Assessment of Forest Resources at Bridgeton City Park

Environmental Issues, Fall 2016

Krystal Aguilar
Michael Buzby
Kimberly Dudeck
Asai MasChang
Michelle Mazzucco
Owen Mulvey-McFerron

Table of Contents:
List of Figures - Page 2
List of Tables - Page 2
Introduction - Pages 3-4
Background - Pages 5-7
Methods - Pages 7-8
Results - Pages 8-9
Discussion - Pages 9-11
Outreach Proposal - Pages 11-13
Conclusion - Pages 13-15
Works Cited - Pages 16-17
Figures- Pages 18-19
Tables- Pages 20-25

List of Figures:
Figure 1 (Page 1): Estimated amount and value of hourly atmospheric pollutant removal
performed by urban trees in New York City
Figure 2 (Page 18): Map of Bridgeton, NJ land cover
Figure 3 (Page 19): Map of plot study locations and forest type
List of NED-2 Tables
Table 1 (Page 20): Overstory Composition
Table 2 (Pages 20-21 ): Diameter Analysis
Table 3 (Page 22): Structure (Q Factor)
Table 4 (Page 22): Relative Density
Table 5 (Pages 23-24): Volumetric Overstory Analysis
Table 6 (Pages 24-25 ): Biomass Projections

Introduction:
Bridgeton City Park offers an important resource to the environment as well as the
residents and visitors. Aside from recreation and aesthetics, the park also serves as a habitat for a
wide variety of native trees, animal species, and aquatic life. Forests in the urban environment
provide essential ecosystem services that are difficult to imitate in their absence. A few of the
ecosystem services an urban forest may provide include: climate amelioration through lower
temperatures in Summer months, windbreak, erosion control, and maintenance of air quality by
decreasing air pollution (Dobbs, C).

Temperatures drop due to the increased evapotranspiration rates and shade the
dense tree canopy provides. The drop in temperature allows the community surrounding the
urban park to enjoy the weather without the need to use electricity to cool their homes. The tree
canopy has the ability to catch 60 to 80 percent of the rainfall before it hits the ground which not
only aids in erosion control, it also decreases runoff which also limits the amounts of excess
nutrients and fertilizers from going into bodies of water (Dobbs, C). The presence of forests in
urban areas will also provide services that will benefit the surrounding community; branches and
tree canopies aid in alleviating noise pollution while flowers and foliage provide refreshing
aromas and aesthetically pleasing environments to relax (Dobbs, C).

In order to maintain a healthy ecosystem that will continue to provide these essential
ecosystem services throughout the city park, we have researched and identified non-native
species and other aspects that may negatively impact the overall health of the forest. By
identifying problems within the forest such as human disturbance, animal disturbance, insects,
diseases, and changing climate conditions we are able to create a proposal to demonstrate ways
to improve the wellbeing of the forest (Dobbs, C). Through this research we have identified the
current health of the forest by plot and how it may be improved to provide essential ecosystem
services as well as an entertaining place for visitors and the community to recreate. The area
covered in this study is on a very small scale due to time constrictions and the size of the park;
however, our team has created a map of the land use surrounding the city park in order to give
insight to the effects land use has on the forest resources at Bridgeton City Park that may be
reused in the future for further research.

Outreach is an important component that has the ability to bring the community together
to understand the importance of maintain a healthy forest. As part of our proposal to improve the
forest within Bridgeton City Park, we will be working on launching an outreach and education
program for local community. We hope that engaging the community in the restoration of the
park will create a sense of responsibility in the long term so that the management plan we
implement will carry on, allowing future generations the opportunity to enjoy Bridgeton City
Park.
Background:
Climate change, development, and pollution (including air, ground, and water pollution)
are threatening to degrade many forest resources all over the world (US Forest Service). An
increase in forest resiliency is crucial to the overall health of the planet. There are many benefits
to improving the quality of forests, including increased property values, improved air quality, and
the creation of numerous recreational activities. In an urban environment, the environmental
services rendered by trees and urban ecosystems can impact a tremendous number of people.
This tremendous number of people, however, can negatively impact the forest ecosystem. In
New Jersey alone, 15% of the more than 2,100 plant species are considered endangered (Forest
Management Basics). Urban forests, such as the one located in the city of Bridgeton, are
beginning to play an increasingly important role in society today.
In the State of New Jersey, forests are far and away the largest land cover type, covering
42% of the state (NJDEP 2010). The majority of these forests are composed of primarily
medium to large pitch pine, followed by large oaks and related hardwoods (NJDEP 2010).
Despite the fact that many of these trees would be extremely lucrative to harvest, they are under
the protection of state and federal forest management areas and remain uncut (in addition to

being completely unmanaged as well). Despite the lack of fiber production, estimates indicate
that these forests provide over $2.2 billion annually to the residents of the state simply through
quantifiable ecosystem services and benefits (NJDEP 2010).
Over the last two decades, several ecologically important and conspicuous trends have
been noted in New Jerseys woodlands. Until 2008, there were no public forests that had a
measurable component of trees that were over 100 years old (USDA 2014). In 2008, 10% of the
total forested land recruited into the 100+ year cohort, and in 2012 an additional 4.87% recruited
(USDA 2014). Additionally, over this same time period, the average diameter of a tree in New
Jersey increased from medium to large (diameter change unspecified) by a factor of 11.3%
(USDA 2014).This overall aging and growth of the average forest in New Jersey was classically
mirrored in the plot of land we studied in Bridgeton.
Bridgeton City Park was formerly an industrial center, but has since been transformed
into a natural area containing more than 1,000 acres of woodland. This forest is dominated by old
growth hardwoods with intermittent pine stands. White oak (Quercus alba), scarlet oak (Quercus
coccinea) and sassafras (Sassafras albidum) comprise the bulk of the upland forests, while there
is a much greater species diversity at the lower elevations near Sunset Lake and the Cohansey
River. There is a diverse age structure among in the forest, and a very diverse understory with
many species and habitat structures. The forest is in moderate health, and may be vulnerable to
catastrophic fire and invasive pests due to a relatively high basal area and crowded canopy.
Additionally, there is a large amount of standing and fallen deadwood which exacerbates the fire
hazard and can endanger citizens using trails in the park. Additionally, due to the proximity to
urban areas, we will be limited in which management strategies we can utilize.

From a regulatory standpoint, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 will potentially play a
major role in the management of Bridgeton City Park if endangered species are discovered
during any stage of the project. If activated, federal in-aid grants will be available to the State of
New Jersey for programs and projects aiding these species (Laws, Regulations & Policies). This
will have an impact on the multi-use goal of the park, but considering that the funding has been
used to fund and develop alternative multiple use areas at other sites, this could prove beneficial
to the stakeholders as well as the ecosystem. Additionally, the Forest and Range Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 requires an assessment of all the forest resources in the United
states every ten years (Laws, Regulations & Policies). There is a special focus on urban forest
resources as a vehicle for carbon mitigation. While Bridgeton City Park is not federal land, the
multi-use and sustained yield goals of the Forest Service will reinforce our position to manage
the forest for maximum human and ecological benefit and use for perpetuity.
Methods:
We plan to begin our research by investigating the health, age, and successional stage of
the forest. This will entail the identification of native and invasive tree species, recognition of
disease and pests, awareness of potential hazards, and an overall evaluation of forest resiliency.
We conducted sample plots throughout representative areas of the forest in order to obtain the
data needed to prescribe accurate forest management treatments. Rather than survey all 1,000
acres of land, we chose five representative plots to focus our studies on. An angle gauge was
used to keep plot size consistent, weighting larger trees for measurement over smaller
individuals. Trees that were in each plot had diameter at breast height (DBH) measured with a
diameter tape, total height (marketable timber and full crown) measured with a Suunto
clinometer, and crown class and tree condition observed qualitatively.

These measurements, in conjunction with general forest ecology observations aided us in

estimating the overall density of the forest, and the general distribution of species. On several
trees, we used an increment borer to allow us to count the rings of core samples, which helped in
determining the average age of each stand. By compiling the raw data collected into NED-2, a
forestry analysis software that uses a combination of algorithmical analysis and ecological
constants measured and input into the program, we were able to look at the forest as a whole in
order to get a general idea of the overall make up of the land. Then we used peer reviewed
literature to corroborate the recommendations we created from our NED results and informed
perspective of the forest. This led to the development of a specific management proposal for
Bridgeton City Park, which is outlined in the discussion section.
Results:
After conducting our plot sampling research, we discovered that the city of Bridgeton
consists of an old growth oak forest. The average diameter of the oak species present was 19.67
inches, which supports our old growth theory. The average diameter of the red and scarlet oaks
were 20.7 and 27.1 inches respectively, which puts the average of these oak species at 110-150
years. Finally, there were only a handful of pitch pines, however they had an average diameter of
20.3 inches, which includes several trees in the 10-14 inch class in addition to several 25+ inch
monsters. The remaining tree species had an collective average diameter of about 17.38 inches.
The massive size of the trees, and the density of these large individuals in each plot indicates that
the forest has been there for a very long time with relatively low disturbance levels.
NED-2 is a very useful tool in determining forest characteristics beyond the scope of
direct data collection. Based on the information gathered from our five experimental plots, it was
calculated that the basal area of the forest was 49.10% white oak, 14.50% blackgum, 9.10%

American holly, and 7.3% northern red oak. This translates to 46.4, 29.4, 24.0, and 5.4 stems per
acre for the respective species, with an average stem density of 121 stems per acre.
The stand biomass was particularly high in this forest, based on the size of the trees. Per
acre, there was a total average of 108.28 tons fibrous mass. This breaks down to 1.934 tons
captured in the foliage, 59.005 tons in the stem wood, 11.650 tons in the stem bark, and 18.471
tons in the branches for an aboveground total of 91.060 tons per acre. NED-2 used preprogrammed root mass-trunk/crown mass ratio information to determine the belowground
biomass based on the species, size, and density of the trees in the forest. This yielded a coarse
root biomass of 17.220 tons per acre.
The canopy closure of the stand was 78.2%, which includes the amount of dense limb
and twig structure in the mid and upper canopy layers of the stand (NED-2). This is slightly
above average (73-75%) for a typical, well managed old growth deciduous forest.
While surveying the forest we also noticed that there was a very small amount of species
regeneration along the forest floor. This was due primarily to a considerable layer of leaf litter
and duff, which prevented any seeds dropped from reaching the soil before being eaten or
rotting. Evidence of deer browsing, was fairly obvious, with numerous buck scrapes and rubs, in
addition to a clear 6 browse line in some areas containing palatable vegetation.
Discussion:
Our recommendations for improving the health of the forest and increasing the overall
biodiversity are based on the most recent ecological forest management practices. We suggest
thinning a portion of the understory and overstory vegetation in order to open the area up to a
greater variety of species. In doing so will reduce the fuel loads that could potentially lead to a
catastrophic fire in the future. Specifically, it is important to remove ladder fuels, which are

essentially highways for fire to jump from the ground up to a high burn. This would be
catastrophic and would take centuries for this forest to return to a state that even resembles its
current condition. Thinning also creates less competition for resources among the dominating
trees. This will generally create a more resilient and healthier ecosystem.
Another recommendation for Bridgeton City Park is to remove all of the snags along the
edges of trails. They pose as a human safety hazard and are unappealing to the eye. Retaining
snags within the larger patches of forested areas can create potential habitat for cavity nesting
bird species. One notable cavity nester that has historically called the area in and around
Bridgeton home is the red-headed woodpecker. This state threatened species requires a
reasonably open understory to travel, and needs large, standing snags to for insect foraging and
nest cavity construction. There are plenty of trees that would be optimal for this species,
however the current density of the forest precludes their habitation.
While it would probably optimize the habitat for a variety of species and aid recovering
the impaired regeneration of the forest, prescribed fire is not a feasible option. Prescribing a
controlled burn for the park would ultimately create a healthier ecosystem and increase forest
resilience. The burn would help protect against the spread of pests and pathogens by reducing the
density of trees so infections would lack the necessary vector to spread. Additionally, it would
control invasive species, most of which originate from ecosystems that do not have a regular fire
interval and are thusly not fire tolerant. It would also greatly reduce the fuel load and protect the
surrounding community from extreme fires. Probably the largest benefit of a prescribed burn
would be the removal of the considerable leaf litter layer that prevents vegetative regeneration. A
single winter low burn would probably yield oak regeneration the following spring.
Unfortunately, those new oaks would be immediately consumed by the deer, so an important part

of an effective forest management scheme would involve a rather aggressive deer control
program. Controlled burns aid in the recycling of nutrients back into the soil, which promotes the
growth of trees, wildflowers, and other species of vegetation. They also create and improve
habitats for threatened and endangered species. Unfortunately, this particular forest management
practice is not feasible in Bridgetons urban forest due to its geographic location, particularly the
heavy use of the park and proximity to a very dense human population center.

Outreach Proposal:
The focal point of our group was to study the dynamic forest and the native plants around
Sunset lake in Bridgeton, New Jersey. We performed a study of 5 plots to analyze the different
forest types as well as the native plant species present. Our findings involved primarily oaks and
pines, as well as some native holly and an excessive amount of leaf litter. We were happy to see
that there was a lack of any predominant invasives, and there was also a healthy mix of young
and very old trees, of which were up to thirty years old. Our concern was being able to continue
to preserve these species for the sake of the wildlife that thrive within it. In order to do this, we
need to be able to educate the community on the species present, as well as their impact on
nature.
The first step in getting the community involved is to promote, educate and involve the
younger population as we believe they have the most impact on the parks future. In order to
achieve this, we have formulated multiple ideas. Establishing an environmental club within the
schools of Bridgeton could be a great start. Their tasks could include improvement projects like
reintroducing native species back into the park, creating plant identification signs, trail clean-ups,
or even hosting a yearly environmental fair where they could partner with City Park and

environmental organizations in the area. The fair could include games, crafts, raffles, and
vendors but could also educate visitors by displaying green alternatives to daily tasks or have
guided walks through the trails where the guide talks about plants and animals that will be
encountered. Hosting badge-earning activities in the park for Boy and Girl Scouts could also be a
great way create awareness.
One of the most important outreach tasks at hand is to educate the general public, and
frequent park visitors, of the importance of native species and their role in the environment.
Specie signs throughout the park and trails, much like the ones in the Cohanzick Zoo, could
provide information such as scientific names, identification characteristics and interesting facts.
We believe these educational signs will give the locals as well as tourists some perspective on the
importance of each species within the forest. Additionally, the signs could have a barcode that
could be scanned with any smart phone, and then offers the option of retrieving information on
the species in Spanish or English.
Handouts and pamphlets made available to visitors could provide information regarding
history of the park, plants and animals found in the area, and a trail or park map. In order to
make this information more accessible to all of the citizens of Bridgeton, brochures and flyers
could be developed and made available in public kiosks and other forums around the
municipality. All handouts will be available in English and Spanish, taking Bridgetons largely
Hispanic/Latino population into consideration. According to the Census Bureaus 2010 study,
46.3% reported Hispanic/Latino making them the largest subpopulation in Bridgeton. It was also
reported that 44% of Bridgetons population spoke a language other than English at home.

The wildlife group suggested bird watching activities and installing Osprey watch towers
as well as geese removal, and notifying the public of the importance of not feeding the geese. All
of these factors can overall contribute to the health of the lake and especially the forest around it.
Conclusion:
Our topic is very crucial to the community because the park as a whole not only provides
homes to many migratory birds, as well as other terrestrial wildlife, but also is a source of
recreation and revenue to the local community. Forests, in particular, provide many priceless
ecosystem services, which include soil retention and formation, filtering and cooling the air,
carbon sequestration and SOx regulation, disturbance prevention during storms, freshwater
regulation, waste assimilation, and nutrient regulation of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Not
only do forests benefit ecosystems, they can also have positive effects on local economies.
Forests and parks provide opportunities for recreation including hunting, fishing, hiking and
more which can bring people into an area to spend time and money. Through research it is
estimated that forest resources provide $2.2 billion per year in ecosystem services in New Jersey
alone so maintaining and properly managing forest resources is imperative. The park also offers
a place to become engaged with the environment in an area close to home. This will lead to a
healthier, happier community, and hopefully a more globally aware population. Although, this
can only happen if the forests are maintained and properly managed into the future.
Since no initial data about Bridgetons forests existed our goal initially was to create five
representative forest plots in order to learn about the health, age, and successional stage of the
forest so we could properly prescribe forest management treatments. Our results showed that
Bridgetons park was an old growth oak forest. The shear size of individuals and their relative

density to one another showed that the forest was healthy and thriving even without a
management plan. Even though the forest was healthy since no management plan existed we
still decided to propose some options like thinning understory vegetation, the removal of
standing deadwood, and a controlled burn. All of these prescriptions would improve the health
of the forest and would be relatively simple steps that could eventually lead to city of Bridgeton
developing their own forest management plan.

Originally our group wanted to be involved in outreach to the community in the form of
educational brochures and guided nature walks to better connect the community and the forest so
that greater efforts are made to maintain and manage them, but all of our time was spent
collecting initial data of the forest. Our outreach consisted of a presentation to the mayor of
Bridgeton whom we presented our research findings and prescriptions of forest management.
Our only outreach plan besides which was to introduce scannable tree labels on prominent trees
along the trails is still a cheap and effective way to educate the community about the forest if
they want to learn about it. This is a small first step in in reaching our goal of getting the
community into the park as well as active in conserving and protecting it which future groups
can add upon.
The pitfalls we encountered involved a few key factors: time, revenue, and the voluntary
involvement of the community. Before we started collecting data we knew that lack of time in
the field could be a major issue. If we had more time we could have made more plots in the
parks forests which would help give us a more accurate picture of Bridgetons forests. Another
shortcoming is that Bridgeton is a low income area, so trying to access funding and grants will be
hard but not impossible to get. Since no other data of Bridgetons forests exists our group has

created a baseline with which future groups can hopefully use to continue our goal of improving
the health of the forest as well as creating a proper forest management plan there.

Works Cited:
"Bridgeton City QuickFacts." Bridgeton City New Jersey QuickFacts from the US Census
Bureau. US Census Bureau, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Costanza R.; Wilson M.; Troy A.; Voinov A.; Liu S.; DAgostino J.; The Value of New Jerseys
Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Gund Institute for Ecological Economics. New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. July 2006
"City of Bridgeton, New Jersey - Recreation." City of Bridgeton, New Jersey - Recreation. N.p.,
n.d. Web.
Dobbs, Cynnamon. "A Framework for Developing Urban Forest Ecosystem Services and Goods
Indicators." A Framework for Developing Urban Forest Ecosystem Services and Goods
Indicators. Elsevier, 21 June 2010. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.
"Forest Management Basics." North Carolina Forestry Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept.
2016.

"Laws, Regulations & Policies." US Forest Service Forest Management -. EPA, n.d. Web.
"National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council." US Forest Service. USDA, 2016.
Web. 04 Oct. 2016.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. New Jersey Statewide Forest Resource
Assessment and Strategies 2010. NJDEP. 2010. Print.
Safford, H.; Larry, E.; McPherson, E.G.; Nowak, D.J.; Westphal, L.M. (August 2013). Urban
Forests and Climate Change. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate
Change Resource Center. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/
Widmann, Richard H Forests of the Garden State. US Forest Service. USDA, 2005.
Web. 10 Dec. 2016
Zimmerman, George Ecological Forest Management Intro. BIOL-3419. Stockton University,
New Jersey. 10 Sept. 2016
"16 U.S. Code 1600 - Congressional Findings." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell
University, n.d. Web.
United States Department of Agriculture. Trends in New Jersey Forests. Us Forest Service,
Northeastern Research Station. 2014. Print.

Figures
Figure 2: Bridgeton Land Use

Figure 3: Sample Plot Locations and Forest Type

Tables
Table 1: Overstory Composition
All

white oak
(Quercus
alba
)

S
p
e
c
i
e
s

blackgum
(Nyssa
sylvat
ica)

American
holly
(Ilex opaca)

northern red
oak
(Quercus rubra)

Basal Area (square feet)

110.0

54.0

16.0

10.0

8.0

Percentage of stand basal area

(%)

100.0

49.1

14.5

9.1

7.3

Stems Per Unit Area (stems per

acre)

121.0

46.4

29.4

24.0

5.4

southern red
oak
(Quercus
falca
ta)

scarlet oak
(Quercus
coccin
ea)

shortleaf pine
(Pinus
echi
nat
a)

sassafras
(Sassafras
albidu
m)

eastern white
pine
(Pinus strobus)

Basal Area (square feet)

8.0

4.0

4.0

2.0

2.0

Percentage of stand basal

area (%)

7.3

3.6

3.6

1.8

1.8

Stems Per Unit Area (stems

per acre)

3.6

1.1

2.1

1.2

6.9

pitch pine
(Pinus rigida)
Basal Area (square feet)

2.0

Percentage of stand basal area (%)

1.8

Stems Per Unit Area (stems per acre)

0.9

Table 2: Diameter Analysis

All
s
p
e
c
i
e
s

white oak
(Quercus
alb
a)

blackgum
(Nyssa
sylva
tica)

American
holly
(Ilex opaca)

northern red
oak
(Quercus
rubra
)

Medial DBH (inches)

17.3

19.1

12.6

9.1

18.1

Merchantable Medial DBH

(inches)

17.8

19.6

13.6

9.1

18.1

Quadratic Mean DBH (inches)

12.9

14.6

10.0

8.7

16.4

Merchantable Quadratic DBH

(inches)

14.5

17.5

12.5

8.7

16.4

Average DBH (inches)

11.5

12.9

9.1

8.6

15.9

southern red
oak
(Quercus
falc
ata)

scarlet oak
(Quercus
cocci
nea)

shortleaf
pin
e
(Pinus
ech
inat
a)

sassafras
(Sassafras
albid
um)

eastern
whit
e
pine
(Pinus
stro
bus)

Medial DBH (inches)

20.7

27.1

18.7

17.2

7.3

Merchantable Medial
DBH (inches)

20.7

27.1

18.7

17.2

7.3

Quadratic Mean DBH

(inches)

20.2

26.1

18.6

17.2

7.3

Merchantable Quadratic
DBH (inches)

20.2

26.1

18.6

17.2

7.3

Average DBH (inches)

20.0

25.8

18.6

17.2

7.3

pitch pine
(Pinus rigida)
Medial DBH (inches)

20.3

Merchantable Medial DBH (inches)

20.3

Quadratic Mean DBH (inches)

20.3

Merchantable Quadratic DBH (inches)

20.3

Average DBH (inches)

20.3

Table 3: Structure (Q Factor)

All species

white oak
(Quercus alba)

blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica)

American holly
(Ilex opaca)

northern red oak

(Quercus rubra)

Q Factor

1.16

1.14

southern red
oak
(Quercus
falcata)
Q

1.09

1.18

scarlet oak
(Quercus
coccinea)
1.08

1.03

shortleaf pine
(Pinus
echina
ta)
1.08

1.11

sassafras
(Sassafras
albidum)
0.00

eastern white
pine
(Pinus strobus)
0.00

F
a
c
t
o
r

pitch pine
(Pinus rigida)
Q Factor

0.00

Table 4: Relative Density

All
s
p
e
c
i
e
s

white oak
(Quercus
alba)

blackgum
(Nyssa
sylvati
ca)

American
holly
(Ilex opaca)

northern red
oak
(Quercus rubra)

Relative Density
(percent)

80.60

42.37

10.24

7.14

6.95

percentage of stand

100.00

52.57

12.70

8.85

8.62

southern red
oak
(Quercus
falcat
a)

scarlet oak
(Quercus
coccin
ea)

shortleaf
pine
(Pinus
echi
nata)

sassafras
(Sassafras
albidu
m)

eastern white
pine
(Pinus
strob
us)

Relative Density
(percent)

6.07

2.93

1.94

1.06

0.98

percentage of stand

7.53

3.64

2.41

1.32

1.22

pitch pine
(Pinus rigida)

Relative Density (percent)

0.93

percentage of stand

1.15

Table 5: Volumetric Overstory Analysis

All
s
p
e
c
i
e
s

white oak
(Quercus
alb
a)

blackgum
(Nyssa
sylva
tica)

American
holly
(Ilex opaca)

northern red
oak
(Quercus
rubra
)

Sawtimber gross total (board

feet/acre)

8,389

4,610

869

132

711

Sawtimber net total (board

feet/acre)

8,389

4,610

869

132

711

Pulpwood gross total (cubic

feet/acre)

1,395

647

196

193

101

Pulpwood net total (cubic

feet/acre)

1,116

518

157

155

81

Gross total (cubic feet/acre)

2,851

1,452

357

214

220

Net total (cubic feet/acre)

2,281

1,161

286

171

176

southern red
oak
(Quercus
falc
ata)

scarlet oak
(Quercus
cocci
nea)

shortleaf
pine
(Pinus
echi
nat
a)

sassafras
(Sassafras
albidu
m)

eastern white
pine
(Pinus
stro
bus)

Sawtimber gross total

(board feet/acre)

691

501

473

162

Sawtimber net total

(board feet/acre)

691

501

473

162

Pulpwood gross total

(cubic feet/acre)

97

47

36

24

36

Pulpwood net total (cubic

feet/acre)

78

37

29

19

29

Gross total (cubic

feet/acre)

228

119

112

55

36

Net total (cubic feet/acre)

183

95

90

44

29

pitch pine (Pinus rigida)

Sawtimber gross total (board feet/acre)

240

Sawtimber net total (board feet/acre)

240

Pulpwood gross total (cubic feet/acre)

18

Pulpwood net total (cubic feet/acre)

14

Gross total (cubic feet/acre)

57

Net total (cubic feet/acre)

46

Table 6: Biomass Projections

All
s
p
e
c
i
e
s

white oak
(Quercus
alb
a)

blackgum
(Nyssa
sylvat
ica)

American
holly
(Ilex opaca)

northern red
oak
(Quercus
rubra
)

Coarse Root Biomass (tons

per acre)

16.84

9.39

1.74

0.95

1.37

Stem Wood Biomass (tons per

acre)

57.66

32.68

5.66

2.89

4.75

Stem Bark Biomass (tons per

acre)

11.39

6.44

1.16

0.62

0.94

Foliage Biomass (tons per

acre)

1.90

0.96

0.19

0.11

0.14

Aboveground Biomass (tons

per acre)

89.05

50.01

9.19

4.97

7.29

Total Biomass (tons per acre)

105.90

59.40

10.93

5.92

8.66

southern red
oak
(Quercus
falc
ata)

scarlet oak
(Quercus
cocci
nea)

shortleaf
pin
e
(Pinus
echi
nat
a)

sassafras
(Sassafras
albidu
m)

eastern white
pine
(Pinus
stro
bus)

Coarse Root Biomass

(tons per acre)

1.46

0.81

0.47

0.25

0.16

Stem Wood Biomass (tons

per acre)

5.16

2.97

1.47

0.88

0.46

Stem Bark Biomass (tons

per acre)

1.01

0.57

0.26

0.17

0.08

Foliage Biomass (tons per

acre)

0.15

0.08

0.13

0.03

0.05

Aboveground Biomass
(tons per acre)

7.77

4.36

2.21

1.36

0.74

Total Biomass (tons per

acre)

9.23

5.18

2.68

1.61

0.90

pitch pine (Pinus rigida)

Coarse Root Biomass (tons per acre)

0.24

Stem Wood Biomass (tons per acre)

0.76

Stem Bark Biomass (tons per acre)

0.14

Foliage Biomass (tons per acre)

0.06

Aboveground Biomass (tons per acre)

1.15

Total Biomass (tons per acre)

1.39

Overstory and Understory

Biomass in tons

Live trees

Dead trees

TOTAL

Foliage Biomass

1,897

38

1,934

Stem Wood Biomass

57,663

1,342

59,005

Stem Bark Biomass

11,390

260

11,650

Branch Biomass

18,103

367

18,471

Aboveground Biomass

89,053

2,007

91,060

Coarse Root Biomass

16,845

375

17,220

Total Biomass

105,897

2,382

108,280