wind including hurricane, tornado 

 53 flooding caused by weather 

 54 drought 

 55 earth movement/avalanches 

60 Vegetation – suppression, competition, or vines 

70 Unknown/not sure/other. Describe in Site Notes and take photo. 

80 Human-caused damage – describe in Site Notes. 

Disturbance threshold 

For each disturbance recorded above, record which threshold was triggered: 1) damage to 25% 

of trees in a plot, 2) damage to 50% of an individual tree species’ count, 3) disturbance to at least 

25% of the soil surface or understory vegetation or 4) disturbance to at least 25% of the broom 

crowberry population (for Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland only). 

Disturbance % class 

For each disturbance recorded above, record an approximate disturbance percentage to the 

nearest 10%. If the recorded disturbance was triggered by threshold 1, record the approximate % 

of trees in the plot damaged by that disturbance. If triggered by threshold 2, record the 

approximate % of an individual tree species’ count damaged by that disturbance. If triggered by 

threshold 3, record the % of the soil surface or understory affected by that disturbance. If 

triggered by threshold 4 (Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland only), record the % of the 

broom crowberry population affected. 

Water on plot 

Record the water source having the greatest impact on the plot using codes below. These data 

will be recorded during the first visit, and verified or updated on subsequent visits. It will be 

necessary to re-examine the plot for temporary water sources during each visit. 

0 None – no water sources on plot 

1 Permanent streams or ponds 

2 Permanent water in the form of deep swamps, bogs, marshes 

3 Ditch/canal – human-made channels such as for irrigation or drainage 

4 Temporary streams 

5 Flood zones – evidence of flooding when bodies of water exceed their natural banks 

6 Vernal pool 

7 Other water – specify in Site Notes 

Litter thickness 

Litter is un-decomposed or partially decomposed organic material that can be readily identified 

(e.g., plant leaves, twigs, etc.). Three litter thickness measurements are taken along each transect, 

for a total of nine measurements per plot. Measurements are taken at 2, 5 and 8 m while the 
 59 

quadrat is in place. At each location, carefully insert a trowel into the soil surface to examine the 

depth of the litter layer. Use a ruler to measure the depth at which plant litter is no longer 

recognizable (as leaves, twigs, etc.) and record to the nearest cm. If the soil surface consists of 

bare rock or mineral soil, record “0”. The location of a litter measurement can only be moved if a 

tree bole is obstructing the location. In this case move the litter depth location clockwise (if 

you’re facing plot center) around the quadrat corners until a suitable location is found. Record 

notes on where depth was sampled and why it was removed. Note that a boulder or bedrock 

outcrop is not a reason for moving the location. In this case measure litter on top of the boulder 

or record “0” if litter is absent. 

Site notes

Record any unusual features, or as directed above. 

Literature cited 

Brose, P. H., Gottschalk, K. W.,Horsley, S. B., Knopp, P. D., Kochenderfer, J. N., McGuinness, 

B. J., Miller, G. W., Ristau, T. E., Stoleson, S. H., Stout, S. L. 2008. Prescribing regeneration 

treatments for mixed-oak forests in theMid-Atlantic region. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-33. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 100 p. 
 60 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 July 2007 Geri Tierney New SOP 

1.01 August 2007 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Increased plot size to 9m radius. 

Removed deer browse line 

observation. 

1.02 January 2008 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Added % non-vascular ground 

cover measure. 

Clarified bare soil measurement. 

Increased number of litter 

measurements. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.03 February 

2008 

Kate Miller Altered position of litter 

measurement. 

1.04 January 2009 Kate Miller Removed maximum stand height 

because it’s already collected with 

tree data. 

1.05 June 2009 Geri Tierney Amended disturbance instructions 

to record all evident disturbances 

during first visit. 

Adjusted location of litter depth 

measurement and increased to 9 

per plot. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.06 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Minor editorial changes. 

1.07 June 2010 Geri Tierney Moved litter measurement back to 

transect axis, since crew does not 

walk along transect, and thus 

trampling isn’t an issue. 

Set threshold particle size 

between rock and mineral soil 

substrate, including fine gravel 

substrate within soil class. 

Added lichen and rock component 

to trampling metric. 

Changed % cover classes for 

WRP canopy cover and % cover 

by layer for the woodland 

communities. 

Editorial and formatting changes. 

Improves ability to asses 

structure for EI metrics. 
 61 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.08 December 

2010 

Kate Miller 

Jesse 

Wheeler 

Changed sample period back to 

June 1 to August 31. 

Added justification for changes in 

% cover classes for WRP canopy 

cover and % cover by layer in 

woodlands. 

Clarified that the bare mineral soil 

cutoff is ≤ 2cm maximum diameter 

of piece, and rock is > 2 cm 

maximum diameter of a piece. 

Added note that crews should not 

spend a lot of time determining 

bare mineral soil from gravel. 

Added that the litter depth location 

can be moved clockwise around 

quadrat corners if a tree bole is 

obstructing, but bedrock and 

boulders do not trigger moving the 

location. 

Clarified that litter thickness is 

measured while the quadrat is in 

place 

Editorial and formatting changes 

Crew will sample this protocol 

during forest field season 

Conform to NPS standards 

1.09 April 2012 Kate Miller Added ACAD deer browse index 

Minor editorial changes 

To be consistent with forest 

protocol 

In response to external reviewer 

comments 

63 

SOP 9 – Tree Measurements 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.07 

Overview 

This SOP describes measurement of all live trees and standing dead trees at least 2 m in height in 

rare woodland communities at Acadia National Park (ACAD). Tree measurements for White 

Pine / Red Pine Forest community plots should follow the current version of the Tree 

Measurements SOP of the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol. These data will yield 

information on tree composition and community structure. 

Definitions 

Diameter-at-root-crown (DRC) is measured at the base of the tree just above the point where the 

base flares or the ground, whichever is higher. 

Live trees are trees ≥ 2 m tall with any living parts (leaves, buds, cambium) present at or above 

DBH, including trees that have been temporarily defoliated. 

Dead standing trees are dead trees that lean < 45 degrees from vertical. They need not be selfsupported. Once included, dead trees are tracked until they no longer qualify as standing dead. 

Note: Dead trees can be a safety hazard. Crews must exercise caution – trees that are deemed 

unsafe (e.g., trees that are leaning and not solidly attached to the base) to measure should be 

estimated but not touched.

Procedure 

Delineate the plot by placing temporary survey flags at the end of each transect. Begin tallying 

trees from the center-up position and continue clockwise through the plot. Tally each live or dead 

tree that is ≥ 2 m tall. Use the telescoping pole to determine if a tree reaches the minimum 2 m 

threshold for measurement. A tree which occurs on the plot boundary is included only if the 

center of the stem base lies directly on or within the boundary. Dead trees (no live foliage) are 

mapped the first time they are observed to be dead, in order to determine tree mortality rates. 

Live trees are not mapped because tree growth rates have not been included as an integrity metric 

for these rare communities. 

In rare woodland plots, trees are considered forked if a fork occurs below ground level. In this 

case, treat each fork as an individual tree. Trees which fork partially at or above ground level are 

considered a single individual. Note that this differs from methods in the NETN Long-term 

Forest Monitoring Protocol. 

Tree height is measured only for the tallest five trees in the plot. 
 64 

Data collection 

Tree number 

Record the tree number which uniquely identifies each tree on the plot. Note that numbers are 

assigned but trees are not tagged. 

Third 

Record the plot third within which the tree resides: upper right (UR), upper left (UL) or lower 

(LL). 

Horizontal angle 

For dead trees only, use the laser rangefinder or a compass to determine the horizontal angle 

(relative to true north) from plot center to the tree (middle of the trunk). Measure to the nearest 

0.1 degrees. Record horizontal angle only the first time a tree is observed to be dead. 

Horizontal distance 

For dead trees only, use the laser rangefinder (LAR) or the Sonin distance measurer to record the 

horizontal distance (to the center of the trunk) of the tree from plot center. If using the LAR, this 

will require having an observer hold a reflector at the correct distance, just to the side of the tree 

and in the middle of the trunk’s depth. Measure to the nearest 10 cm. Record horizontal distance 

only the first time a tree is observed to be dead. 

Tree height 

For the five tallest live trees in the plot only, use the telescoping pole to measure the tree height 

to the nearest 0.1 m. If tree is alive but has a dead crown, measure to top of live foliage. If the 

tree height cannot be easily obtained with the pole, use the laser rangefinder to record Vertical 

angle up, Vertical angle down, and Horizontal distance (for height), then verify the tree 

height automatically calculated by the database. If the calculated height looks wrong, recheck 

your measurements. Tree height may also be determined using a clinometer and Sonin distance 

measurer. 

Vertical angle up

For the five tallest live trees in the plot only, and when the telescoping pole cannot be 

used, use the laser rangefinder to measure the vertical angle to the top of the tree. 

Measure to the nearest 0.1 degrees. 

Vertical angle down

For the five tallest live trees in the plot only, and when the telescoping pole cannot be 

used, use the laser rangefinder to measure the vertical angle to the base of the tree. 

Measure to the nearest 0.1 degrees. This measurement must be taken from the same 

location as the vertical angle up. 

Horizontal distance (tree height)

For the five tallest live trees in the plot only, and when the telescoping pole cannot be 

used, use the laser rangefinder to measure the horizontal distance to the tree. Measure to 

the nearest 10 cm. This measurement must be taken from the same location as the vertical 
 65 

angles, and will differ from the horizontal distance measured earlier if the rangefinder has 

been moved. Horizontal distance should be at least 8 m. 

Species code 

Record species code using the first three letters each of genus and species. If species cannot be 

determined in the field, bring a twig sample with foliage, buds, cones, or flowers, and/or a 

photograph to your supervisor for identification. If possible, collect samples outside the plot 

from similar specimens and make a note to correct the species code later. Record genus or family 

if known, or use “Unk Con” for unknown conifer, “Unk Har” for unknown hardwood or “Unk” 

for unknown tree; this is often the case with standing dead trees on newly established plots. 

DRC 

Estimate tree diameter-at-root-crown (DRC) to the nearest 1 cm using calipers. Measure across 

the base of tree at the ground, or just above the location at which the base flares with root 

growth, avoiding any knobs or irregularities in the stem. For trees with bent stems, measure DRC 

at the lowest suitable location above the bend. For clumps of stems sharing a common base 

above ground, record as a single tree. 

Tree Status 

Record a status code for each tree to track status over time. Tree status codes are based on two 

letter codes. The first letter designates whether the tree is alive (A) or dead (D). The second letter 

designates whether the tree is standing (S), leaning (L), broken (B), or fallen (F). For example, 

“AS” indicates a live standing tree (Table S9.1). 

Table S9.1. Tree status codes. 

Pine Foliage Condition 

For live pine trees only, visually assess foliage and record up to three problems as 

chlorosis/browning (C), necrosis (N), small leaves (S), red tips on this year’s needles (R), or 

other (O—describe in Tree Notes). Chlorosis/browning is yellowing or browning of needles 

associated with loss of chlorophyll or other damage. Foliage necrosis is dead needles or dead 

patches on needles. Red tips on this year’s needles are associated with ozone damage. 

Note that the list of potential conditions differs from the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring 

protocol; the red tips (R) condition was added to this protocol.

 Alive Dead

Standing AS DS 

Leaning AL DL 

Fallen AF DF 

Broken AB DB 
66 

Pine Foliage Percentage 

For live pine trees only, Estimate the total percentage of needles affected by foliage conditions 

and the percentage of needles affected by each foliage condition using the following classes: 1-

10, 10-50, 50-90, 90-100%. Estimate using the number of needles affected. Do not attempt to 

estimate the percentage of needle area affected. For example, if approximately 20% of needles 

are affected but only a small amount of surface area of each needle is affected, choose class 2 for 

20%. Notice the exact breakpoints (e.g., 10%) are not included in any class. Classes are either 

above or below each breakpoint. This is not a mistake—it is to allow the crew to better manage 

their time budget and not spend time trying to decide if the correct value is exactly 10%. The 

most suitable class should be rapidly assessed and recorded. 

Pine Crown Dieback 

For live or dead pine trees only, visually assess the tree crown for dieback. Dieback is recent 

mortality of branches with fine twigs, which begins at the terminal portion of a branch and 

proceeds toward the trunk. Dieback is only considered when it occurs in the upper and outer 

portions of the tree crown. When whole branches are dead in the upper crown, without obvious 

signs of damage such as breaks or animal injury, assume that the branches died from the terminal 

portion of the branch and include as dieback. Dead branches in the lower portion of the live 

crown are not considered as part of crown dieback, unless there is continuous dieback from the 

upper and outer crown down to those branches. Classify as: 

1 No crown dieback evident. Virtually all (> 95%) terminal foliage of the upper crown is 

intact. Crown density may vary from tree to tree but no dead branches in the upper tree 

crown. 

2 Some dieback evident. Loss of some terminal foliage in the upper crown although most ( 

> 50%) terminal foliage is still present. Dead branches are present in the upper tree crown 

although most (> 50%) branches retain their terminal foliage. 

3 Absence of most (> 50%) terminal foliage in the upper crown. Dead branches are 

emergent from the upper crown. 

4 Virtually all (> 95%) terminal foliage is absent. Epicormic foliage may be present. 

5 Dead tree. No live foliage present. 

Tree notes 

Record any unusual tree features or notes required above. 
67 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 July 2007 Geri Tierney New SOP 

1.01 January 2008 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Revised tree size classification. 

Revised location measurement from 

"quarter" to "third". 

Eliminated tree DRC/DBH and crown 

measurements. 

Added tree height measurement. 

1.02 January 2009 Kate Miller Added comment on potentially using 

telescoping poles for tree height. 

Added need to move LAR, after all 

trees have been mapped, to measure 

tree height accurately. 

Revised vertical angle up measurement 

for live trees with dead tops vs. snags. 

Defined fork at DRC (different from 

forest protocol). 

1.03 June 2009 Geri Tierney Added telescoping pole to determine 

tree height threshold 

Adjusted tree height measurement to 

apply only to 5 tallest trees per plot. 

Included DRC estimate. 

Removed decay class measurement. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.04 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Tree heights should use the 

telescoping pole, then the LAR if 

needed. 

A HD measurement for tree height is 

needed, in case the rangefinder is 

moved to a better location. 

Added comment to the LAR's 

"subtended distance" function might be 

useful for DRC measurements. 

Editorial changes. 

1.05 June 2010 Geri Tierney Now map dead trees only, in order to 

calculate tree mortality. 

Altered tree height measure to assess 

live trees only. 

Updated tree status codes to match the 

Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol. 

Added pine foliage condition and pine 

crown dieback metrics. 

Editorial and formatting changes. 
 68 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.06 December 

2010 

Kate Miller 

Jesse 

Wheeler 

Added 8m minimum for HD of tree 

height. 

Removed LAR subtended distance 

function. 

Removed Cut, Missed, Not Located, 

Excluded and Recruit tree status 

codes. 

Added note that foliage condition R was 

added, and differs from forest protocol. 

Removed suggestion to map trees first, 

then measure tree height with LAR. 

Changed DRC to be measured to 

nearest 1cm. 

Added ≥ 2m tall as minimum height for 

live trees 

Editoral and formatting changes. 

Calipers are easier and 

more accurate. 

We're not tracking 

individual trees between 

sample periods. 

Tree heights and mapping 

procedures have been 

reduced to the point that 

this isn't necessary. 

Calipers can easily 

measure to nearest 1cm. 

Conform to NPS standards 

1.07 April 2012 Kate Miller Clarified hazard trees In response to a comment 

during the external review. 
 69 

SOP 10 – Tree Regeneration 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.07 

Overview 

This SOP describes measurement of tree regeneration in rare woodland communities at Acadia 

National Park (ACAD), and was adapted from the Microplot SOP of the NETN Long-term 

Forest Monitoring Protocol. Tree regeneration measurements for White Pine / Red Pine Forest 

community plots should follow the current version of the Microplot SOP of the NETN Longterm Forest Monitoring Protocol. Juvenile trees less than 2 m tall are measured within three 9 x 1 

m belt transects. 

Definitions

Horizontal distance is the straight line distance between two objects. This contrasts with slope 

distance which is measured parallel to the ground. Slope distance and horizontal distance are 

equivalent on flat land. On sloped land, the horizontal distance between two objects is less than 

the slope distance. 

Juvenile tree is a seedling or sapling of a tree species that is less than 2 m tall at the top of live 

foliage, and has at least one set of true leaves (i.e., not a recent germinant). 

Data collection 

Three belt transects extend 9 m horizontal distance from the plot center to the plot edge at 

azimuths of 0°, 120° and 240°, respectively. Each belt transect extends 1 m horizontal distance in 

a clockwise direction from the permanent stakes. To monitor these belt transects, lay out a tape 

along each marked transect from plot center to the end marker (at 0°, 120° or 240°, respectively. 

Then, one crew member stands at plot center and extends a tape or one side of the quadrat to a 

second crew member standing 1 m horizontal distance perpendicular to the tape. The crew 

members walk each transect together remaining 1 m apart. Both crew members should carefully 

examine the belt transect as they progress, identifying and recording tree regeneration by size 

class.

Belt transect

Specify which belt transect has been observed as 0°, 120° or 240°. 

Regeneration species

For each juvenile tree (< 2 m tall) encountered, record species as the first three letters each of the 

genus and species. If species cannot be determined in the field, bring a twig sample or 

photograph to your supervisor for identification. If possible, collect samples outside the entire 

tree plot from similar specimens and make a note to correct the species code later. Record genus 

or family if known, or use “Unk Con” for unknown conifer and “Unk Har” for unknown 

hardwood. Note that recent germinants, which still have cotyledons and/or have not produced 

true leaves, are not recorded as established regeneration. 
 70 

Regeneration tally

Within each belt transect, tally the number of live juvenile trees by species within each height 

class listed below. Count up to five individuals per species and height class; once five individuals 

of a species have been counted within a size class, estimate additional individuals in multiples of 

five to expedite the process. 

0-15 cm tall 

15-30 cm tall 

30-100 cm tall 

1-2 m tall 

Height is defined as the distance from the root crown to the top of the terminal bud, or to the top 

of the tallest fork. Do not include leaves or needles in this measurement. To determine height 

class, gently align plant along a ruler or use the telescoping pole. Disregard any curves that may 

be present in the stem. Note that this method differs from the NETN Long-term Forest 

Monitoring Protocol. 

Multiple “suckers” that originate from a common base are considered one seedling. Do not count 

stump sprouts from a live tree; however do count stump sprouts from a dead bole, counting all 

sprouts from a common base as one seedling. Do not count “layers” – undetached branches 

partially or completely covered by soil, usually at the base. 
 71 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 July 2007 Geri Tierney New SOP 

1.01 August 2007 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Increased length of belt transect to 

9m. 

1.02 January 2008 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Eliminated DRC and revised 

height classes. 

1.03 June 2009 Geri Tierney Changed height measurement to 

disregard curves in stem. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.04 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Minor editorial changes. 

1.05 June 2010 Geri Tierney Clarified procedure. 

Editorial and formatting changes. 

1.06 December 

2010 

Kate Miller 

Jesse 

Wheeler 

Added use of quadrat sides for 

belt transect. 

Editorial and formatting changes. Conform to NPS standards 

1.07 April 2012 Kate Miller Defined juvenile tree 

Added to Overview that this SOP 

was adapted from the NETN 

Forest protocol. 

Editorial changes 

In response to external reviewer 

comments 
 72 
73 

SOP 11 – Quadrat Measurements 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.08 

Overview 

This SOP describes measurement of the composition and abundance of understory plants in rare 

woodland communities at Acadia National Park (ACAD). Vegetation diversity measurements for 

White Pine / Red Pine Forest community plots should follow the current version of the Quadrat 

SOP of the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol. Species cover data are collected in 

nine 1-m2 quadrats nested within each plot. This SOP is designed to be conducted by two people, 

one of whom must be a vegetation specialist or crew member familiar with vegetation at ACAD. 

This protocol should be used only during the leaf on period of the summer months (about June 1 

to August 31). 

Use these cover classes: 0, <1, 1-2, 2-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100%. 

Notice the exact breakpoints (e.g., 25%) are not included in any class. Classes are either above or 

below each breakpoint. This is not a mistake - it is to allow the crew to better manage their timebudget and not spend time trying to decide if the correct value is exactly 25%. The most suitable 

class should be rapidly assessed and recorded. Also note that while crews may be tempted to 

assign one person to sample quadrats to reduce trampling, understories are often very dense in 

these communities. It is important that two people sample the quadrats to ensure species are not 

missed. 

Definitions 

 Broom crowberry (Corema conradii) is a low, 

spreading, dwarf shrub characteristic of the rare 

Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland (Figure 

S11.1). It grows up to 60 cm in height, has narrow 

yellow-green needles (brown in winter) 3-5 mm 

long, produces small terminal clusters of 

inconspicuous purple or reddish flowers early in the 

season (March-May), and small (< 1.5 mm 

diameter) dry, brown berries with three 

(occasionally 4-5) seeds in July-August. Broom 

crowberry grows either as a dense cushion or 

tussock (up to 1 m diameter) which may die back 

from the center, or as scattered stems. Plants may 

live up to 50 years; adult plants are typically killed 

by fire which stimulates broom crowberry seed 

germination to create an even-aged population structure. Broom crowberry can be distinguished 

from black crowberry (Empetrum nigrum) by its slender, unstriped needles (vs. wider E. nigrum

needles with a white stripe along the underside midvein) and dry 3-5 parted fruits (vs. E. 

Figure S11.1. Typical Pitch Pine / Broom 

Crowberry Woodland type. Kate Miller photo. 
 74 

nigrum's juicy, 6-9 seeded berries). Broom crowberry germinants appear as single stems that 

look like small adult plants with no side branches – branching begins during the subsequent year. 

Data collection 

Three 1 x 1 m vegetation quadrats are placed along each of three belt transects originating at plot 

center for a total of nine quadrats as shown in Figure S11.2. Transect axes radiate from plot 

center at 0°, 120° and 240°, and each belt transect extends clockwise 1 m from the axis. The 

quadrats are placed from 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 m, respectively, within each belt transect. The 

outward left corner of each 8-9 m quadrat is permanently marked as shown in Figure S11.2. Put 

the PVC quadrat frame in place, propping up the quadrat corners if necessary. In areas of thick 

vegetation, quadrat sides should be slid through the vegetation. 

Figure S11.2. NETN rare community plot with 3 nested 9 x 1 m regeneration belt transects and nine 1 x 1 

m vegetation quadrats. indicates permanent plot marker.
 75 

% Quadrat trampling

Examine each quadrat prior to sampling and record % of quad area with noticeable trampling 

impacts using the cover classes listed above. Trampling is defined as damage to plants or lichens, 

Quadrat code

Record the code(s) corresponding to each belt transect and quadrat within which the species was 

found: 0-3, 0-6, 0-9, 120-3, 120-6, 120-9, 240-3, 240-6, or 240-9. 

Quadrat sampling status

Record whether each quadrat was sampled (1) or not (0). If a quadrat was not sampled, record 

the reason in Quad Notes. This might occur if a safety hazard exists, or disturbance of the ground 

layer by humans, livestock, or wildlife. Include visible disturbance to rock surfaces, such as 

damage to lichens on the rock surface or newly exposed rock surface. Include trampling caused 

by the field crew, and note this in Quad Notes. 

The next three measurements are made to determine the % of quadrat area unavailable to 

vascular plants. 

% Stem

Record % cover of woody stem ≥ 1 cm DRC within the quadrat using the cover classes listed 

above. 

% Wood

Record % cover of live or un-decomposed dead wood (large root or coarse woody debris ≥ 5 cm 

diameter) that is touching the ground within the quadrat using the cover classes listed above. 

% Rock

Record % cover of exposed rock within the quadrat using the cover classes listed above. Include 

mineral fragments > 2 cm across (i.e., larger than fine-gravel size). Do not include area covered 

by moss, lichen (including crustose) or litter (either unconsolidated or aggregated). Note that this 

differs from the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol in that crustose lichen cover is not 

included in the % rock estimate for this protocol. 

% Litter

Record % cover of organic litter (either unconsolidated or aggregated) within each quadrat using 

the cover classes listed above. Litter is undecomposed or partially decomposed organic material 

that can be readily identified (e.g., plant leaves, twigs, etc.). 

% Mineral soil

Record % cover of exposed mineral soil including sand within each quadrat using the cover 

classes listed above. Include mineral particles ≤ 2 cm across (i.e., fine gravel particles). 

% Bryophyte

Record % bryophyte cover within the quadrat using the cover classes listed above. 
 76 

% Lichen

Record % cover of lichens "rooted" in the quadrat substrate (e.g. rock, soil, CWD, or tree stem) 

using the cover classes listed above. Do not include lichens that have fallen from the canopy or 

are attached to recently fallen branches. 

In addition to % lichen cover, estimate % cover for each lichen morphotype listed below. Lichen 

morphotypes are non-taxonomic groups that are based on the physical appearance of lichens, and 

consist of crustose, foliose, fruticose, squamulose and umbilicate groups. Examples of 

morphotypes may be seen at http://www.lichen.com/vocabulary.html. 

% Crustose 

Lichens that are attached to rocks or trees that form a tight crust and are not easily 

removed from substrate. 

% Foliose 

Lichens that are somewhat leaf-like, composed of many lobes, and often form a rosette. 

% Fruticose 

Lichens that are usually round in cross-section, and many branched. Fruticose lichens can 

be shrubby, stalked or hair-like (e.g., reindeer lichen and old-man's beard) 

% Squamulose 

 Lichens that have a combination of scale-like lobes at the base and fruticose fruiting 

 structures (e.g., Pixie cup lichens) 

%Umbilicate 

Lichens that are similar to foliose, but are only attached to their substrate at a central 

point, have few lobes and are dark grey, brown or black (e.g., rock tripe). 

Quadrat species

Each quadrat is examined for vascular plant species found rooted in or overhanging within 1.5 m 

above the ground by a team of two people, one of which must be familiar with vegetation in 

ACAD (i.e., a crew member familiar with flora of the park or a contract botanist). A list of 

species is recorded. Then, % cover of each species is jointly estimated and recorded by the team 

of two people. Use the cover classes listed above. Cover is based on a vertically-projected 

polygon described by the outline of the foliage, ignoring any normal spaces occurring between 

leaves, up to a maximum height of 1.5 m. 

If a plant cannot be identified to species quickly and confidently, assign the species a specimen 

number, record genus or family, if possible, and give a short descriptive name. If the unknown 

plant is not locally sparse, collect a specimen away from the quadrat as described below. Do not 

collect any plants that are represented by five or fewer individuals (i.e., locally sparse) in the 

general vicinity of the plot. Do not collect if plant occupies less than 1% canopy cover on subplot 

AND no mature foliage or reproductive parts are present; these plants would be too difficult to 

identify. Any time it is not possible to collect a specimen, collect a photograph. Place a ruler in 
 77 

the photograph for scale, and allow the camera to automatically select the appropriate aperture 

for the given light conditions. Use the macro setting for close up photos. 

New germinants of woody species receive special treatment because their cover fluctuates 

greatly within and among years. For each woody species, record and estimate cover of this year's 

germinants separately from more established specimens. Specify records for germinants by 

checking the “germinant” box. The germinant category only refers to seedlings that have 

germinated from seed within the current growing season. These seedlings typically are very 

small (< 5 cm tall), and will display cotyledons (rudimentary seed leaves) and possibly 1-2 true 

leaves or a single whorl of fine needles. In the Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland, take 

special care to search for broom crowberry (Corema conradii) germinants. 

Quadrat notes

Record any note-worthy observations, including reason quadrat was not sampled, or trampling of 

quadrat by the field crew. 

Plant collection

Do not collect any plant that is locally sparse as described above. Use a digging tool to extract 

the entire plant, including any underground portions, flowers, fruits, and leaves. Collected 

unknown specimens should be transported from the field in zip-lock bags. Bag must be labeled 

with day of collection, plot, and specimen number. It is essential that each specimen be assigned 

a number to allow accurate matching of identified species with field measurements. Promptly 

identify collected plants, present plants to your supervisor for identification, or press specimens 

for later identification. 
78 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification

1.00 July 2007 Geri Tierney New SOP 

1.01 August 2007 Geri Tierney Increased plot size to 9m radius. 

1.02 January 2008 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Added description of broom crowberry. 

Noted that quad frame midpoints must be 

marked. 

Changed % Stem cutoff to 1cm. 

Changed % Wood diameter cutoff to 5cm. 

Changed % Moss to % Bryophyte cover. 

Added % Lichen cover. 

Included lichen genus or morphotype to 

quadrat species. 

Added separate woody germinant record. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.03 February 

2008 

Kate Miller Added text describing lichen 

morphotypes. 

1.04 January 2009 Kate Miller Added more on how to identify broom 

crowberry from black crowberry. 

Adjusted Figure 1 so that plot marks are 

only located at the transect ends and plot 

center. Also changed this in text 

1.05 June 2009 Geri Tierney Clarified rock and litter categories for % 

cover measure. 

Adjusted trampling metric to use cover 

classes. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.06 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Minor editorial changes. 

1.07 June 2010 Geri Tierney Set threshold particle size between rock 

and mineral soil substrate, including fine 

gravel substrate within soil classes. 

Added lichen and rock component to 

trampling metric. 

Editorial and formatting changes. 

1.08 December 

2010 

Kate Miller 

Jesse 

Wheeler 

Added August 31 as end date for this 

sampling protocol. 

Changed height from 1m to 1.5m. 

Clarified that % rock doesn't include 

crustose lichen. 

Revised format for % cover lichen groups 

and definitions. 

Editorial and formatting changes. 

Maintains consistency 

with forest protocol. 

Conform to NPS 

standards 
 79 

SOP 12 – Broom Crowberry Population 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.08 

Overview 

This SOP assesses condition of the broom crowberry (Corema conradii) population within the 

globally rare Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland (PPC) only. Measurements are made 

within nine 1-m2 quadrats nested within each plot. 

Definitions 

Broom crowberry (Corema conradii) is a low, spreading, dioecious dwarf-shrub characteristic of 

the rare Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland. It can reach up to 60 cm in height, and grows 

either as a dense cushion or tussock (up to 2 m diameter) which may die back from the center, or 

as scattered stems (Martine et al. 2005). However, in the ACAD PPC, broom crowberry tends to 

either occur as scattered individual plants or as smaller tussocks ranging from 10-20 cm in 

diameter. Broom crowberry has narrow yellow-green needles (brown in winter) that are 3-5 mm 

long, produces small terminal clusters of inconspicuous purple or reddish flowers early in the 

season (March-May). Female plants produce small (< 1.5 mm diameter) dry, brown berries with 

three (occasionally 4-5) seeds in July-August (Gleason and Chronquist 1991, Martine et al. 

2005). Plants may live up to 50 years; adult plants are typically killed by fire which stimulates 

broom crowberry seed germination to create an even-aged population structure. 

Broom crowberry can be distinguished from black crowberry (Empetrum nigrum) by its slender, 

unstriped needles (vs. wider E. nigrum needles with a white stripe along the underside mid-vein) 

and dry 3-5 parted fruits (vs. E. nigrum's juicy, 6-9 seeded berries). Broom crowberry germinants 

appear as single stems that look like small adult plants with no side branches - branching begins 

during the subsequent year. 

Data collection 

Condition of individual broom crowberry plants is monitored within vegetation quadrats. Three 1 

x 1 m quadrats are placed along each of three belt transects originating at plot center for a total of 

nine quadrats as shown in Figure S12.1. Transect axes radiate from plot center at 0°, 120° and 

240°, and each belt transect extends clockwise 1 m from the axis. The quadrats are placed from 

2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 m, respectively, within each belt transect. The outward left corner of each 8-9 

m quadrat is permanently marked as shown in Figure S12.1. 

Up to nine individual broom crowberry plants per quad are selected for monitoring using the 

following method. The 1 x 1 m2 quadrat is marked at the midpoint of each side. Using the 

midpoint marks as a guide, stretch two bungee cords so they intersect at the center of the quadrat. 

This creates a grid with nine intercept points – one at each corner or midpoint, including the 

center. Select the broom crowberry plant (i.e., branch) directly beneath each intercept point. If no 

broom crowberry plant is present directly beneath the intercept, record this information and 

continue to the next intercept. If several broom crowberry plants are layered beneath the 
 80 

intercept, select the uppermost broom crowberry plant (i.e., branch). Carefully trace the selected 

branch back to the main stem and down to the ground. Visually assess the branches connected to 

this main stem to quantify live and dead branches as directed below. 

Quadrat code

Record the code(s) corresponding to the belt transect and the quadrat being measured: 0-3, 0-6, 

0-9, 120-3, 120-6, 120-9, 240-3, 240-6, or 240-9. 

Intercept code

Record the code corresponding with the intercept point (Figure S12.2) being measured: UL 

(upper-left), UC (upper-center), UR (upper-right), ML (middle-left), MC (middle-center), MR 

(middle-right), BL (bottom-left), BC (bottom-center), or BR (bottom-right). Bottom is always 

the position nearest to plot center. 

Figure S12.1. NETN rare community plot with 3 nested 9 x 1 m regeneration belt transects and nine 1 x 1 

m vegetation quadrats. indicates permanent plot marker. 
81 

Figure S12.2. Diagram of broom crowberry intercept locations ( ) and names) on 1-m2 quadrats. 

Broom crowberry presence

Record the presence (1) or absence (0) of at least one broom crowberry plant directly beneath the 

intercept point. 

Broom crowberry height

Measure plant height to the nearest cm at the tallest point on the selected plant. Measure as 

height from ground to top of uppermost branch; do not attempt to stretch plant or lay tape along 

stem to find true height (i.e., length) of plant. Note that this method differs from the NETN 

Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol. 

Broom crowberry live branches

Carefully count the total number of live branches off the main stem of the selected plant. 

Branches must be ≥ 1cm long to be counted. 

Broom crowberry dead branches

Carefully count the total number of dead branches off the main stem of the selected plant. 

Branches must be ≥ 1cm long to be counted. 

Broom crowberry reproduction

Record the presence (1) or absence (0) of any fruiting structures on the selected plant. See above 

for description of broom crowberry reproduction. 

UC UR 

MR 

BL BC BR 

ML 

MC 

UL 

Plot 

Center 
82 

Literature Cited 

Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States 

and Adjacent Canada, 2nd Edition. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY, USA. 

Martine, C. T., D. Lubertazzi, and A. DuBrul. 2005. The biology of Corema conradii: Natural 

history, reproduction, and observations of a post-fire seedling recruitment. Northeastern 

Naturalist 12(3):267-286. 
83 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 July 2007 Geri Tierney New SOP 

1.01 January 2008 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Eliminated stem tally and tussock 

measurements. 

Added plant condition 

measurement. 

1.02 February 

2008 

Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.03 January 2009 Kate Miller Added more on how to identify 

broom crowberry from black 

crowberry. 

Adjusted Figure 1 so that plot 

marks are only located at the 

transect ends and plot center. Also 

changed this in text. 

Removed estimation of Corema 

dieback, and instead count 

number of live and dead stems. 

Added 1cm as size cutoff for a 

branch to be counted. 

Adapted the sample frame to use 

bungee cords. 

1.04 June 2009 Geri Tierney Increased intercept points from 5 

to 9. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.05 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Updated intercept codes for 9 

intercepts, and using naming 

conventions in forest protocol. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.06 June 2010 Geri Tierney Editorial and formatting changes. 

1.07 December 

2010 

Kate Miller Editorial and formatting changes. Conform to NPS standards 

1.08 April 2012 Kate Miller Revised broom crowberry 

description 

Revised the broom crowberry 

reproduction measurement to only 

consider presence of fruit. 

Added diagram of quadrat 

intercepts 

In response to external reviewer 

comments 
 84 
 85 

SOP 13 – Landscape Context 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.09 

Overview 

This SOP describes procedures for landscape context metrics for rare forest and woodland 

communities at Acadia National Park (ACAD). Change over time will be monitored using field 

measures and analysis of Digital Orthophoto Quarter-Quadrangles (DOQQs). 

Sources of spatial data 

Vegetation maps of NETN parks are being developed as one of the Natural Resource Challenge 

base inventories by the USGS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program 

(http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/) and distributed in digital and paper format. These maps will 

show National Vegetation Classification (NVC) vegetation communities within and surrounding 

each park using a minimum mapping unit of 0.5 ha. These maps also designate human land use 

and cultural vegetation areas to standard land use/land cover (LUC) classification Level II. 

While these USGS/NPS Vegetation maps provide a useful starting point for analysis, new spatial 

data will be needed for reassessment of landscape metrics. NETN should monitor change over 

time by periodically acquiring and analyzing high-resolution Digital Orthophoto QuarterQuadrangles (DOQQs). DOQQs are digital images of aerial photographs that have been rectified 

to remove distortion from terrain and filming. A standard DOQQ is a grayscale or color-infrared 

image with 1 m ground resolution, covering an area 3.75 minutes longitude by 3.75 minutes 

latitude – an area equivalent to one-quarter of a USGS quadrangle – plus 50 to 300 m additional 

edge to facilitate mosaicking of adjacent images. DOQQs should be referenced to the North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) and cast on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 

projection. For this analysis, we recommend color infrared images be used, and that imagery be 

photographed during the growing season when leaves are on trees. 

Every 10 years, NETN should acquire recent (< 5 years old) DOQQs from the U.S. Geologic 

Survey (USGS) and/or the National Digital Orthophoto Program (NDOP) for NETN park 

regions. These organizations create and distribute high-resolution DOQQS. If updated DOQQs 

photographed during the growing season are not available from these sources every 10 years, 

NETN may need to contract to have DOQQs created. Acquisition of DOQQs should be done in 

conjunction with NETN’s Landscape Dynamics protocol. 

In addition, periodically updated digital spatial data showing the location of roads, carriage roads 

and trails will be needed. These data can be acquired directly from the park in some cases. If the 

park does not maintain this GIS data, road data should be available from state GIS 

clearinghouses. 
 86 

Spatial analysis 

Locations of established plots are used to conduct spatial analyses of rare woodland and forest 

communities. Spatial analysis should be performed using ArcGIS, FRAGSTATS, or a program 

with similar capabilities. Patch size and distances should be digitized at the 1:6,000 scale or 

finer, and patch size should be at least 0.5 ha. 

Community patch size

Calculate size in hectares of the woodland or forest patch within which each plot resides. If using 

an unclassified image (e.g., a DOQQ or aerial photo), this will require digitizing the patch on the 

screen, and then calculating its area. 

NOTE: This metric needs further development to ensure that changes in the resolution or quality 

of the base layers do not impact the measurements. 

Distance to road

Calculate the shortest distance in meters from the plot to the nearest paved road. 

Distance to trail

Calculate the shortest distance in meters from the plot to the nearest trail or carriage road. 

Field metric 

In the Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland only, the crew will walk five pre-selected 

transects through each known patch, stopping every 20 m to record GPS location and note if the 

community matches this type. To do so, the crew will make a rapid visual assessment of canopy 

and understory vegetation in all directions to verify whether a) the overstory within about 10 m 

of the observation point is dominated (≥ 60% relative dominance) by pitch pine (Pinus rigida); 

and b) broom crowberry (Corema conradii) is present in understory within about 3 m of the 

observation point. Both criteria must be met for a positive measurement to be recorded. 

Transects will be pre-selected within each patch using GIS. Each transect will extend across the 

entire patch appearing on the Acadia Vegetation Map. During field observation, the crew will 

extend each transect beyond the mapped patch until three successive negative assessments. 

To generate the five pre-selected transects for this metric, start with the Data View in ArcMap 

zoomed to the extent of the patch plus a 50 m buffer. Use a random point generator (such as 

Hawth’s tools) in ArcMap to generate a random point in the view. Next generate a grid in 

Toolbox that is 20 m tall by 50 m wide and that originates from the random point. Finally 

convert the grid to point features, or calculate centroids for the grid, and add XY to get the GPS 

coordinates. 
 87 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a 

change is made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be 

incremented by decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications 

that do not affect requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for 

each change or set of changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 July 2007 Geri Tierney New SOP 

1.01 August 2007 Geri Tierney Minor editorial changes. 

1.02 January, 2008 Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Added field measurement of rare 

community extent. 

1.03 February 

2008 

Geri Tierney 

Kate Miller 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.04 January 2009 Kate Miller Added comment about whether 

we're targeting Corema or the 

pitch pine broom crowberry 

woodland in the field metrics. 

1.05 June 2009 Geri Tierney Adjusted field metric to search for 

rare community, rather than broom 

crowberry species. 

Added note that patch size metric 

needs further development. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.06 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Clarified community patch size 

measurement. 

Minor editorial changes. 

1.07 June 2010 Geri Tierney Adjusted PPC field metric based 

on field experience. 

Removed distance to coast metric. 

NETN could undertake a 

vulnerability assessment for ACAD 

coastline. 

Editorial and formatting changes. 

1.08 December 

2010 

Kate Miller Set 1:6,000 as the standard scale 

for digitizing. 

Set 0.5 as minimum patch size. 

Added distance to coast back in. 

Added instructions for generating 

field metric sample points. 

Kept field metric to require 3 

successive negative 

measurements. 

PPC is patchy within the 

mapped 5ha are, and walking 

another 20m to be sure is worth 

the risk of missing a patch. 

1.09 April 2012 Kate Miller Minor editorial changes In response to external reviewer 

comments. 
 88 
89 

SOP 14 – Analyzing and Reporting Ecological Integrity 

Northeast Temperate Network 

Version 1.04 

Overview 

This SOP describes how ecological integrity is assessed and reported from field data collected by 

the NETN Rare Woodland and Forest Community Protocol in four rare woodland and forest 

communities at Acadia National Park (ACAD). These four communities are all characterized by 

relatively open tree canopies, and are dominated by species which require fire or other 

disturbance to regenerate. NETN will use data from the scientific literature to evaluate levels of 

ecological integrity as “Good”, “Caution” or “Significant concern” for specific metrics of 

community structure, composition and function as well as metrics indicative of key stressors or 

management actions affecting these communities. Ratings are based on assessment points that 

may be derived from natural ranges of variation, or alternatively from levels associated with 

negative or undesired outcomes. The interpretation of ecological integrity is a useful but 

developing conservation application, and ratings will be reviewed and updated as new 

information becomes available. A scorecard format will be used to clearly and concisely report 

the integrity of these rare communities to multiple audiences including park managers and 

decision-makers. 

Approach 

The concept of “ecological integrity” is increasingly being used as a measuring tool to assess the 

state of ecosystems and the effectiveness of land management actions upon those ecosystems 

(Tierney et al. 2009). “Ecological integrity” has been defined as a measure of the composition, 

structure and function of an ecosystem in relation to the system’s natural or historical range of 

variation and the perturbations imposed upon it by natural or anthropogenic agents of change 

(Parrish et al. 2003). Building upon the well-known Index of Biological Integrity (IBI; Karr 

1981), ecological integrity can be assessed by developing suites of indicators or metrics 

comprising key biological, physical and functional attributes of those ecosystems (Andreasen et 

al. 2001). This approach is well-suited to the needs of the NPS Inventory and Monitoring 

Program (I&M), which seeks to improve understanding of the condition of park ecosystems by 

monitoring the status and trends of a selected group of indicators. 

Following the NPS I&M rating system, condition is rated as “Good”, “Caution” or “Significant 

concern” for each metric. “Good” represents acceptable or expected conditions; “Caution” 

indicates a problem may exist; “Significant concern” indicates undesired conditions that may 

need management correction. Ratings are assigned based on assessment points that may be 

derived from natural ranges of variation, or alternatively from levels associated with negative or 

undesired outcomes. 
 90 

Metrics, Calculations and Ratings 

Metrics and ratings for interpretation of ecological integrity are presented for four rare 

communities at ACAD. These rare communities are: a) the globally rare Pitch Pine / Broom 

Crowberry Woodland (PPC); b) the Pitch Pine / Black Chokeberry / Wavy Hairgrass - Little 

Bluestem Woodland (PPW or Pitch Pine Woodland); c) the Jack Pine / Sheep Laurel - Blueberry 

species Woodland (JPW or Jack Pine Woodland); and d) the Eastern White Pine - Red Pine / 

Canadian Bunchberry Forest (WRP or White Pine / Red Pine Forest). The latter three 

communities are considered rare in the state of Maine (Brooke Wilkerson, Maine Natural Areas 

Program, personal communication). 

These four communities are all characterized by relatively open tree canopies, and are dominated 

by species which require fire or other disturbance to regenerate. As discussed in the protocol 

narrative accompanying this SOP, the historic role of fire in maintaining ACAD's pine 

communities is unclear. Harsh edaphic conditions and disturbance from salt spray may limit tree 

incursion and play a role in allowing these communities to persist in the absence of fire. The 

selection of ecological integrity metrics reflects the need for disturbed conditions to maintain the 

structure and composition characteristic of these communities. 

Metrics and ratings are summarized in Table S14.1. The text that follows provides an overview, 

justification, calculation description, and rating for each metric. 

Community Patch Size 

Overview 

This metric monitors trend in size of rare community patches. 

Justification 

Community patch size will fluctuate over time due to a variety of natural and anthropogenic 

factors. In general, larger patches better support the vegetation and wildlife found in these rare 

communities. 

Calculation 

Patch size is calculated using GIS as described in the Landscape Context SOP. For rare 

communities other than PPC, this metric will only be calculated approximately every 10 years, 

when new spatial data are obtained. For PPC, patch size will be estimated from field transect 

data after each measurement. To estimate patch size from field transect data, first plot the five 

field transects on a map using GIS. Then, enclose the transects in a polygon of minimum area by 

drawing a straight line from each transect endpoint to the adjacent transect endpoint. Finally, use 

GIS to calculate the area of the polygon. Ratings are applied to each rare community based on 

average patch size. 

Rating 

Good: Average patch size stable or increasing since previous analysis 

Caution: Average patch size declined up to 10% since previous analysis 

Significant Concern: Average patch size declined >10% since previous analysis 
 91 

Table S14.1. Summarized ecological integrity metrics and ratings. 

 Metric Ranking 

Metric Type Metric Good Caution Significant 

Concern

Landscape 

Structure 

Community patch 

size 

Avg. patch size 

stable or 

increasing 

Avg. patch size 

declined <= 10% 

Avg. patch size 

declined > 10% 

 

Community 

Structure 

Cover – tree and 

high shrub 

Varies by community 

 

 Exposed mineral 

soil 

> 10% 1-10% < 1% 

 

 Litter thickness Varies by community 

 

 Trampling < 1% 1-5% > 5% 

Community 

Composition 

Canopy 

dominance 

Varies by community 

 

 Regeneration Varies by community 

 Pine tree condition Avg. foliage 

problem < 20% 

and avg. dieback 

class < 2 

Avg. foliage 

problem 20-50% 

or avg. dieback 

class 2-3 

Avg. foliage 

problem > 50% or 

avg. dieback class 

> 3 

 

 Exotic plant 

species 

No exotic species 

present 

>= 1 exotic 

species present 

>= 1 invasive 

exotic species 

present 

 

 Lichen condition Fruticose freq. 

avg. ≥ 1 quad per 

plot and no decline 

in frequency 

Foliose or 

umbilicate freq. 

avg. ≥ 1 quad per 

plot and no decline 

in frequency 

Combined freq. 

avg. < 1 quad per 

plot and overall 

decline in freq. of 

all three 

morphotypes. 

 

 Broom crowberry 

condition 

≤ 50% dead 

branches and no 

decline in 

frequency 

50-75% dead 

branches or 

decline in 

frequency 

≥ 75% dead 

branches 

 Broom crowberry 

reproduction 

Fruiting structures 

observed in last 15 

years in at least 

one plot 

No evidence of 

fruiting structures 

in last 15 years 

No evidence of 

fruiting structures 

in last 30 years 

 

Function Tree mortality Rate ≤ 1.6% Rate >1.6% 
 92 

Cover − Tree and High Shrub 

Overview 

This metric assesses cover in the tree canopy and high shrub layers across each plot. Cover in 

these layers shades understory plants and tree regeneration, strongly influencing composition in 

these open communities. 

Justification 

Increased tree and high shrub cover stemming from disruption of natural disturbance cycles or 

exotic species invasions can increase shading which in turn can alter community composition. 

Calculation 

Vegetation cover by layer across the plot is qualitatively assessed onsite. 

Rating

Jack pine is one of the least shade-tolerant pines; seedlings are unable to survive shading beneath 

crown cover of 60% or more (Burns and Honkala 1990). Red pine seedlings establish well under 

about 35% or more open canopy, but establishment is poor with about 17% or less open canopy 

(Burns and Honkala 1990, Hepola et al. 2005). Ratings for both pitch pine woodlands are based 

on NatureServe community definitions (Table S14.2; Lubinski et al. 2003). 

Table S14.2. Ratings for tree canopy and high shrub layers in rare communities at Acadia National Park. 

Community Good Caution Sig. Concern 

JPW 

Both canopy and 

high shrub cover 

< 40% 

Either canopy or 

high shrub cover 

40 - 60% 

Either canopy or 

high shrub cover 

> 60% 

PPC and PPW 

Both canopy and 

high shrub cover 

< 60% 

Either canopy or 

high shrub cover 

>= 60% 

 

WRP 

Both canopy and 

high shrub cover 

< 65% 

Either canopy or 

high shrub cover 

65 - 85% 

Either canopy or 

high shrub cover 

> 85% 

Exposed Mineral Soil 

Overview 

This metric visually assesses exposed mineral soil within the plot overall and within nine 1-m2

quadrats. 

Justification 

Exposed mineral soil provides a site for seedling establishment for jack pine, red pine and broom 

crowberry (Burns and Honkala 1990, Martine et al. 2005). 

Calculation 

Exposed mineral soil is visually estimated across the plot by percentage class. An independent 

assessment is performed in each of nine vegetation quadrats per plot, and a plot level assessment 
 93 

of exposed mineral soil is estimated. To rate, first calculate mean percentage of exposed mineral 

soil from the nine quadrat measurements using the midpoints of each class. This metric is rated 

by using the larger of the mean quadrat value or the overall plot estimate. 

Rating 

Ratings are based on levels that we expect to be observed, rather than ideal levels for 

regeneration of key species. Ratings should be updated if and when additional data become 

available. 

Good: > 10% 

Caution: 1-10% 

Significant Concern: < 1% 

Litter thickness 

Overview 

This metric measures litter thickness at nine locations per plot. 

Justification 

In the absence of disturbance, buildup of organic litter can inhibit establishment of seedlings of 

fire-dependent species. 

Calculation 

Litter thickness is measured at nine locations per plot. For each plot, the mean value is calculated 

from all nine measurements. Individual measurements are also considered as described below. 

Rating 

Jack pine and red pine seedlings typically do not survive if litter thickness exceeds values 

indicated in Table S14.3 (Burns and Honkala 1990, Mallik and Roberts 1994). 

Table S14.3. Ratings for litter thickness in rare communities at Acadia National Park. 

Community Good Caution Sig. Concern 

JPW Mean < 1.5 cm Mean >= 1.5 cm and at least one 

measurement < 1.5 cm 

All measurements 

≥ 1.5 cm 

WRP Mean < 3 cm Mean >= 3 cm and at least one 

measurement < 3 cm 

All measurements ≥ 3 

cm 

Trampling 

Overview 

This metric visually assesses trampling impacts within the plot overall and within nine 1-m2

quadrats. 
 94 

Justification 

ACAD is one of the most visited national parks, receiving on the order of two million visitors 

annually, and trampling of sensitive communities is a concern. Trampling is likely to be a bigger 

issue for the pine woodlands on Mount Desert Island, which attracts more visitors than the 

remote Schoodic Peninsula or Isle au Haut. 

Calculation 

Trampling is visually estimated across the plot by percentage class. An independent assessment 

of trampling percentage class is performed in each of nine vegetation quadrats per plot. To rate, 

first calculate mean percentage trampled from the nine quadrat measurements using the 

midpoints of each class. Then use the larger of the mean quadrat value or the overall plot 

estimate. 

Rating 

Ratings are based on levels that may expect to be observed, rather than ideal levels for protection 

of key species. Ratings should be updated if and when additional data become available. 

Good: < 1% 

Caution: 1-5% 

Significant Concern: > 5% 

Canopy dominance 

Overview 

This metric estimates status and trend in canopy tree dominance. Dominant canopy trees are 

foundation species that exert a strong influence over site conditions. 

Justification 

Dominant canopy species exert strong influence over site conditions which in turn affects overall 

community composition. In these open pine woodlands and relatively open pine forest, a shift in 

canopy dominance to broadleaf or exotic trees would dramatically alter the community. 

Calculation 

Relative canopy dominance in woodlands is estimated as relative basal area from tree diameterat-root-crown (DRC) measurements in woodlands, and from tree diameter-at-breast-height 

(DBH) measurements in forest. 

First, basal area (BA in m2

) is calculated for each tree in a plot as: 

2

2*100

* 



 



  diam BA 

where diam is DRC for trees in woodland plots and DBH for trees in forest plots. 
 95 

Next, relative canopy dominance per species is calculated for the plot by summing the BA for 

each species, and then dividing by the sum basal area of all trees in the plot. 

Rating

Ratings are based on relative canopy dominance (RCD) expected in these rare communities 

(Table S14.4; Lubinski et al. 2003). Relative Canopy Dominance is the proportion of the total 

canopy occupied by a species. If Picea rubens’s cover value is 30%, in a setting in which the 

canopy cover totals 60%, Picea rubens’s relative dominance is 50% (Lubinski et al. 2003). 

Table S14.4. Ratings for canopy dominance in rare communities at Acadia National Park. 

Community Good Caution Sig. Concern 

All < 25% RCD deciduous trees ≥ 25% RCD deciduous trees 

JPW ≥ 60% RCD Jack pine < 60% RCD Pitch pine 

PPC ≥ 60% RCD Pitch pine < 60% RCD Pitch pine 

PPW ≥ 60% RCD Pitch pine < 60% RCD Pitch pine 

WRP ≥ 40% RCD Red pine < 40% RCD Red pine 

Regeneration of Key Species 

Overview 

This metric assesses the composition of tree regeneration in rare woodland and forest 

communities. Tree seedlings and saplings are tallied by species and size class in three 9 x 1 m2

belt transects. 

 

Justification 

The species composition of tree regeneration (i.e., seedlings and saplings) will impact future 

community structure and composition. In these rare woodland and forest communities, 

regeneration of key species (including both dominant pine trees and broom crowberry) may be 

inhibited by lack of fire or other disturbance, or due to soil and litter characteristics, as well as 

other factors. Furthermore, jack pine in ACAD occurs at the southern terminus of its range, and 

higher temperatures associated with global climate change may negatively impact regeneration 

of this species at these sites (Day et al. 2005, Greenwood et al. 2002). 

Calculation 

Tree seedlings and saplings are tallied onsite. 

Rating 

Regeneration of pitch pine, jack pine, red pine and broom crowberry are all typically fire 

dependent, requiring fire or a similar disturbance to create conditions which allow regeneration 

and seedling establishment. However, regeneration of jack pine at the edge of the species range, 

as in coastal Maine, seems to be continuous in the absence of fire (Conkey et al. 1995, Barton 

and Grenier 2008). Thus, absence of jack pine regeneration (i.e., established seedlings and 

saplings) in a plot would merit significant concern and consideration of management action; 

while presence of jack pine regeneration in multiple size classes merits a “Good” rating. 

Alternatively, regeneration of pitch pine, red pine and broom crowberry is expected to be 

cyclical, following fire disturbance or similar disturbance (for example, limited mechanical 

disturbance, such as from a single automobile, has been observed to stimulate broom crowberry 

germination; Martine et al. 2005). Thus, absence of regeneration merits caution and further 
 96 

monitoring. Rating for deciduous sapling incursion is based on NatureServe community 

definitions (Table S14.5; Lubinski et al. 2003). 

Table S14.5. Ratings for regeneration of key species in rare communities at Acadia National Park. 

Community Key regen species Good Caution Sig. Concern 

ALL Deciduous trees ≤ 25% deciduous 

regeneration 

25-50% 

deciduous 

regeneration 

≥ 50% deciduous 

regeneration 

JPW Jack pine Regen in ≥ 1 size 

classes 

Regen in one size 

class 

No regeneration 

present 

PPC Broom crowberry Seedlings present No seedlings 

present 

PPC and PPW Pitch pine Regen in ≥ 1 size 

classes 

Regen in one size 

class 

No regeneration 

present 

WRP Red pine Regeneration 

present 

No regeneration 

present 

Pine Tree Condition 

Overview 

This metric qualitatively assesses foliage condition and dieback in dominant pine species within 

these rare communities. 

Justification 

Foliage condition and dieback can provide an early warning indicator of problems or decline in 

these key species or the community overall. 

Calculation 

Foliage of pine trees is visually assessed for obvious problems (chlorosis/browning, necrosis, 

small leaves, red tips on this year’s needled, or other. Pine tree crowns are visually assessed for 

crown dieback class. 

Rating 

Good: Average foliage problem < 20% and average dieback class < 2, for all pines or single 

species in plot (represented by at least two trees).

Caution: Average foliage problem 20-50% or average dieback class 2-3, for all pines or single 

species in plot (represented by at least two trees). 
 97 

Significant Concern: Average foliage problem > 50% or average dieback class > 3, for all pines 

or single species in plot (represented by at least two trees). 

Exotic Plant Species 

Overview 

This metric assesses the presence of exotic species within nine 1-m2 quadrats per plot in these 

rare communities. 

Justification 

The effects of exotic species on the structure, composition and function of natural systems have 

become a chief concern of ecologists and land managers over the last 20 years due to the 

growing number of species successfully exploiting and altering non-native habitats (Drake et al. 

1989). Generally, ACAD's undisturbed natural communities remain free from invasive species 

(Greene et al. 2004). Careful monitoring for and prompt management of new invasions in these 

rare communities could maintain this ideal situation. At least 22 invasive exotic species are 

documented within the park (mostly in disturbed locations) and have management plans in place 

(Weber and Rooney 2007). Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) may 

pose a particular risk to these rare pine woodland and forest communities (Catling and Carbyn 

2005, Kilgore and Telewski 2004). 

Calculation 

Plant species presence and percent cover are recorded at each plot within nine 1-m2

 quadrats. 

Data are examined for presence of any exotic species. Exotic species present are considered 

“invasive” if: a) included as an invasive species in the report ‘Management Plans For Invasive 

Plant Species of Acadia National Park’ (Weber and Rooney 2007); or b) identified as having 

high or medium invasive Species Impact Rank in NatureServe Explorer 

(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species); or c) considered 

invasive by the Invasive Plant Atlas of New England (IPANE; http://nbiinin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/); or d) deemed invasive in this habitat by the NETN plant 

ecologist at ACAD. Very few exotic plants currently occur in rare woodland communities at 

ACAD, and so these will be evaluated as “invasive” or not as they are found to occur. 

Presence of an exotic or invasive exotic species in any quadrat or plot warrants the caution or 

significant concern rating, respectively. 

Rating 

Good: No exotic species present

Caution: ≥ 1 exotic species present, but no invasive exotic species present 

Significant Concern: ≥ 1 invasive exotic species present
98 

Lichen Condition 

Overview 

This metric will assess lichen community condition and composition over time. We will use 

relative frequency of lichen morphotypes to assess lichen communities in these rare 

communities. 

Justification 

Lichens are an important component of these rare woodlands, and are sensitive indicators of 

trampling as well as air pollution. While air pollution may be impacting lichens in these 

communities, we are primarily interested in quantifying the impacts of trampling because it is a 

stressor that is possible for park managers to control. 

Lichen species in similar morphotypes tend to respond similarly to environmental conditions and 

stressors and are relatively easy for field crews to identify (Will-Wolf et al. 2006). Fruticose 

lichens are most sensitive to trampling (Farris 1998, Rosentreter and Eldridge 2002). Foliose and 

umbilicate lichens are intermediate in their sensitivity to trampling, and crustose and squamulose 

groups are least sensitive to trampling, but do show decline in high use areas (Rosentreter and 

Eldridge 2002). 

Calculation 

Frequency data on each lichen morphotype is collected in each of nine vegetation quadrats per 

plot. To rate, calculate relative frequency of each morphotype from the nine quadrat 

measurements. For park level reporting, plot values are averaged for each community. 

Rating 

Good: Fruticose lichen frequency averages ≥ 1 quadrat per plot and no decline in frequency of 

occurrence. 

Caution: Either umbilicate or foliose lichen frequency averages ≥ 1 quadrat per plot and no 

decline in frequency of occurrence. 

Significant Concern: Fruticose, umbilicate and foliose lichen combined frequency average < 1 

quadrat per plot, and decline in frequency of occurrence of all three morphotypes. 

Broom Crowberry Condition 

Overview 

Condition of this characteristic rare species in the Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland is 

assessed from quantification of live and dead branches, as well as trend in frequency of 

occurrence. 

Justification 

Broom crowberry (Corema conradii) is the characteristic species distinguishing the Pitch Pine / 

Broom Crowberry Woodland community. Quantification of live vs. dead branches of this 

densely-branched evergreen dwarf shrub provides an estimate of overall condition of the 

population. Lifespan of a broom crowberry plant has been estimated at up to 40 or 50 years, and 

the proportion of dead branches increases as older plants senesce (Martine et al. 2005). Tracking 
 99 

of percent dead branches will give an estimate of population condition, with percent dead 

branches increasing as the population senesces, or alternatively remaining stable in a younger, 

vigorous population. In addition, trend in frequency will be calculated to better understand the 

broom crowberry population. 

Calculation 

Live and dead branches > 1 cm long are quantified on plants at up to nine intercept points in each 

of nine quads per plot. Percentage of dead branches is calculated for each plant as: 

*100% _

_ 















total branches

dead branches

where total_branches is the sum of live and dead branches counted for that plant. Percentage is 

averaged for all broom crowberry plants quantified within a plot. For park level reporting, plot 

values are averaged. 

In addition, frequency of occurrence will be calculated for each quad as the percentage of broom 

crowberry presence observations out of the total nine observations per quad, and then averaged 

across all nine quads to yield a plot mean. Trend over time will be assessed as change in plot 

mean frequency since the previous visit. 

Rating 

Good: ≤ 50% dead branches and no decline in frequency of occurrence since previous sampling 

date

Caution: 50-75% dead branches or decline in frequency of occurrence since previous sampling 

date 

Significant Concern: ≥ 75% dead branches 

Broom Crowberry Reproduction 

Overview 

Reproduction of broom crowberry in the Pitch Pine / Broom Crowberry Woodland is assessed by 

tracking presence/absence of fruiting structures over time. 

Justification 

Martine et al. (2005) describe the lifespan of broom crowberry plants in New Jersey pine plains 

in three stages following germination. The first 5-10 years following germination are the 

immature growth phase. Around 10-25 years of age broom crowberry plants are reproductively 

active and produce copious fruits. Plants are thought to enter senescence between 25 to 35 years 

of age, where reproduction is slow and plants begin to die back. In the absence of a large 

disturbance, plants can persist in the final senescence stage for more than 2 decades, but 

reproduction rates are much reduced (Martine et al. 2005). 
 100 

Calculation 

Presence/absence of fruiting structures on broom crowberry is recorded on plants at up to nine 

intercept points in each of nine quadrats per plot. 

Rating 

We are unsure how the lifespan of broom crowberry in Maine compares to that described for this 

species at the southern terminus of its range (i.e., New Jersey pine plains). It is also possible that 

because we employ a rotating panel as our sample design, fruiting may occur during a year that 

this community is not sampled. Moreover, during 4 years of field testing, no evidence of broom 

crowberry fruiting has been observed, and this is suggestive of an older population. Therefore, 

current ratings are based on the minimum rate of reproduction we expect is needed and that we 

anticipate can be observed, for the community to persist. Ratings should be updated if and when 

additional data become available. 

Good: Reproductive structures observed in last 15 years in at least one plot.

Caution: No evidence of reproductive structures in last 15 years. 

Significant Concern: No evidence of reproductive structures in last 25 years. 

Tree Mortality 

Overview 

Tree mortality rate provides an integrative metric of tree health problems. Annual mortality rate 

(% stems/year) of canopy trees is calculated from repeated observation. Rates will be assessed by 

size class. 

Justification 

Elevated mortality rate in trees of a particular species can indicate a particular health problem for 

that species, while altered rate for multiple species across a region may indicate a regional 

environmental stress. 

Calculation 

Annual mortality rate (MR; % stems/year) is calculated from successive observations as the 

percent of stems that died during an interval converted to an annual basis. This rate should be 

calculated for each plot, and also for individual species within a plot as: 

MR = 

Stems_alive Time

Stems_died

t

t t



 

1

1 2 100

where Stems_diedt1-t2 is the number of stems that died during a measurement interval, and 

Stems_alivet1 is the number of stems that were alive during the measurement prior to the interval. 

Time is the number of years between interval 1 and interval 2. 
 101 

Rating 

Ratings are based on data from forests (range from 0.3% to 1.6%; Busing 2005, Runkle 2000, 

Woods 2000) and should be re-examined for these communities.

Good: Mortality rate ≤ 1.6%; for park and all individual species. 

Caution: Mortality rate > 1.6%; for park or any individual species. 

Literature Cited 

Andreasen, J. K., R. V. O’Neill, R. Noss, and N. C. Slosser. 2001. Considerations for the 

development of a terrestrial index of ecological integrity. Ecological Indicators 1:21-35. 

Barton, A. M. and D. J. Grenier. 2008. Dynamics of jack pine at the southern range boundary in 

downeast Maine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38(4):733-743. 

Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of North America: 1. 

Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington, DC. vol.2, 877 

Busing, R. 2005. Tree mortality, canopy turnover, and woody detritus in old cove forests of the 

southern Appalachians. Ecology 86:73-84. 

Catling, P. M., and S. Carbyn. 2005. Invasive Scots Pine, Pinus sylvestris, replacing Corema, 

Corema conradii, heathland in the Annapolis valley, Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist

119(2):237-244. 

Conkey, L.E., M. Keifer, and A. H. Lloyd. 1995. Disjunct jack pine (Pinus-banksiana Lamb) 

structure and dynamics, Acadia National Park, Maine. Ecoscience 2(2):168-176. 

Day M. E., J. L. Schedlbauer, W. H. Livingston, et al. 2005. Influence of seedbed, light 

environment, and elevated night temperature on growth and carbon allocation in pitch pine 

(Pinus rigida) and jack pine (Pinus banksiana) seedlings. Forest Ecology and Management

205(1-3):59-71. 

Drake, J. A., H. A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R. H. Groves, F. J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek and M. 

Williamson (editors). 1989. SCOPE 37: Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. 

Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, Wiley, United Kingdom. 

Farris, M.A. 1998. The effects of rock climbing on the vegetation of three Minnesota cliff 

systems. Canadian Journal of Botany 76:1981-1990. 

Greene, C. W., J. E. Weber, S. C. Rooney, and K. B. Anderson. 2004. Invasive plant species 

distribution and abundance in Acadia National Park. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR2004/003. National Park Service, Boston, MA. 
 102 

Greenwood M. S., W. H. Livingston, M. E. Day, et al. 2002. Contrasting modes of survival by 

jack and pitch pine at a common range limit. Canadian Journal of Forest Research

32(9):1662-1674. 

Hepola, T., D. Cleland, J. Merzenich. 2005. Landfire Rapid Assessment Reference Condition 

Model: Red Pine-White Pine with Frequent Fire, R6RPWPff. 

Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27. 

Kilgore, J. S. and F. W. Telewski. 2004. Reforesting the jack pine barrens: a long-term common 

garden experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 189(1-3):171-187. 

Lubinski, S., K. Hop, and S. Gawler. 2003. U.S. Geological Survey-National Park Service 

Vegetation Mapping Program: Acadia National Park, Maine. United States Geological 

Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, WI. 110 pp + 

Appendices. 

Mallik, A.U. and B.A. Roberts. 1994. Natural regeneration of Pinus resinosa on burned and 

unburned sites in Newfoundland. Journal of Vegetation Science. 5:179-186. 

Martine, C. T., D. Lubertazzi, and A. DuBrul. 2005. The biology of Corema conradii: Natural 

history, reproduction, and observations of a post-fire seedling recruitment. Northeastern 

Naturalist 12(3):267-286. 

Parrish, J. D., D. P. Braun, and R. S. Unnasch. 2003. Are we conserving what we say we are? 

Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. Bioscience 53:851-860. 

Rosentreter, R., and D. J. Eldridge. 2002. Monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem function: 

grasslands, deserts and steppes. Pages 223–237 in P. L. Nimis, C. Scheodegger, and P. A. 

Wolsely, editors. Monitoring with lichens—monitoring lichens. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 

TheNetherlands. 

Runkle, J. R. 2000. Canopy tree turnover in old-growth mesic forests of eastern North America. 

Ecology 81:554-567. 

Tierney, G. L., D. Faber-Langendoen, B. R. Mitchell, W. G. Shriver, and J. P. Gibbs. 2009. 

Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment 7(6):308-316 

Weber, J. E. and S.C. Rooney. December 2007. Management Plans For Invasive Plant Species of 

Acadia National Park. Natural Resources Report NPS/NER/NRR--2007/018. National Park 

Service. Boston, MA. 
 103 

Will-Wolf, S., L. H. Geiser, P. Neitlich, and A. H. Reis. 2006. Forest lichen communities and 

environment ─ How consistent are relationships across scales? Journal of Vegetation Science 

17:171-184. 

Woods, K. 2000. Dynamics in late-successional hemlock-hardwood forests over three decades. 

Ecology 81:110-126. 
104 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a change is 

made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be incremented by 

decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications that do not affect 

requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for each change or set of 

changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version # Date Revised by Changes Justification 

1.00 June2009 Geri Tierney Initial version. 

1.01 September 

2009 

Brian Mitchell Formatting changes. 

Minor editorial changes. 

Numerous comments. 

1.02 June 2010 Geri Tierney Added tree condition and mortality 

rates. 

Added placeholder for lichen 

condition metric. 

Added patch size metric. 

Clarified meaning and calculation 

of relative dominance. 

Adjusted regeneration metric 

ratings for pitch and jack pine to 

include multiple size classes. 

Editorial changes. 

1.03 December 

2010 

Kate Miller 

and Geri 

Tierney 

Drafted lichen condition metric. 

Added broom crowberry 

reproduction metric. 

Added calculation for community 

patch size metric 

Editorial and formatting changes. Conform to NPS standards 

1.04 April 2012 Kate Miller Minor editorial changes 

Revised the broom crowberry 

reproduction metric to only 

consider fruiting structure. 
105 

SOP 15 – Deviations, Differences, and Summary of Major 

Changes 

Northeast Temperate Network

Version 1.0 

Overview 

This SOP documents: 

► Differences between methods used by the NETN Long-term Forest Monitoring Protocol and the 

NETN Rare Woodland and Forest Community Protocol. 

► Known deviations from established methods. Deviations are situations where data were collected 

in a manner that is substantially different from the methods documented within the SOPs used 

during a particular field season. 

► Major changes in the protocol. Major changes are fundamental shifts in the way data are 

collected that cannot easily be rectified with earlier data. Major changes are not deviations, 

provided that the changes are documented in the SOPs. Ideally, any time there is a major change 

in methods both methods will be used long enough to determine whether the results from the 

different methods are sufficiently correlated to allow old data to be corrected. In some cases 

(especially early in the use of the protocol), the small amount of data lost by the protocol change 

will not be worth the cost of overlapping methods. 

Differences between Forest Protocol and Rare Community Methods 

Table S15.1 documents any known differences between the established methods used by NETN Longterm Forest Monitoring Protocol and NETN Rare Woodland and Forest Community Protocol. The 

purpose of this portion of the SOP is to facilitate the task of the NETN forest crew in adapting to the 

change in methodology when moving between protocols. 

Table S15.1. Differences between established methods used by forest protocol and rare community protocol, by 

SOP.

SOP Forest Protocol Rare Community Protocol 

Site Establishment 1) Square plot with fiberglass stakes in 

plot corners and midpoints 

1) Circular plot with lag bolts or 

fiberglass stakes (where soil is 

sufficient) at plot center and transect 

ends. 

 2) Plot oriented upslope or North 2) Plot oriented to true North 

 3) Slope measured from plot center to 

UC and BC 

3) Slope measured across the plot 

Site Measurement 1) % Cover by layer classes are all : 

< 1, 1-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-

95 or 95-100%. 

2) Crown Closure % cover classes are 

< 10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, and > 75% 

1) Woodlands Only: % Cover of 

vascular layer classes are < 1, 1-5, 5-

10, 10-25, 25-40, 40-60, 60-95, and 

95-100% 

2) White Pine/ Red Pine Forest 

Only: < 10, 10-25, 25-65, 65-85, and 

> 85% 

Laser Rangefinder 1) LAR is required to establish and 

map trees 

1) LAR is optional for establishing and 

sampling plots 

Photopoint 1) Five plot scenes and one 1) Five plot scenes and one quadrat 
106 

SOP Forest Protocol Rare Community Protocol 

regeneration photo are taken per plot photo are taken per plot 

 2) Photopoint file names include park, 

plot, scene and date. 

2) Photopoint file names also require 

3-letter community code 

Soil 1) Litter depth measurement and soil 

sample collected outside of plot 

1) Leaf litter depth measured along 

transect. No soil sample collected. 

Trees 1) Trees measured at DBH (unless 

stunted woodland plot) using d-tape 

1) Trees measured at DRC using 

calipers 

 2) All live and dead trees are mapped 2) Only dead trees are mapped the 

first time they are observed dead 

 3) All trees are tagged/numbered 3) Trees are not tagged 

 4) Tree height using LAR is measured 

on 3 codominant trees. Minimum 

horizontal distance is 10 m in ACAD. 

4) Tallest five live trees are measured 

for height using 7.5 m height pole or 

LAR. Minimum horizontal distance is 8 

m. 

 5) Tree status codes include missed, 

not located and excluded trees 

5) Tree status codes only include 

standing, leaning, fallen, broken or cut. 

 6) Tree and foliage condition are 

assessed for each tree ≥ 10 cm 

6) Foliage condition is only assessed 

for pine species. Pine crown dieback 

is also assessed. 

 7) Trees must be ≥ 10 cm DBH 7) Trees must be ≥ 2 m tall 

Regeneration 1) Sampled in three, 2 m radius 

microplots 

1) Sampled along three, 1x9 m belt 

transects 

 2) Height classes are 15-30 cm, 30-100 

cm, 1-1.5 m and > 1.5 m 

2) Height classes are 0-15 cm, 15-30 

cm, 30-100 cm and 1-2 m tall. 

 3) Height measured by straightening 

stem along ruler 

3) Height measured from ground to 

top of stem, without straightening 

Quadrat 1) Located in corners and midpoints of 

plot boundary. 

1) Located along 0, 120 and 240o 

transects at 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 meters. 

 2) Broom crowberry not treated 

differently from vascular plants 

2) Special procedures for broom 

crowberry 

 3) Trampled is recorded as 0 or 1, and 

must be ≥ 10% to be given 1. 

3) % Trampled is recorded using 

quadrat percent cover classes, and 

includes visible damage to lichens or 

soil. 

 4) % Litter is not estimated 4) % Litter is estimated 

 5) % Lichen is estimated 5) % Lichen estimated by functional 

group (e.g., foliose, fruticose, 

crustose) 

 

Known Deviations and Major Changes 

This portion of the SOP documents the major changes over time in the procedures, so that changes that 

may impact data analyses are all summarized in one place. This portion of the SOP also documents 

situations where procedures were not followed as specified in the SOPs that were current at the time of 

data collection. 

Site Establishment 

1) 2010 (DEVIATION FROM SOP): Instead of sampling three PPC plots in 2010, as suggested in the 

narrative, five PPC plots were sampled. In Panel 2B, we will resample two of the PPC plots and add an 

additional plot. 

Stand and Site Measurements 

1) 2010 (DEVIATION FROM SOP): % cover of vascular by layer was estimated using forest protocol 

cover classes, instead of rare community cover classes. 

Table S15.1. Differences between established methods used by forest protocol and rare community protocol, by 

SOP(continued).
107 

Quadrats 

1a) 2010: Quadrats were measured up to 1 m height. 

1b) 2011 and later: Quadrats will be measured up to 1.5 m height to maintain consistency with forest 

protocol. 

2) 2010 (DEVIATION FROM SOP): Assessing trampling in quadrat followed the forest protocol (i.e., 

presence/absesence), instead of estimating percent cover of trampling in the quadrat. 

Revision History 

Version numbers will be incremented by a whole number (e.g., Version 1.30 to 2.00) when a change is 

made that significantly affects requirements or procedures. Version numbers will be incremented by 

decimals (e.g., Version 1.06 to Version 1.07) when there are minor modifications that do not affect 

requirements or procedures included in the protocol. Add rows as needed for each change or set of 

changes tied to an updated version number. 

Revision History Log 

Version Date Revised By Changes Justification

1.00 November 

2010 

Kate Miller New SOP 

 
108 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities. 

NPS 123/114640, June 2012 
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM