Coming
Changes and New Jersey’s Public Forests
By Albert B. Kelly
The road to unfunded mandates is paved with good intentions in the form of legislation. At least that’s my main take-away with A-4843 and its companion S-3549 now being considered by the New Jersey Legislature. In a nutshell, in addition to lands owned or acquired by the State, this bill would require municipalities and nonprofit organizations that acquired land with Green Acres funds, or funded recreation efforts on those lands using Green Acres monies, to create and implement a “forest stewardship plan” for lands amounting to 25 acres or more.
Being a public official from a more urbanized community with the challenges that come with urban communities, I am not knowledgeable about forests or forest management but I suspect that such requirements will come with the need to hire professional consultants to do some combination of assessing, reporting, and recommending and they do not come cheaply. Once there is a plan, the implementation of any plan will also require funding that we simply do not have.
Not being knowledgeable in these areas, my initial concern is that this should not be a one-size-fits-all proposition. What I mean to say is that the pinelands are likely far different in character than the forest-like areas that make up parts of Bridgeton City Park. Certain planning and management efforts that might make sense for the pinelands won’t necessarily make sense for the wooded areas containing trails in a community park and I hope that any forthcoming legislation would acknowledge these differences.
Naturally my concerns are necessarily narrow, but a host of organizations are on high alert about this and 3 other bills dealing with NJ forestry including the New Jersey Forest Watch, New Jersey Sierra Club, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and the New York-New Jersey Trail Conference to name a few. If I understand their concerns, they see these bills individually and collectively as a mechanism for more logging leading to greater timber extraction from the state’s forests under the guise of stewardship.
One possible example of this legislative sheep in wolves clothing is A-4844 (S-3550). This bill purports to make the plan process easier and more streamlined by eliminating multiple layers of approvals (i.e. municipal approval). It acknowledges the struggles some municipalities have with state requirements. But in the name of streamlining, the bill cuts out municipalities entirely and that presents its own concerns, especially if the purpose is to facilitate more logging.
These groups are also alarmed with A-4845 (S-3548). This bill would set a statewide goal for controlled burns. In the Pinelands, this would amount to 50,000 acres and outside the Pinelands an additional 10,000 in other parts of the state. This would mean 60,000 acres a year burned between November and March. Those in the know suggest that there is no scientific justification for setting a predetermined number of acres. More importantly, there is a great deal of concern about harm to wildlife and air pollution, not to mention issues related to global warming.
The final piece of legislation rounding out this quartet of bills is A-4846. This bill would create a working group to coordinate between government and owners and is specifically focused on the pinelands. This group would consist of 14 persons representing various levels of government, private owners, the nonprofit community, and foresters. The working group would be advisory in nature and would provide recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on how to better coordinate forestry management efforts in the pinelands. For those on high alert, this bill is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
As I’ve said previously, I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to the environment or forestry. At best, I am like any average resident who enjoys our wooded areas, our trails, and open spaces in the Garden State. What I do know is that if there is money to be made, industries will find a way exploit almost anything, including nature, in the name of profit.
My point is that if those leading the opposition to A-4843, A-4844, A-4845, and A-4846 (and companion bills) are right about these bills and that they’re really mostly about running interference for those who make money from logging and timber extraction, then we need to reexamine these bills and the necessity for the changes they would bring, the implications, and especially the burning of thousands of acres- something not easily restored.