About Sparta Mountain...

The Department of Environment's (DEP) descriptions of the activities in Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area (SMWMA) range from inaccurate to simply false ("Sparta Mountain: Different perspectives, same objective?" Feb. 11).

According to DEP, “the aim of the activities is to restore the young oak-hickory forest.” That may be partly true, but if you look at the current “Forest Stewardship Plan” for SMWMA, it says that these former oak-dominated forests were “created naturally in northern NJ from ecological processes”, p. 14. Yet the plan’s bibliography includes a 2005 USFS Technical Bulletin (p. 81), which in turn cites an article by Kevin T. Smith called “Resistance of Eastern Hardwood Stems to Fire Injury and Damage." Smith states, “Fires ignited by humans or by lighting are fundamental influences on eastern oak forests.” 2005 Technical Bulletin, p. 210. Right away the authors and administrators of the logging program have a transparency problem. Why didn’t they tell your reporter that the pre-contact percentage of northern New Jersey Forests which were oak forests is unknown, and the degree to which those oak forests were caused by natural phenomena is also unknown---all of which one can determine by checking the citations included in the plan?

And then we get to the simply false. Still on p. 14, the plan says, “Prior to European settlement, natural ecological processes shaped oak forests to contain around 15% young forest and 30% mature ‘old growth’ forest within the landscape,” citing a 2003 article by Lorimer and White. But if you read their article, which is available on the internet for free, Lorimer and White nowhere specify 15% young forest, nor 30% mature forest.

More: where are the data on impacts to species that depend on mature forests? The plan says, “creating or maintaining young forest habitat in 10% of the WMA (less than 346 acres) will have no detrimental impacts to forest interior wildlife species across the broader landscape,” p. 15. And the authority for this claim? “Personal communications” from three individuals. Even assuming these individuals are qualified in forest ecology science, “personal communications” are not sufficient citations. How does one verify what they said? Are we supposed to contact them ourselves and cross-examine them? No. An actual article must be cited.

Then you have David Golden: “Whenever DEP is preparing to remove trees from a section of the wildlife management area, it puts the project out to bid, Golden said, and pays private contractors to come in to do the work.” Oh yeah? Then how come the plan states, “. . .the prescribed silvicultural treatments may or may not be done commercially, use heavy equipment, or result in the sale of timber,” p. 28. Sale of timber means revenue. Opponents of the logging have obtained contracts calling for individuals to pay for the right to cut and remove trees, but not any providing that DEP pay individuals to cut trees.

Dave Golden again: “‘I would say most often, because these are small cuts, (the wood harvested) typically goes for homeowner firewood,’ he said. ‘The trees that we are identifying and marking to be removed to create the young forest habitat, they’re not the trees that you would think about for any type of lumber industry.’” Oh yeah? Look at the description of the first type of “treatment:" - “Seed Tree with Reserves—A form of even-aged management, where the objective is to regenerate a single cohort of trees that are the same age. Almost trees, regardless of size, are cut."

I, and the other opponents of logging in SMWMA are very familiar with the forest, and it contains (or contained) a lot of large trees. Take, for example, stand 1. It contained 3,642 board feet / acre, plan, p. 32. That’s a measure of available lumber. “Portions of this stand will receive a Seed Tree with Wildlife Reserves treatment,” ibid, which, in the absence of information to the contrary, we assume is the same as “seed tree with reserves." Firewood, my rear end. Are we really going to trust anyone involved in the writing and implementation of this plan?

And this only scratches the surface. Even if one agrees with the goal of managing land to increase habitat for young forest species, this version of the plan was clearly thrown together in haste after someone said, “Hey, we need more science," without even checking to see what the cited authorities actually stated. Hey, N.J. Audubon / DEP, scrap this plan, and come up with something honest.