ELSEVIER

Biological Conservation 68 (1994) 263-268 © 1994 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0006-3207/94/$07.00

THE USE OF THEORY IN L A N D M A N A G E M E N T DECISIONS" THE NEW JERSEY PINE BARRENS

Emily W. B. Russell Department of Geological Sciences, Rutgers University. Newark, New Jersey 07878. USA

Abstract The New Jersey Pine Barrens are an oasis of rare species, unique ecosystems and open space in the midst of the Boston to Washington megalopolis. Because this area has a long history of human exploitation and private land ownership direct purchase as a park is unfeasible and inappropriate. The alternative conservation strategy that has been adopted is to create a "green line' park, the Pinelands National Reserve, in which all of the land included within the boundaries of the Reserve is subject to regulations on building and development, while some of the most critical areas are protected by purchase.

Conservationists used the strong base of scientific knowledge of the area and theory to gain protection for fragile ecosystems. This use of emerging theory to protect parts of the landscape is an example of the kind of innovative planning that is necessary to protect land in areas where there is already much human impact and pressure for development.

Keywords: biogeography, forest islands, New Jersey, Pinelands National Reserve, Pine Barrens.

INTRODUCTION

Land preservation in coastal areas often involves large areas of privately owned land for which outright purchase may be economically unfeasible or inappropriate. The United States National Reserve system, which builds on such examples as the British National Park System and the Adirondack Park in New York state, combines regulation of land use within the preserve boundary, the 'green-line', with purchase of critical areas (Little, 1975; Liroff & Davis, 1981; McEwen, 1982, Collins & Russell, 1988). An important issue which is basic to the success of such ventures is the way the government agency develops its regulations on use of private land within the 'green line'. In the New Jersey Pinelands, the nation's first National Reserve, emerging principles of forest island biogeography were used to prevent develop- ment in a wide corridor of land connecting large northern and southern forests. The process by which planners used an emerging theory to impose stringent regulations on land-use in this corridor, which had considerable development potential, provides guidelines for applying theory in ways that may withstand legal challenges.

I will first briefly describe some of the essential characteristics of the Pinelands and outline the process

263

of designation as a National Reserve. Debates about the extent of the Pine Barrens foreshadowed planning debates about protecting a corridor connecting two major forested areas of the region. A brief outline of judicial theory supporting regulatory legislation and of forest island theory as it was developed at the time, 1980, shows how biogeographic theory was successfully applied to regulating use of private land.

THE PINE BARRENS RESOURCE

The New Jersey Pine Barrens are a unique resource on the Atlantic Coastal Plain of New Jersey (Fig. 1). Characterized by pitch pines Pinus rigida with a pre- dominantly ericaceous understory, this half million hectare area remains largely forested, while surrounded by agricultural and developed land. Many of the factors that have prevented successful conventional agriculture (grain and dairying, for example) there are also responsible for the large proportion of rare species and other unique features of the flora and fauna. Twelve percent of the plant species and 15°/,, of the amphibians and reptiles found in the Pine Barrens are in danger of extinction in the state (Conant, 1979; Fairbrothers, 1979; Pinelands Commission, 1980). Many of these species are character- istic of wetland habitats or of the pygmy pine forests, the 'Pine Plains', internationally famous for their unique vegetation of dwarf pitch pine and oaks (Good et al., 1979). In addition, 14 plant species reach their northern, and 109 their southern, range limits in the Pine Barrens (Fairbrothers, 1979; A. E. Schuyler, pers. comm.). Especially remarkable are such disjuncts as pyxie moss Pyxidanthera barbulata, which grows elsewhere only in southeastern Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina and curly-grass fern Schizea pusilla, which is found elsewhere only in the Long Island, New York, pine plains and Canada. The ranges of these two species, and many others at the limits of their geographical dis- tribution, overlap in the Pine Barrens.

The combination of extremely droughty soils with a high water table has produced a mosaic of extreme habitats here, from excessively drained fire-prone uplands to fens and ephemeral ponds. The very low pH of the soils, averaging about 4.6 (Pinelands Commission, 1980), also contributes to the unique flora and fauna, as well as producing poor agricultural soils. Largely responsible for these characteristics of the region is the Cohansey sand, the typical surficial deposit of the Pine

264 E. W. B. Russell

~ ....... ~ Philodelphio ~ , ~

....... State o dory ~-~ +.. ~ P nReesO;dSe Nat anal ~N c~{ii:.i!~ •. - ~.~{~i-~

Preservation Area I:"~:~':~:~!~!!~ ~!:" SC~rl;aern Forest )

['--'] Other Districts ~ ~4:i!~;~i

6 ~-gTo ...... ~!!i!~-~ ~

- - ::." ...."

..... ,....' 75°W

{

39 ° N

Fig. 1. Location and outline of the Pinelands National Reserve.

Barrens (Rhodehamel, 1979). The entire area lies south of any Pleistocene glaciation, but was affected during glacial and interglacial periods by the appearance and disappearance of major migration routes along the Atlantic coast as sea level fell and rose, alternately exposing and drowning the continental shelf. The closing of these coastal migration routes at the end of the Wisconsinian glaciation explains at least in part the high level of disjunction of the flora.

Human history has also had a major impact on the Pine Barrens. Bog iron, pitch, pure sand for glass, peat and wood are just a few of the natural resources that were extensively exploited from the 18th through the early 20th centuries (Wacker, 1979). Fire has also been a major factor, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when there was a dense network of railroads in the area. In the 20th century, with less demand for the local products, villages were abandoned, fires were better suppressed and the forests in much of the area recovered, though with a lower fire frequency than had prevailed in the pre-Columbian forests.

While the human population of the region grew from 110,000 in 1950 to over 220,000 in 1970, most of the growth was caused by expansion of suburbs from Philadelphia in the west and of retirement communities in the north (Pinelands Commission, 1980) so occurred on the edges of the Pine Barrens, constricting the boundaries but leaving much of the forest interior intact. The pattern is clearly demonstrated by a night space-photograph of the northeastern United States which shows the Pine Barrens as a distinct dark area surrounded by the bright lights of the Philadelphia and New York metropolitan areas and the barrier islands on the Atlantic coast, cut in half by a discontinuous strip of lights, indicating highway development stretching from Philadelphia to Atlantic City on the east (Forman,

1979). The interior of the region continues to support a small human population some of whom are dependent on using local resources, especially for cranberry and blueberry cultivation, timbering, hunting and gathering (Wacker, 1979; Pinelands Commission; Berger & Sinton, 1985). Recreation has also become a major use of the land in the last few decades, as residents of the Philadelphia and New York metropolitan areas have become aware of the attractions of canoeing streams and hiking trails in this expanse of forest. By the 1970s, the state had acquired over 62,000 ha of land for state forests and parks, but most of the rest of the land remained in private ownership.

PINELANDS NATIONAL RESERVE

Designation of the Reserve Serious potential threats to the continued integrity of the interior of the Pine Barrens began to appear in the 1960s. In 1965 a regional planning board supported by local, state and federal funding formally proposed con- struction of a major airport and a 'New City' of 250,000 people on 17,500 ha in the forests of the Pine Barrens (Collins, 1988). While covering only a small proportion of the land, this proposed development would have obliterated the Pine Plains and valuable wetland habitat. Other threats are indicated by the more than quintupling of the total value of vacant land transactions (in constant dollar value) from 1965 to 1973 (Pinelands Commission, 1980). Local citizens and broadbased organizations such as the New Jersey Audubon Society and the Federation of Women's Clubs set up a committee to publicize the value of the Pine Barrens and the threat posed by the planned development as well as other potential threats including ground-water pollution (Collins, 1988). These efforts marked the beginning of a succession of state and federal studies and planning commissions which culmi- nated in designation of the Pine Barrens as the first United States National Reserve, called the Pinelands National Reserve (Collins & Russell, 1988). (Sometime during the debates on preserving the Pine Barrens, the region was renamed the 'Pinelands', apparently because pinelands were considered to be more attractive to the general public than something called 'barren'. I will use 'Pinelands' in this paper only to refer to the administra- tive unit.)

Under the National Reserve system, the federal government first designates an area as a Reserve, and requires the state in which the reserve is located to pass complementary legislation to carry out the intentions of the federal enabling legislation. Because the federal government cannot directly control land-use in a state, it is the responsibility of the state to design methods by which private land within the reserve will be protected. Especially critical areas within the reserve are to be purchased for protection as public land. The federal role after passing the enabling legislation resides in the Department of the Interior, which oversees planning

Land management of New Jersey Pine Barrens 265

and implementation and allocates funds for planning and land purchase (Russell, 1988a). This innovative approach to conservation provides for preservation of a landscape that combines features of great biological value with long-standing human activities, in which total purchase would be unfeasible and/or inappropriate. It typifies the kind of conservation strategy envisioned by the International Biosphere Reserve Program (UNESCO, 1984).

Federal legislation creating the Pinelands National Reserve passed the United States Congress in 1978 and was signed by President Jimmy Carter. New Jersey's Governor, Brendan Byrne, took the first step in state response to the federal initiative by issuing an executive order limiting development in the area and establishing a planning commission. In June 1979 the New Jersey legislature passed the state Pinelands legislation.

The Pinelands Commission set up under both laws to plan the Reserve, consisting of local, state, and federal representatives, wrote a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP), which it approved in November 1980. (The part regulating the Preservation Area, to be discussed later, was approved in August 1980.) The CMP required that all municipalities within the Reserve (52 of them) bring their local master plans into conform- ance with the CMP. The Commission retained the right even after conformance to review any applications for development in any municipality. The CMP incorporated an overall zoning map, dividing the Pinelands into different zones with different levels of allowed develop- ment, as well as strict standards for development and other activities, to be enforced by the municipalities with oversight by the Pinelands Commission. The Federal Government exercised oversight of the Reserve by having a member on the Pinelands Commission and retaining the right to revoke monies granted if activities in the Reserve did not carry out the intent of the federal legislation (Russell, 1988b).

Delineation of the Reserve In 1916 John Harshberger published the first map of the Pine Barrens, including within it about 560,000 ha (Harshberger, 1970). However, by the mid-1960s most attention of study commissions focussed on only about 150,000 ha in the northern half of the region. In this northern part are found the Pine Plains and a large concentration of fens (locally referred to as 'bogs') harboring many endangered species. Plans issued at that time also generally proposed much development, with only a few critical areas acquired for protection. In other words, the preservation strategy consisted of keeping a few thousand hectares in parks to preserve the rare species and to provide access to visitors, while accommodating growth and economic development in most of the area (Collins, 1988).

Those who opposed this viewpoint advocated more extensive preservation. Studies carried out for the US National Park Service and for NJ Governor Brendan Byrne's Pinelands Review Committee in the late 1960s and 1970s, for example, included the entire area of the

Cohansey Sand, more or less coextensive with Harsh- berger's delineation (Bartlett et al., 1978; Governor's Pinelands Review Committee, 1979). The large forested area in the southern half of the Pine Barrens was important as well as the northern area. After much controversy and debate, and in the face of considerable opposition, the federal legislation creating the Pinelands National Reserve and the complementary New Jersey state legislation included over 380,000 ha in recognition that the landscape must be managed as a whole if its unique characteristics and biodiversity are to be retained (Russell, 1988a). The legislation did not call for preservation of the entire region, however. The planning commission was required to allocate areas for development, agriculture, and other uses, within the context of protecting the natural resources. Recognition of the special status of the northern region was indicated in both federal and state legislation, by the designation of 150,000 ha in the north as a semi-wilderness 'Preservation Area'. Almost 50% of this area was publicly-owned parkland.

Because of the approval of casino gambling in Atlantic City by the voters of New Jersey in 1976, additional pressure for residential growth from the east as well as strip development along the major highways linking Atlantic City and Philadelphia also had to be taken into account in planning. It was debate about development along this strip, which essentially splits the southern forested region from the Preservation Area in the north, that required a theoretical basis for preservation which was more difficult to communicate to the general public than the preservation of specific habitats of rare species or extensive undeveloped forest with little contemporary development pressure.

There was general agreement that at least some of the Pine Barrens were worth saving. Even developers agreed with this point. For example, all of the local federal representatives proposed legislation ostensibly to preserve the Pinelands and a group of developers who later opposed the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan called itself the 'Committee for the Sensible Preservation of the Pinelands', at least in part because to appear to oppose preservation would have been generally unpopular (Russell, 1988a, b). The points of contention were how much land should be preserved and how it should be preserved.

Theoretical basis for protection

Legal issues The Reserve concept itself left many issues to be decided, including how much land was to be purchased and how the governmental body was to regulate use of private land within the Reserve. For such a plan to succeed such regulation required local support for enforcement of land-use restrictions and a strong scientific base. The Reserve was not set aside to be protected from all human activities, rather to incorporate sustainable human activities into a conservation strategy. The means of protection was to limit, in the interests of

266 E. W. B. Russell

conservation, what landowners could legally do with their land. The traditional method of conserving natural areas is to buy them, so that the owner of the land is the same organization or individual who sees preservation as the highest and best use of the land. Any other method forces the owner of the land to reduce expectations of either immediate or future economic gain from the land, regardless of what the owner thinks is appropriate. This can clearly lead to conflicts when the owner's aims clash with those of the regulatory agency. Obviously, if there were no such clash, there would be no need to have the regulations; these are needed only where private and public interests do not coincide (Seamon, 1988).

While many communities in the United States today use some kind of zoning to determine what can be done where, and some performance standards to regulate how things are done, these are imposed by the com- munities themselves. In a National Reserve an arm of the state government sets the zoning and standards with oversight by the federal government. This can provoke much opposition in a region dedicated to the concept of 'home rule', or control of land use at the municipal level.

Inevitably those who wanted to develop land in ways not permitted by the plan would challenge it in the courts. It was critical, therefore, that the plan be written based on the best evidence available. Courts assess whether the regulatory agency used due process and considered carefully all appropriate evidence in making its decision. Because there is usually not a consensus on the correct solution, the process of making the decision weighs heavily in the judicial process (Bazelon, 1981). The reliance of court decisions on the due process of regulation writing places the burden of proof on the procedures followed and the documentation of these procedures by the agency. The agency must make clear not only the basis for its decisions, but also the un- certainties surrounding them.

Forest island biogeography One can view the Pine Barrens as an island of unique vegetation of pitch pine-oak forest with ericaceous understory in a matrix of contrasting types of mainly deciduous forest vegetation and developed or agricultural land. At the time that the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan was being written, ecologists were applying theories related to the biogeography of actual islands in bodies of water to 'forest islands' in the midst of agricultural fields (Forman et al., 1976; Burgess & Sharpe, 1981). Forest stands surrounded by agricultural fields or developed land are in many ways comparable to islands surrounded by water; they both consist of a patch of one class of habitat surrounded by a matrix of very different habitats. The biodiversity of an island appeared to be related positively to its size and age and negatively to its isolation (MacArthur & Wilson, 1967). Because the matrix has a major effect on habitats near the edge of a forest island, a large and isodiammetric island has more typical habitat uninflu- enced by the edge than does a small or narrow one

(Levenson, 1981; Ranney et al., 1981), so size and shape of the island are important in maintaining its character. Cutting the island into two or more pieces by strips of development leads to a decrease in typical habitat as well as in diversity of the individual frag- ments which are left.

In the 1970s and 1980s, when ecologists began testing the applicability of theories of island biogeography to such islands of forest, it became apparent that theories developed from these studies were of value in designing the sizes and shapes of wildlife preserves (Diamond, 1975; May, 1975; Simberloff and Abele, 1976). May (1975) emphasized the need for large preserves, pointing out that a decrease in area causes an increased extinction rate but provides for no concomitant increase in re- colonization to balance the losses through extinction. To facilitate recolonization, Diamond (1975) recommended connecting patches of protected habitat with corridors of the same habitats, where it is not possible to pre- serve the entire area intact. While the relative value of one large or several small preserves for preserving bio- diversity (with total area equal) led to considerable theoretical debate (Diamond 1976; Simberloff & Abele, 1976; Whitcomb et al., 1976), there was agreement that fragmentation of a landscape led to loss of at least some species, often the rarest ones, Ecosystems were idiosyncratic and had to be considered individually. Unfortunately, the experimental or even empirical evidence supporting (or refuting) these theories was very fragmentary and itself based on idiosyncratic examples, so it was difficult to arrive at a consensus.

Application of biogeography theory to the Pinelands National Reserve Fortunately for the Pine Barrens, the uniqueness and value of the resource had been recognized from the first botanical expeditions in the 18th century. Many of the early collections by Philadelphia botanists came not from Pennsylvania but from New Jersey (Fairbrothers, 1979). Research on the flora, fauna and ecosystem properties has continued uninterrupted to the present, providing a strong data base on all aspects of the bio- diversity and biogeography as well as the hydrology, geology and soils of the region (Forman, 1979). No one questioned the validity of this data base, which was critical to both the establishment and the planning of the Reserve. In addition, there was only minor develop- ment pressure in the interior of the Pinelands. Even projections of development under conditions of uncon- strained growth at moderately high levels to 1990 indicated little growth within the northern and southern forest areas. However, this growth scenario included con- siderable development along the transportation belt from Atlantic City to Philadelphia (Pinelands Commission, 1980). Ecologists argued that this growth along the belt should be constrained to allow for a connecting corridor of undeveloped land between the northern and southern forests.

The Pinelands Commission applied the theory in recommending that the two largest areas of protected

Land management of New Jersey Pine Barrens 267

habitat be connected by a corridor of protected habitat. They proposed in the Comprehensive Management Plan that a major criterion for delineating areas for protection (rather than development) should be the location of (p. 198)

[a] corridor connecting environmentally sensitive areas in the southern portion of the Pinelands with the Preservation Area to the north. The corridor, defined as a large, contiguous, relatively underdeveloped land area, is an ecological imperative. Its function is to provide a protected natural passage for the dispersal of native plants and animals in order to maintain genetic diversity and variability. Should species movement and genetic exchange be restricted through the lack of such a corridor, there is an increased likelihood that changes in the natural and man-made envi- ronment would, over long periods of time, lead to the extirpation of one or more species in areas they now inhabit, and to the gradual fragmenta- tion and loss of the Pinelands ecosystem.

This rather forceful statement of the theoretical argu- ment referred to the protection of an 'underdeveloped' corridor of habitat, which was already subject to incipient development. The Pinelands Commission did not im- mediately accept this recommendation from their staff, but discussed it at length at several of their meetings (e.g. Commission Meetings, 27 June, 26 July and 24 October 1980), in the context of island biogeographic theory. The Commission included local representatives, several of whom were more concerned with economic development of the region than with extensive preserva- tion. The main area of contention was exemplified by questions asked by one of the most skeptical of the Commissioners, who observed that while some of the critical areas slated for stringent protection were clearly mappable and definable, the definition of something like a linkage corridor was a conclusion that presumes the importance of the corridor (Philip Nanzetta, 24 October 1980). In other words, its size and location cannot be precisely defined in ways that are not open to debate. The issue of fragmentation of the natural habitats was probably the most difficult concept to deal with in planning the Reserve (Good & Good, 1984).

Presentations and written reports made the theoretical point that according to the best available science, the corridor was critical to maintaining the integrity of the valuable Preservation and Forest Areas, especially in view of the large numbers of species with overlapping range limits. Omitting the corridor, or having only a small, discontinuous corridor, would decrease transfer of species between north and south and decrease the probability that if there were extinctions in the north or south there would be recolonization. Debate on this topic continued to occur sporadically into the next few months of the planning process, but it was finally accepted as being well enough established to be incor- porated into the final version of the Comprehensive

Management Plan, and thus into land-use allocation in the Pinelands National Reserve.

CONCLUSION

Planners of nature preserves have to make decisions based on inadequate information. If they were to wait for the critical information, the land to be preserved would be gone, i.e. the critical experiment would require leaving part of the natural area to be developed and protecting another part and comparing these two. Even such an experiment would be inadequate because of a lack of replication. Theories based on understanding similar systems and the biology of the species making up the communities in the reserve provide some guide- lines to design of the preserves. The best that planners can do is to use the best theory and information avail- able, in the way that will lead to the least damage to the system, and minimize irreversibility. After all, if it is found later that some areas can be developed with little damage, this can be done. The reverse is usually not possible (though restoration ecology is currently trying to deal with this dilemma).

This problem of making decisions based on inadequate information is even more difficult when one is dealing with limiting what individuals can do with their private property than when dealing with land purchase, which is expensive, but provides clear compensation for the landowner. In planning the Pinelands National Reserve, theory was used, so far successfully, to protect habitat threatened with development. Although because of its size and uniqueness it cannot serve as a controlled experiment on the value of connecting large forested areas by wide forested corridors, monitoring of extinc- tions in the northern and southern forests, and the actual migrations of species through the corridor, may provide useful empirical evidence of their value. The Reserve also presents the possibility of monitoring the loss of individuals that cross the three major highways that cut across the corridor and the transmission of disease or insect pests by means of the corridor, two concerns about setting up such systems.

As a model for setting up any such preserve in the future, the Pinelands experience in applying theory to land-use regulation provides several lessons. First, planning for preserves must incorporate the best in current theory. These theories will continue to develop, so that where possible the best decision is one which leaves the most options open for future changes. Second, when dealing with private land, the reasoning leading to the decision should be as widely disseminated and considered as possible, so that the basis for the decision is clear. Decisions related to private land may not be as directly costly as purchase of land, but losing legal challenges can nullify the preservation effort.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Research for this project was supported by Rutgers University.

268 E. IV. B. Russell

REFERENCES

Bartlett, M. et al. (1978). A plan for a Pinelands National Preserve. Report prepared for the National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office. Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Bazelon, D.L. (1981). The judiciary: What role in health improvement? Science, NY, 211,792-3.

Berger, J. & Sinton, J.W. (1985). Water, Earth, and Fire. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.

Burgess, R.L. & Sharpe, D.M. (1981). Forest Island Dynamics in Man-dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Collins, B.R. (1988). The backdrop for pinelands legislation. In Protecting the New Jersey Pinelands, ed. B.R. Collins & E.W.B. Russell. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N J, pp. 34-60.

Collins, B.R. & Russell, E.W.B. (eds) (1988). Protecting the New Jersey Pinelands. A New Direction in Land-use Management. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

Conant, R. (1979). A zoogeographical review of the amphibians and reptiles of southern New Jersey, with emphasis on the Pine Barrens. In Pine Barrens, ed. R.T.T. Forman. Academic Press, New York, pp. 467-88.

Diamond, J.M. (1975). The island dilemma: Lessons of modem biogeographic studies for the design of nature preserves. Biol. Conserv., 7, 129-46.

Diamond, J.M. (1976). Letter to the editor. Science, NY, 193, 1027-9.

Fairbrothers, D.E. (1979). Endangered, threatened, and rare vascular plants of the Pine Barrens and their biogeography. In Pine Barrens, ed. R.T.T. Forman. Academic Press, New York, pp. 395-405.

Forman, R.T.T. (ed) (1979). Pine Barrens. Ecosystem and Landscape. Academic Press, New York.

Forman, R.T.T., Galli, A.E. & Leck, C.F. (1976). Forest size and avian diversity in New Jersey woodlots with some land use implications. Oecologia Berl., 26, 1-8.

Good, R.E. & Good, N.F. (1984). The Pinelands National Reserve: An ecosystem approach to management. Bio- Science, 34, 169-73.

Good, R.E., Good N.F. & Andresen, J.W. (1979). The Pine Barren Plains. In Pine Barrens, ed. R.T.T. Forman. Academic Press, New York, pp. 283 95.

Governor's Pinelands Review Committee (1979). Planning and Management of the New Jersey Pinelands. Trenton, NJ.

Harshberger, J.W. (1970). The Vegetation of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Dover Publications Inc., New York.

Levenson, J.B. (1981). Woodlots as biogeographic islands in

southeastern Wisconsin. In Forest Island Dynamics in Man- dominated Landscapes, ed. R.L. Burgess & D.M. Sharpe Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 13-39.

Liroff, R.A. & Davis, G.G. (1981). Protecting Open Space. Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA.

Little, C.E. (1975). Green-Line Parks: An Approach to Pre- serving Recreational Landscapes in Urban Areas. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Environmental Policy Division, Washington, DC.

MacArthur, R.H. & Wilson, E.O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

McEwen, A. (1982). The National Parks, Conservation or Cosmetics? Allen and Unwin, London.

May, R.N. (1975). Island biogeography and the design of wildlife preserves. Nature, Lond, 254, 177-8.

Pinelands Commission (1980). Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pinelands National Reserve (National Parks and Recreation Act, 1978) and the Pinelands Area (New Jersey Pinelands Protection Act, 1979). Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, NJ.

Ranney, J.W., Bruner, M.C. & Levenson, J.B. (1981). The importance of edge in the structure and dynamics of forest islands. In Forest Island Dynamics in Man-dominated Land- scapes, ed. R.L. Burgess & D.M. Sharpe. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 67-95.

Rhodehamel, E.C. (1979). Geology of the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. In Pine Barrens, ed. R.T.T. Forman, Academic Press, New York, pp. 39-60.

Russell, E.W.B. (1988a). Federal and state pinelands legisla- tion. In Protecting the New Jersey Pinelands, ed. B.R. Collins & E.W.B. Russell. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N J, pp. 63-86.

Russell, E.W.B. (1988b). Preparation of the Comprehensive Management Plan: Issues and procedures. In Protecting the New Jersey Pinelands, ed. B.R. Collins & E.W.B. Russell, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N J, pp. 102-29.

Seamon, C.L. (1988). Legal and legislative challenges. In Protecting the New Jersey Pinelands, ed. B.R. Collins & E.W.B. Russell. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 261-74.

Simberloff, D.S. & Abele, L.G. (1976). Island biogeography theory and conservation practice. Science, NY, 191,285-6.

UNESCO (1984). Action plan for Biosphere Reserves. Nature and Resources, 20(4), 1-12.

Wacker, P.O. (1979). Human exploitation of the New Jersey Pine Barrens before 1900. In Pine Barrens, ed. R.T.T. Forman. Academic Press, New York, pp. 3-23.

Whitcomb+ R.F., Lynch, J.F., Opler, P.A. & Robbins, C.S. (1976). Letter to the editor. Science, NY, 193, 1030-2.