COMMON INVASIVE PLANTS OF RHODE ISLAND
The following information is from the Invasive Plant Atlas of New England's website (www.ipane.org), which includes information and links to other sites where you can identify and research the various invasive plants and their impacts on your property.  The Invasive Plant Management Guide is located on a UConn website:  www.hort.ucon.edu/cipwg, listed under "publications" at bottom of page.

Winged euonymus, or burning bush: 
Euonymus alata was introduced as an ornamental shrub around 1860 and is planted in all types of landscaping - highways, malls, post offices, bridge abutments and private homes. It is through its use as a popular shrub that it was first introduced into this area.

Since the seeds of Euonymus alata are bird dispersed, it has spread extensively from plantings. Euonymus alata plants have been observed in dense thickets, threatening native plants by crowding and shading. Below the plant there is often a seed shadow where hundreds of seedlings can be found. It threatens a variety of habitats such as forests, coastal scrublands, fields and prairies. This plant continues to be used as an ornamental, thus continuing its spread in the region.

Japanese barberry: 
Berberis thunbergii, a shrub, was first introduced to the United States (and New England) as an ornamental in 1875, via seeds sent from Russia to the Arnold Arboretum in Boston. In 1896 it was planted at the New York Botanic Garden. Berberis thunbergii was later promoted as a substitute for Berberis vulgaris, which was planted by early settlers from Europe for hedgerows, dye and jam. Berberis thunbergii was not a host for the black stem grain rust, whereas Berberis vulgaris was.

Berberis thunbergii is shade tolerant, and forms dense stands in a variety of habitats ranging from closed canopy forests, to woodlands, wetlands, pastures, meadows and wasteland. It is readily dispersed by birds, which can bring the seeds many meters away from the parent plants. Though the exact effect on native flora is not determined, it could prove a great threat to native species. This threat is such that the plant is illegal for sale in Canada, and included on some banned lists in New England.

Japanese knotweed:
Polygonum cuspidatum was introduced from Japan to the United Kingdom probably sometime after 1830. It was first distributed around 1855 by the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew. From here it was popularized through garden catalogs. By the early 1900's, the rampant nature of its growth was observed, and the plant began to decline in popularity.

As in other parts of the country, Polygonum cuspidatum was brought into New England for ornamental gardens. From the gardens it likely spread via rhizomes as well as some of the few viable seeds.

The threat of Polygonum cuspidatum was first recognized in Britain, where it has been present for a longer period of time. It appears to behave similarly here, forming dense, persistant thickets that exclude other vegetation. Its vegetative reproduction has proved quite successful. Established populations are difficult to eradicate.

Autumn Olive:
Elaeagnus umbellata was first imported for cultivation into the U.S. in 1830 from Japan. In the 1940's Elaeagnus umbellata was often used for the revegetation of disturbed habitats. These plantings were often done because the fruits of Elaeagnus umbellata are a source of food for different types of animals (birds, mammals). However, because the fruit is so desirable to wildlife, birds and other animals have spread the plant throughout a wide range. In 1963, the cultivar 'Cardinal' (which has a heavy fruit-load) was released to nurseries for commercial purposes, adding to the species' spread via plantings along roads for soil conservation, landscaping and gardens. It has also been used to interplant with black walnut (Juglans nigra) to produce higher yields.
Once Elaeagnus umbellata is introduced to a region, it seems only a matter of time before it spreads due to the ability of the plant to produce up to 80 lbs. of fruit in a season. Birds (especially Starlings) readily eat the fruit in the fall and spread it for long distances. This efficient dispersal is what has allowed the plant to spread throughout New England.

Elaeagnus umbellata suppresses the growth of other plants by creating shade. It is a good competitor because of its ability to fix nitrogen. If it is cut, it resprouts abundantly. Even burning does not rid the area of this plant, because it still resprouts from the stump.

Oriental bittersweet:
Celastrus orbiculatus, a vine, was introduced to the United States from China as an ornamental around 1860. It reached Connecticut as early as 1916, and was collected from Massachusetts in 1919 and New Hampshire in 1938.

Celastrus orbiculatus causes major damage to native plants by girdling. Mechanical damage of trees and other plants is also caused by the additional weight added onto the branches, causing the branches to break. The vigorous growth of the vine also shades other species. Another threat is the possibility of it displacing American bittersweet (C. scandens). Celastrus scandens does not exhibit this aggressive growth, but it can hybridize with C. orbiculatus. People often use C. orbiculatus for wreathes and floral arrangements in the fall because of its colorful fruits. Oftentimes, after the plant is used it thrown away, and the fruits are dispersed this way.

Buckthorns (Rhamnus cathartica, Rhamnus frangula):
Common (European) buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and smooth (glossy) buckthorn (R. frangula) are exotic shrubs that readily invade natural communities. They have long growing seasons, rapid growth rates, and re-sprout vigorously following removal of aboveground tissues. Common buckthorn is typically found in woodlands and open fields, while glossy buckthorn most commonly invades wetland communities but can also be found in upland sites such as roadsides and old fields. Plants of both species reach seed bearing age quickly but can be easily distinguished. Common buckthorn blooms May through June during leaf expansion. It produces black fruits that ripen in August through September. Glossy buckthorn blooms after leaf expansion in late May through September, and can blossom on the current season's growth. Its fruits are initially red and turn black as they ripen in July through August. Fruits of both species are eaten by birds that can disperse them over great distances.

INVASIVE PLANTS A MAJOR FOREST HEALTH PROBLEM
The RI Natural History Survey has an Invasive Plant portal, where you can log in and get access to all sorts of information about the variety of invasive plants in our woodlots. The following introduction is from "Invasive plants: changing the landscape of America: fact book", by Randy Westbrooks and published by the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, 1998.

What Is An Invasive Plant?
Invasive plants have been called non-natives, exotics, aliens, non-indigenous harmful species, weeds, and a host of other names. All of these definitions incorporate a basic concept: invasive plants are plants that have been introduced into an environment in which they did not evolve and thus usually have no natural enemies to limit their reproduction and spread. Whether plants are transported across an ocean to a new country or across a mountain range into a new valley or from an infested farm to a non-infested farm, the result is often the same-their fast growth characteristics and high reproductive rates allow them to "invade" the new habitats.

Invasive plants do not constitute a separate biological category. However, invasive plants do have characteristics that permit them to rapidly invade new areas and out-compete native plants for light, water, and nutrients. Some of these characteristics include early maturation; extended growing season; profuse reproduction by seeds and/or vegetative structures; long life in the soil; adaptations for spread with crop seeds, by natural agents, and by humans; production of biological toxins that suppress the growth of other plants; prickles, spines, or thorns that can cause physical injury and repel animals; the ability to parasitize other plants; roots or rhizomes with large food reserves; survival and seed production under adverse environmental conditions; and high photosynthetic rates.

Since the early days of European colonization, thousands of plants have been purposefully introduced into the United States. While most of these species benefit society (for example, corn, rice, wheat, and soybeans), several hundred of these nonnative plants have become invasive. Many introduced plants appear innocuous when first introduced; these plants then adapt and, in the absence of their co-evolved predators, explode in their new environments. Many introduced plants that appear to pose no obvious threat to native ecosystems at this time could become invasive in years to come. Often by the time an invasive species is recognized as a major problem in a new area, it is well established and difficult or impossible to eliminate.

DEM ASKS CAMPERS TO USE ONLY LOCAL FIREWOOD TO PREVENT IMPORTATION OF INVASIVE WOOD-BORING INSECTS
Bookmarks Depicting Damaging Pests Sent to Libraries to Enlist Support of Patrons in Detecting Asian Longhaired Beetles
The Department of Environmental Management says tree-eating non-native insects can be transported in firewood, and is therefore asking campers to use only local firewood.

In letters sent to public and private campgrounds and recreational facilities throughout Rhode Island as part of an educational initiative, DEM's Division of Forest Environment says that non-native invasive insects such as emerald ash borer, Asian longhorned beetle, and Sirex woodwasp are potential threats that can be imported long distances in firewood from other states.

Along with the letters, the Division enclosed posters from the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service urging that people not move firewood. According to the Forest Service, the three non-native insects can kill large numbers of trees, and once transported into new areas can become established and kill local trees.

The Forest Service says people can help stop the spread of these invasive insects by:

• Leaving firewood at home – do not transport it to campgrounds or parks;
• Using firewood from local sources; and,
• If they have moved firewood, burning all of it before leaving their campsite.

As part of the same educational initiative, the Division has sent 18,000 bookmarks depicting Asian longhorned beetles, along with information about them, to libraries throughout Rhode Island to be made available to patrons.

Although the beetles are not believed to be in Rhode Island at this time, Catherine Sparks, Acting Chief of DEM's Division of Forest Environment says, "Early detection will be critical to the success of any eradication effort, and DEM relies on an educated public to assist in that detection. If found in Rhode Island, this insect has the potential to cause damage costing millions of dollars in clean-up, eradication, and replanting efforts."

RI DFE AACCEPTING FLEP STEWARDSHIP APPLICATIONS
Forestry Practices Now Available for FLEP Cost-share
The RI DEM's Division of Forest Environment (DFE), through the RI Forest Stewardship Program, recently announced that they are accepting applications for the development of Forest Stewardship Plans, and that they have adopted specifications for several forestry practices that are now eligible for funding under the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP).

This marks the first time in Rhode Island that practices have been eligible for cost-sharing since the Stewardship Incentive Program and the Agricultural Conservation Program were both replaced by the FLEP in the 2002 Farm Bill. Since then, only Forest Stewardship Plans have been cost-shared in Rhode Island.

As of June 28, 2006, the RI DFE is accepting cost-sharing applications for both the development of Forest Stewardship Plans and the implementation of the following practices:

• FLEP-3 – Forest Stand Improvement
  Practice Component: Marking of trees to be removed in non-commercial stands
  Practice Component: Thinning or Releasing trees in non-commercial stands
  Practice Component: Pruning
   
• FLEP-8 – Invasive Species Control

Standards and cost-share rates for each of these practices and their components have been sent out to the forestry consultants that operate in Rhode Island. If you have a forest management plan (it does not have to be a Forest Stewardship Plan) that identifies the need for one or more of these practices, you may be eligible for these cost-share funds.

For example, the cost-share rate for thinning trees in a non-commercial stand is 75% of the actual cost, not to exceed $300 per acre when no skidder is involved. The cost-share rates for invasives control is 75% of the actual cost, not to exceed $75 per acre for mechanical removal and $75 per acre for follow-up chemical treatment.

In order to qualify for the funds, your consulting forester has some work to do. There is a Practice Project Outline required, including detailed stand information that must meet certain criteria in order to qualify for the practice. This is not a do-it-yourself application process, although much of the actual work in the woods can be accomplished by the landowner, with an hourly rate applied to the actual cost eligible for reimbursement.

WINTER MOTH
by Catherine Sparks, RI Division of Forest Environment
The winter moth, Operophtera brumata (L.), is a European insect that feeds on several species of deciduous trees. Apple and oak are the preferred host trees but basswood, white elm, and Norway maple are commonly attacked. The insect was apparently introduced into Nova Scotia years ago. It now occurs in most of Nova Scotia, most of Prince Edward Island, and Albert County, New Brunswick. For several years, it was necessary to spray shade trees in order to prevent them from being seriously defoliated. The successful establishment in the Maritimes of introduced parasites and diseases have reduced winter moth numbers to a level where spraying in many areas is neither desirable nor necessary. The insect is sometimes found in association with other defoliators, including the fall cankerworm and spring cankerworm. In urban areas people may not only be annoyed by the damage to trees during outbreaks, but often are more disturbed by the larvae fall onto their sidewalks, houses, patios, shrubs, garden plants, automobiles, and clothing.

Life History and Habits
The eggs are pale green at first but after two weeks they become reddish orange. The are laid under lichens and bark scales, and in bark cervices. The eggs hatch in the spring into yellowish green larvae which become about 25 mm long. Most feeding is done during the second and third weeks of June. When foliage becomes depleted, large numbers drop prematurely from the trees in a frenzied search for food. In late June, they drop to the ground and form silken cocoons in the soil where they pupate and remain until fall.

The tawny-brown moths emerge from late October to mid-December. The female moth is nearly wingless, and unable to fly. It is about 8 mm long. After emergence, it crawls up the trunk of the nearest tree. The male is winged. After mating takes place, the eggs are laid and remain on he trees until the following spring.

Damage
Trees partially defoliated for four consecutive years will have considerable twig and branch mortality. Trees completely defoliated for four or five years may die. In some parts of Nova Scotia, about 40 percent of red oak in stands have been killed in the past by the winter moth.

Spraying of shade trees is only advisable if infestations are severe or are moderate and persistent.

Control
Since the female moths are wingless and must crawl up the trees to lay eggs in the fall, they may be prevented from doing so by putting temporary barriers around the trunks of isolated trees in mid-October. A sticky band of a substance known as "Tree Tanglefoot" may be spread around the trunk on a bank of heavy paper 15-20 cm wide The bark crevices beneath the paper should be filled with cotton. This trapping method may, however, offer only partial protection as small caterpillars in nearby infested trees drop on threads and can be carried to the banded trees by the wind.

The principal method of controlling winter moth outbreaks is to spray the trees with a registered chemical or biological insecticide. Begin watch for tiny holes to appear in leaves while the larvae are still small (during late May or early June).

These controls will also be effective against fall cankerworm and spring cankerworm which often feed in association with the winter moth.

Small trees can be sprayed with a conventional orchard sprayer, but trees more than 9 m high will require a more powerful hydraulic sprayer or a mist blower. Dilute sprays are applied with hydraulic sprayers and the foliage must be wetted completely to obtain adequate coverage. However, no attempt should be made to wet the foliage with concentrated sprays, which are applied with mist blowers.

Precautions
Pesticides, by their very nature, are designed to control pests. Because of this, persons using pesticides must ensure they use them correctly. Always read the product label prior to using the product. Ensure that the product is registered for the target pest and follow label specifications for mixing, application rates, disposal and safety precautions.

Pesticides must be handled with care. They are toxic if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Wear appropriate protective clothing, especially during mixing, to protect yourself from the pesticide. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after using pesticides and before eating, drinking, smoking or using the toilet. Ensure your protective clothing is washed after each use. Wash clothing worn while applying pesticides separate from other articles of clothing and run the washer through a full cycle before washing other articles of clothing.

Ensure pesticide containers are disposed of properly. Check to see if recycling facilities for plastic pesticide containers exist in your province. To dispose of pesticide containers, ensure that the containers are completely empty, triple rinsed or jet rinsed and punctured. For further information on the disposal of pesticide containers, contact your local pesticide regulatory agency.

RI'S FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
by Bruce Payton
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, in cooperation with Statewide Planning and other partners representing the environmental interests in the State, is in the process of updating the Rhode Island Forest Resource Plan.

The last update was done in 1985 and guides state and local policies that impact forest resources.

Private landowners own almost 60% of Rhode Island's forestland and it is important that they have input into the planning decisions that will develop policies impacting the forest resources that they own. Therefore, over 2700 survey questionnaires were sent out to forestland owners with land ownerships of 10 acres or more in 13 rural communities identified in 1988 RI Statewide Planning Program map delineating urban, suburban and rural communities. The Rural communities are defined as communities with less than 500 persons per square mile or a developed land area of less than 25%. It includes Burrillville, Glocester, Foster, Scituate, North Smithfield, Coventry, West Greenwich, Exeter, Hopkinton, Richmond, Charlestown, South Kingstown, and Little Compton.

645 people responded to the survey some of the preliminary findings are:

• 50% of the responses came from Burrillville, Foster, and Glocester. Have owned their properties for more than 25 years and are enrolled in the Farm, Forest and Open Space Tax program.
• 60% of the forestland owners have 10 – 30 acres.
• Almost 80% are concerned about the health of the forest.
• 82% believe the State of RI should allocate funds to acquire or purchase the development rights to important forestlands.

Greenwich Advertising, Ltd has carried out key stakeholder focus group discussions to obtain more in depth information on important forest resource issues. RIFCO members, Marc Tremblay, Tom Abbott, Rick Sousa, Dick and Janet White, Nat and Frank Arnold, Kevin Breene, Milt Schumacher and Scott Buxton attended various sessions to make sure RIFCO interests were discussed.

The Department of Environmental Management is now holding a public informational gathering session on the topic of forest resources on May 11, 2004 from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM at 60 Quaker Lane, Warwick, RI in the Natural Resources Conservation Service Conference Room.

For more information contact Gregg Cassidy in the Office of Sustainable Watersheds at 222-3434 extension 4403 or Bruce Payton in the Division of Forest Environment at 647- 4389.

FALL WEBWORM? EASTERN TENT CATERPILLAR? GYPSY MOTH?
by Catherine Sparks, RI Division of Forest Environment, 401-647-3367

Nasty, dirty, unsightly webs spreading through cherry trees, lilacs, butternut, birch and apple trees in late August and September can only be one of the above – fall webworm is the correct answer! The giveaway word is "fall." You will find both eastern tent and gypsy moth caterpillars feeding and making a nuisance of themselves only during the spring. All of these caterpillars are tree defoliators and are similar in appearance. However, each has some characteristics that distinguish them as follows:

Fall webworm
Fall defoliator – August into Sept.
Food: varies over 100 forest hardwoods
Spreading messy webbing covering clusters of branches
Caterpillars feed within the web
Very hairy dark caterpillar

Eastern tent caterpillar
Spring defoliator – late April and May
Food: mostly cherry and apple trees
Tightly constructed "tent" of webbing located at branch unions
Caterpillars rest in the web and feed out of it
Blue markings on sides of caterpillar and a white stripe down the middle of the back.

Gypsy moth caterpillar
Spring defoliator – May and June
Food: favors oak species but will feed on more then 500 tree and shrubs
NO TENT!
Usually 5 pairs of blue knobs and 6 pairs of red knobs along the top of the caterpillar; also very hairy.

The "tents" and masses of webbing produced by the fall webworm and the tent caterpillar provide necessary shelter for them. You can minimize damage to your trees by breaking the webs apart with a stick to expose the insects to predators. You may have to do this several times. This technique may not be as satisfying as firing up a propane torch and burning them out, but be assured that it is far less hazardous for your trees and yourself to simply pull the webbing apart.

Butternut Search
To assist with a research project out of the University of Vermont, I am looking for locations of forest stands (or clusters of several trees) of butternut, Juglans cinerea, in Rhode Island. These can be planted or naturalized stands but must be in the forest rather than a backyard or farm field setting. If you know of a stand like this, give me a call at 647-3367.

Forestry, Water Quality, and the 2002 Farm Bill

Although timber harvesting practices have been identified as a minor contributor to non-point source (NPS) pollution (5 percent overall), state and federal agencies focus on the prevention of the potential soil erosion, stream sedimentation, and wetland impacts that logging can bring about.

The practices that are recommended to minimize water quality impacts are labeled Best Management Practices (BMP's). Most, if not all, states now have Forestry BMP Manuals that are imposed upon landowners and loggers either voluntarily or by regulation. Studies have shown that the use of these BMP's have a significant benefit to water quality and environmental health.

Here in Rhode Island, RIFCO is in the process of upgrading the BMP Manual we printed in 1996 to an expandable format with broader forest management chapters. A pocket guide will be included that focuses on the water quality practices. These BMP's are utilized in the wetlands exemption process that allows temporary stream and wetland crossings, and harvesting in wetlands, through the Intent to Cut procedure.

But there are situations where existing conditions are resulting in long-term degradation of soil and water resources. Most properties have some stream crossings, old woods roads with unstable slopes, or some other undesirable condition that could use a little improvement work.

The new Farm Bill recently authorized by Congress includes a couple of programs that may be able to help alleviate some of these problems. The US Forest Service will be developing guidelines for the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), which replaces the older FIP and Stewardship Incentives Programs (SIP). FLEP will include practices to improve water quality and establish riparian buffers.

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly Soil Conservation Service) has a program called Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). This program, which is administered here in Rhode Island by Joe Bachand, has cost-sharing monies available for similar water-quality related practices. The new Farm Bill is providing a significant increase in the level of funding for all states.

According to NRCS State Conservationist Judy Doerner, "The EQIP program is not just for farmers, it's for all landowners. We would like to see more forest landowners implementing these improvements." EQIP requires a preliminary assessment and management plan, which then qualifies the applicant for funding to carry out recommended practices. This procedure is similar to the Forest Stewardship planning and practice implementation some forest landowners have participated in over the past 10 years.

For more information on EQIP, contact Joe Bachand at 828-1300. The FLEP guidelines will be developed later this year, and funds should be available through the RI Division of Forestry next spring.

Tree Farm Certification - Does your tree farm meet the guidelines?

By Rob MacMillan, RI Tree Farm Chairman

Over the last ten years or so, third party certification of forest management has become a hot topic in the forestry world. The idea is to certify that forest land is being well managed on a sustainable basis to supply a continuing flow of forest products and the other benefits which they provide: clean water; wildlife habitat; and recreation (sounds familiar, doesn't it?).

Currently two big certifiers in the United States are the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the American Forest & Paper Association's Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) . In addition, through an agreement with the American Forest & Paper Association, certified Tree Farms are certified under the SFI program.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has recently finished an internal management review to evaluate if the Tree Farm System is in a position to become a recognized certifier. PwC looked at the national office, four state programs, and accompanied inspectors in the field to review the procedures they followed. The results are favorable and PwC summarized the following in their report ...

They found some deficiencies and areas which needed improvement, and over the next several years these improvements will be made. These improvements will make Tree Farm a stronger program as well as move them towards being recognized as a certification program. While becoming a Green Certifier may be important to keep Tree Farm a viable program, it will not compromise its mission to promote forestry on private lands and educating the public of all the benefits of productive forestry.

How this, and Green Certification in general will impact forestry in the United States is yet to be seen. Only time will tell if consumers will be willing to pay for good forest management on forestland they may never see.

Tree Farm News

• RI's Tree Farmer of the Year - The Turnquist Family
   
• 50th Anniversary Tree Farmers
   
• Tree Farmer Ron Fasano Helps Plant a Tree During National Meeting

High Grading In New England Forests

Adapted from an article by Michael Mauri, in "Woodland Steward," a publication of the Massachusetts Forestry Association.

High-grading is a term used to describe forest harvesting which removes the valuable trees, leaving behind trees primarily of poor form, health, value or potential value. The direct benefit of high-grading is short-term economic gain. The landowner benefits from the income, along with the logger, the sawmill and those government agencies that tax timber income. The costs of high-grading, however, are borne primarily by the landowner alone, costs which may not even be revealed until long after the harvest. Ultimately, of course, the cumulative cost of high-grading will be borne by everyone in New England.

Take the Best, Leave the Rest?

The classic textbook on silviculture equates high-grading with thinking of a woodlot "merely as a magic warehouse into which one ventures sporadically," taking any trees with current value. With high-grading, there is typically no long-term silvicultural plan to develop and reap future benefits from a woodland.

High-grading is a term usually reserved for critics of the technique. More commonly, it is called diameter-limit cutting, which means cutting all merchantable trees above a certain diameter, (say 12 or 14 inches), selection cutting, or thinning. The use of these terms is confusing because they can be legitimate silvicultural practices when applied in appropriate situations.

The dazzle of short-term gain through high-grading is bolstered by a lingering ignorance and even a good feeling about releasing what often merely appear to be young trees. Commonly, the smaller trees are not younger at all, but merely spindly, suppressed trees that are almost as tall as their neighbors. These are the trees that should be removed. Often, the trees left behind are too crowded to permit adequate seeding in of a future forest of healthier, better-formed trees. Other times, overstory trees may be so sparse as to excessively favor regeneration of sun-loving pioneer species with low potential value, such as red maple and aspen.

Cause for Concern

What impact might high-grading have on the forest products industry in New England? "The future availability of high quality hardwood sawlogs from Massachusetts woodlots may be reduced," says Rob Rizzo, forester for Berkshire Hardwoods, in Chesterfield, Mass. Rizzo's "gut feeling" is that "a current lack of silviculture in harvesting operations on private lands;" i.e. high-grading, is reducing overall tree and log quality.

As for damage to woodlands caused by high-grading, UMASS Extension Forester David Kittredge points to the resiliency of the southern New England forest, which has recovered - by default, as it were - from agricultural clearing, giving us the forest we have today. Future species value is hard to predict, he says. Red oak, for example, which is now our most valuable species, was once girdled to make room for pine and hemlock. Our future forest may contain more red maple and birches, and less pine and oak, he says, but it will still be forest in the general sense, providing forest products and all the ecological and aesthetic functions we expect of forest ecosystems.

Why High-Grading?

The lack of silviculture in New England woodlots stems from a variety of causes. It is hard to say how much high-grading on private lands is due to a lack of information on the part of landowners, a lack of care, tempting offers of quick money (sometimes offered on the spot), or sheer default. Sometimes a landowner will consciously decide to liquidate the current value of their woodlot, which is their right. Another cause is the high relative cost of logging the low value trees. A common and legitimate complaint is that southern New England needs better markets for low grade forest products. The rest of the responsibility, Rizzo adds, must be chalked up to those who know better but do not inform landowners of the long-term consequences of a proposed harvest.

Rhode Island's Intent to Cut Notification

Does Rhode Island have a built-in system to help avoid degradation of our forests? Not really. The RI Division of Forestry has an "Intent to Cut Notification" process, which requires that loggers notify the Division of an impending timber harvest, but it's primary purpose is to track the amount of timber harvested and allow the state's forester an opportunity to protect wetlands. According to Tom Abbott of the RI Division of Forestry, his review of a site is primarily to assure compliance with the Forestry Best Management Practices guidelines, and not the application of silviculture.

Visions of Sustainability

Looking ahead, how can you ensure that high-grading does not occur on your land, if that is not what you want? Develop a relationship with a professional forester or logger who will help you think through and manage future scenarios for your woodlot. Get your plan down on paper. A timely call to a Service Forester can provide a valuable second opinion. If someone proposes to cut your woods, ask tough questions about which trees will generate the future value, and what the next step towards producing that value will be. Refer to your written long-term plan. In the end, it is up to the landowner to determine the future condition and value of a woodlot. If money is urgently needed and all the options are known and weighed, then high-grading may well be the right decision. But clearly, only a landowner who understands the long-term consequences can know if high-grading is the best choice.