The National Pinelands

LaboratoryBy

Page 1

Introduction

Established on 1.1 million acres of forested land in Southern New Jersey, the Pinelands National

Reserve became the nation’s first national reserve under the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978

(NJ Pinelands Commission, 2012). This reserve harbors 135 endangered/threatened species and several

plant species found nowhere else in the U.S.. The reserve sits on the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer, which

contains an estimated 17 trillion gallons of water (Good et. al., 1984). All of these factors contribute to

the land’s ecological importance and justify the recent establishment of The Pinelands National

Laboratory (PNL). This laboratory, situated on 1,608 acres of land in Galloway Twp., NJ, conducts

experimental research to better understand the Pinelands ecosystem. PNL land is divided among several

land use types, with forests comprising the majority of the study area (Figure 1; Table 1; Graph 1). PNL

has zoned out research sites for studying the Southern Pine Beetle (D.f. zimmermann), Atlantic White

Cedar (C. thyoides) stands, etc. (Figure 2). PNL is conservation-based, which means all research will

utilize resources wisely. This principle, created by Gifford Pinchot in 1898, stated that land should be

managed “for the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run” (US Forest Service, 2013). The

goal of this PNL research is to develop more effective management and conservation practices for the

entire Pinelands National Reserve, which in turn, will benefit the people.

Figure 1: This map shows the land use

composition of the study area around The

Pinelands National Laboratory.

Table 1: This table shows the total acreage

for each land use type. Forests have the most

acreage and agriculture has the least.

Graph 1: This graph shows breakdown of

land use composition in the study area by

percentages. Forests make up the majority

of the study area with 53%.

Figure 2: This map displays how specific lands

in PNL will be zoned out to accommodate

research projects. It also displays where the

main buildings/facilities are located.

Page 2

Laboratory Benefits for the Village

Page 3

Residents of a 38.8-acre village

in the northern section of the study area will be directly affected by PNL, as well as the three “Piney”-

owned inholdings (Figure 3; Table 2). The villagers grow their own food and hunt in the surrounding

forest. They earn a small, livable income from their family-owned businesses in the village where they

sell cultural crafts to visitors. Before establishing PNL, a

negotiation model was implemented to ensure maximum benefit

for all stakeholders; this model mimicked the mediation model

(Susskind et. al., 2003). As well, one of the goals of establishing

the National Pinelands Reserve was to protect the cultural life of

its people (Hufford, 1986). PNL works to retain the village’s culture and ensures social, environmental,

and economic benefits for the town.

Villagers will be employed by the lab as research assistants and groundskeepers. In 2012,

Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island, NY created 3,100 jobs, 98% of which were provided to

people living on the island (Brookhaven National Laboratory [BNL], 2012). Not only will this provide a

source of income for the villagers, but there will be a valuable exchange of knowledge between the

scientists and villagers. The researchers can provide villagers with scientific information about the land.

In return, the villagers possess knowledge of the land that is only acquired from living on the land, such

as the phenology of the area or naturalistic information. The villagers have a moral commitment to the

land and know that sharing information and cooperating with PNL will ultimately benefit the health and

stability of the entire Pinelands National Reserve. Gaining additional knowledge of the land will also

allow villagers to educate visitors frequenting their shops. Spreading awareness about this unique

ecosystem may influence the public to make environmentally-conscious decisions, which may improve

the overall health of the ecosystem.  Villagers also have the opportunity to take courses on organic

farming and forest/wildlife management at PNL. University programs that teach adult, indigenous people

about earth science have proven successful, especially when outdoor education is emphasized (Riggs,

2004). Idaho National Laboratory has invested more than $3.1 million in education programs (Black et.

al., 2010). Likewise, PNL will provide local colleges and schools with education grants, which will

increase villagers’ educational opportunities.

Figure 3: This graph displays

ownerships of the study area. Most of

the land is federally-owned by PNL, but

there are three private-owned inholdings

and one village within the study area.

Table 2: This table shows the total acreage

for each land owner and what percent of

the total study area they own. PNL owns

97.3% of the land.

Page 4

The establishment of the PNL also provides an additional customer base for the local village

shops. Scientists living on-site may frequent the shops, as well as visiting scientists. For example,

Brookhaven National Laboratory has contributed “$31.7 million in goods and services purchased from

Long Island companies” (BNL, 2012). Also, the National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of

2001 aims to foster partnerships between the Department of Energy and non-federal entities by creating

government funding for the support of small businesses (Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

2001).

The Village’s Pressure on The Public Parcel

PNL’s Community Advisory Council consists of representatives from local civic, education,

environment, employee, and health organizations; many villagers attend meetings to voice their opinions

(BNL, 2014). The village is currently advocating for community-based participatory research (CBPR)

(Holkup et. al., 2004). This allows the community to be equal partners in all stages of the research

process, which is often appealing to susceptible populations, such as indigenous people.  In addition, the

inholding-owners have voiced concern that prescribed burns may damage their homes. This is a valid

concern even though public perception of fire has been skewed since the creation of Smokey the Bear in

the 1940’s (Nelson, 2000). Meanwhile, the villagers are concerned that prescribed burns may adversely

affect air quality and create health hazards. Health risks of prescribed burning are uncertain; one study in

Australia indicated that air quality at burn sites was well below national standards (Bowman et. al., 2005).

Land managers have little guidance aside from national air quality standards; the EPA (1998) produced a

policy for the management of wildfires which simply promotes “thoughtful use of fire by all wildland

owners and managers while mitigating the impacts of emissions on air quality and visibility.” PNL is

currently investigating all of these concerns and locating a more remote prescribed burn site due to

increased community pressure. Finally, there have been instances of established residents harvesting

resources from protected areas (Lee et. al., 2009). In order to prevent this, PNL will coordinate with the

villagers to allow them to continue utilizing specific areas of the land for resources. For example, the

villagers will be provided with produce from the organic garden and cranberries from the bog. PNL has

also set aside forests just north of the village for hunting/recreational use. Although PNL will slightly

alter the community’s lifestyle, research at PNL will benefit the entire Pinelands National Reserve while

keeping local considerations at the forefront of decisions.  

Page 5

Works Cited

Black, G., Holley, D., & Church, J. (2010). Idaho National Laboratory Impacts: An Analysis of Idaho National Laboratory Site Operations on Idaho’s Economy. Research by Boise State University. http://www.inl.gov/portal-files/impacts_brochure.pdf

Bowman, D. & Fay, J. (2005). Wildlife Smoke, Wildlife Management, and Human Health. EcoHealth, 2(1): 76-80.

Brookhaven National Laboratory. (2013). Economic Impact Report [Brochure]. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/fact_sheet/pdf/BNL-EIC-3fold.pdf

Brookhaven National Laboratory. (2014). Community Advisory Council. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://www.bnl.gov/stakeholder/CAC.php

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (2001). National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 2001 (Senate Report 107-30). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-107srpt30/html/CRPT-107srpt30.htm

Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). USEPA Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf

Good, R. & Good, N. (1984). The Pinelands National Reserve: An Ecosystem Approach to Management. American Institute of Biological Sciences, 34(3): 169-173.

Holkup, P., Tripp-Reimer, T., Salois, E., & Weinert, C. (2004). Community-based Participatory Research: An Approach to Intervention Research With a Native American Community. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(3): 162-175.

Page 6

Hufford, M. (1986). One Space, Many Places: Folklife and Land Use in New Jersey's Pinelands National Reserve. Report and Recommendations to the New Jersey Pinelands Commission for Cultural Conservation in the Pinelands National Reserve. American Folklife Center. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED313304.pdf

Lee, T. M., Sodhi, N.S., & Prawiradilaga, C.M. (2009). Determinants of Local People's Attitude Toward Conservation and The Consequential Effects on Illegal Resource Harvesting in The Protected Areas of Sulawesi (Indonesia). Environmental Conservation, 36(2): 157-170.

Nelson, R.H. (2000). The Forest Service’s Tinderbox. Regulation, 23 (4): 32-35.

New Jersey Pinelands Commission. (2012). Pinelands Facts [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/infor/fact/Pinelands%20Facts.pdf

Riggs, E. (2004). Field-Based Education and Indigenous Knowledge: Essential Components of Geoscience Education for Native American Communities. Science Education, 89(2): 296-313.

Susskind, L., van der Wansem, M., & Ciccareli, A. (2003). Mediating Land Use Disputes in the United States: Pros and Cons. Environments- A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 31(2): 39-58.

US Forest Service. (2013). Gifford Pinchot (1865-1946). Grey Towers National Historic Site: Historic Information. Retrieved October 13, 2014 from: http://www.fs.fed.us/gt/local-links/historical-info/gifford/gifford.shtml