The MVCC and U.S. Forest Service said they will work toward a collaborative long-range monitoring plan for the Mission Project.
Site monitoring looked at trees left after logging
Monitoring of logging and forest-restoration work in the Mission Project by the Methow Valley Citizens Council (MVCC) and the Methow Valley Ranger District reached different conclusions about whether the number of trees left standing and the spacing of those trees comply with the project requirements.
After receiving MVCC’s monitoring report in early November, the ranger district did its own monitoring. That report was issued in early January. Logging in the Mission Project started last summer and fall.
The different findings illustrate “the need for a consistent, repeatable, and rigorous monitoring program that is mutually agreed upon between the partners and the [U.S.] Forest Service,” the district said in its report.
Project specifications set different treatments for dry and moist forests and for areas affected by parasitic mistletoe. Each treatment type gives a range for the number of trees to be left per acre. There are also subtypes within the units. For example, in the Dry Forest Restoration Thin units, the project’s environmental analysis (EA) specifies leaving 20 to 30 trees in some areas and 40 to 50 in others, depending on the tree species and how dry or moist it is.
Logging was done using a process called designation by prescription (DxP), which allows loggers to select trees for removal based on a detailed description, rather than have Forest Service staff mark trees to leave standing, according to Methow Valley District Ranger Chris Furr. A ranger district employee made regular visits to all the units during logging to ensure that the contractors were following the prescription.
MVCC Forest Field Specialist Sam Israel evaluated five units last fall and found that, in all units, the number of trees per acre left standing was below the minimum in the range for that prescription. He also found inconsistencies between the numbers in the EA and the DxP contract.
For example, in unit 2, the EA set a range of 30 to 50 trees per acre after treatment. The contract set a range of 30 to 40. But Israel found just 18 trees left standing in that unit. In unit 20, both the EA and DxP specified 20 to 30 trees per acre. Israel found 12 trees left.
The ranger district did its own monitoring of the same units. In unit 2, during active logging, the ranger district counted 25 trees per acre. After receiving MVCC’s report, the district set up confirmation plots to compare with MVCC’s findings and counted 24 trees. Both results are within the 23- to 30-tree goal set in the EA, according to the district.
In unit 20, the ranger district counted 22 trees during logging and 20 in its confirmation plots, also within the goals.
Hampton Lumber, the successful bidder on the logging sale, has operated well within the scope of the contract and the treatment prescription, Furr said this week.
The ranger district used a different methodology for its monitoring plots. “Our treatments and prescriptions take a landscape-level approach and the sampling methods we utilized reflect that and look at overall implementation, rather than a single point of reference,” Furr said.
In some units, the number of remaining trees came in below the minimum because the prescription allowed loggers to cut additional trees if they found a high incidence of mistletoe or root rot, the district said. Mistletoe is the primary reason some units had fewer trees per acre after logging, Furr said.
MVCC found 13 trees per acre in this unit, far below the expected range of 40-50. In some areas, more trees had to be cut because they were affected by parasitic mistletoe, the ranger district said.
Pattern of trees
Israel also looked at the pattern of remaining trees in the forest. The EA specifies that trees be left in a pattern of individuals, clumps and openings (ICO).
The ranger district acknowledged that the ICO objectives had been discussed at length in the EA, but “were not sufficiently carried forward” into the DxP contract. The contract focused on silvicultural priorities, including raising the canopy height, thinning dense forests, and selecting for the healthiest trees to return the overall landscape to a healthy, fire-resilient state, it said.
But in some areas, the poor health of some trees made it difficult to ensure that openings resemble historic patterns while also achieving fuels-reduction goals. Large trees may be removed to favor healthy Ponderosa pines over Douglas firs. As a result, a larger fir might be removed if it was diseased, the district said.
The EA allows the use of multiple treatments where needed to meet landscape objectives. “Ultimately, forest structure and stand health at the time of treatment will determine how treatments are implemented on the landscape,” the district said.
“Individuals, small and large clumps, and openings should exist in all harvested subdivisions; however, we agree that their relative abundance and distribution can be improved,” the district said.
Looking toward collaboration
The ranger district pointed to opportunities for collaboration between conservation groups such as MVCC and other partners in the North Central Washington Forest Health Collaborative on monitoring to achieve the goal of healthy, fire-resistant landscapes.
“We are facing a wildfire crisis. Fuels reduction in areas like Mission that are adjacent to communities is the Forest Service’s highest priority, and we have seen locally how important these treatments are for containing large fires,” Furr said this week.
MVCC also hopes the monitoring will help the entities work together to create healthy forests. “Our hope is that this report opens up dialogue with the Forest Service about how we can improve implementation as the Project resumes this spring,” MVCC said.
Involving the public in monitoring and implementation of large-scale restoration projects is important for building support and understanding, MVCC Executive Director Jasmine Minbashian said this week.
MVCC acknowledged that prescriptions have multiple objectives. “It is not always possible to achieve all of these objectives in every stand simultaneously. The results of this monitoring effort should be interpreted in this light,” MVCC said.
The MVCC monitoring was paid for by the Wilderness Society, with the goal of better understanding forest-health treatments and supporting adaptive management, according to the report.
The Wilderness Society, MVCC and the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest are all members of the forest health collaborative. The collaborative represents groups including tribes, environmental organizations and timber companies.
The district invited MVCC and other interested partners to help develop a long-range monitoring plan. “Having a shared monitoring approach would prevent the time, trouble, and miscommunication that would prevent us all from meeting our objective of a healthy forested landscape resilient to high-intensity wildfire,” the district said.
Mission Project history
The Mission Project encompasses about 50,000 acres within the Twisp River, Buttermilk Creek and Libby Creek watersheds. Less than 4% of the total area will be commercially logged. The project is the first to use a landscape-scale restoration strategy.
MVCC filed a friend of the court brief on the side of the Forest Service in a 2019 lawsuit brought by a conservation group that contended the Mission Project would threaten habitat for endangered species. MVCC’s brief highlighted the benefits of the Mission Project to wildlife habitat and the environment. The judge ruled in favor of the Forest Service.
Commercial thinning on the Mission Project continues this year and may be completed in 2024. Noncommercial thinning will be carried out over the next three to five years, followed by prescribed fire and burning hand piles.
Hampton Lumber and its subcontractors are doing the commercial logging. Revenue from the sale will be used to fund restoration treatments.
Both monitoring reports are available online. The MVCC report is at mvcitizens.org. The ranger district report is on the Mission Project page at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=49201 under Post-Decision documents.
