Multiple Wildfire Risk Reduction Plans Proposed for Mt. Emily Ridgeline
By Garrett Christensen on Tuesday, May 23rd, 2023 in More Top Stories Northeastern Oregon News
LA GRANDE – (Release from the La Grande Ranger District)
The La Grande Ranger District is proposing stand treatments adjacent to system roads along Mt. Emily ridgeline and subdrainages of the Mt. Emily ridgeline. Treatments in the project area are designed to reduce wildfire risk and increase future options for safe and effective fire management and would create a strategic fuel break between roadless areas on national forest lands and the wildland urban interface along the western edge of the Grande Ronde valley. This area includes many important social and natural values, and the high potential for wildfire transmission places these values at risk of substantial change. The La Grande Ranger District would like your constructive feedback on the Mt. Emily Ridgeline Project.
Background and Existing Conditions
Moist mixed-conifer forest dominates the project area. This dense, highly productive forest historically experienced wildfire disturbance regimes with moderate return intervals (35-200 years) and mixed severity burns (low to high). Pockets of widely spaced fire-tolerant species like ponderosa pine and western larch existed within this moist forest mosaic.
The practice of fire exclusion, beginning in the late 1800’s, has contributed to high stand densities in the project area. As a result, old fire-tolerant trees are crowded by fire-susceptible species that act as ladder fuels during wildfire events. The landscape’s vegetation pattern has shifted toward greater homogeneity and more continuous canopy cover, increasing the potential area over which wildfire (particularly stand replacing crown fire) could easily spread.
In addition to fire exclusion, existing conditions within the project area reflect a legacy of livestock grazing and large tree harvest. Stand structure and composition, conifer density, downed woody structure, and understory plant communities now deviate from historical conditions. These changes collectively elevate the potential for severe wildfire, insect and disease spread, and drought-related mortality. Climate change intensifies these risks.
Developments at Risk from Large Wildfires
The Mt. Emily Ridgeline Project falls within a high-risk fireshed identified for priority treatment by the Forest Service and planning partners as part of the Wildfire Crisis Strategy. This area regularly experiences lightning strikes during fire season, and wildfire transmission may place highly valued adjacent areas at risk: residences, private forestlands, Mount Emily Recreation Area (MERA), and the Mt. Emily Roadless area. Proximity to values at risk and the high likelihood for ignition to endanger these values were key factors in designating this area among the highest priority treatment areas in the nation.
The Mt. Emily Project area contains approximately 6,025 acres of La Grande Valley Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), including residences and private forestlands. A WUI Zone, as defined in the Union County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP, revised 2016), is “An area strategically identified that provides effective wildfire defense for communities, infrastructure, and other values at risk or intermingle with wildland fuels and offer opportunities for broadened mitigation measures designed to interrupt wildfire spread and modify wildfire behavior in order to protect social, economic, and environmental interest.”
Dense stands along access roads also threaten firefighters’ ability to safely access and protect these areas during a wildfire event. The proposed roadside treatments would increase potential for safe and effective fire suppression.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Past investment in forest thinning and fuels reduction activities have occurred on adjacent national forest, county, and non-industrial private forestlands. The treatments within the Mt. Emily Project area are designed to reduce wildfire intensity and transmission potential between the Mt. Emily Recreation and Roadless areas and the Grande Ronde Valley. Treatment of the Mt. Emily Project with both recently completed and planned work on adjacent private and county lands will help promote fire adapted communities and restore resilient landscapes as envisioned by the National Cohesive Wildfire Strategy (CWS).
Wildlife Habitat Consideration
The project area historically sustained moist upland forest habitat for wildlife species dependent on mixed conifer, multi-story stands with relatively high canopy cover and down woody debris. The project area also contains summer range for elk. Heavy fuel loading and overstocking compromise the habitat suitability of these stands by increasing the risk for uncharacteristic disturbance events which can alter old growth habitat.
Vegetation Profiles
Potential Vegetation Groups
Potential Vegetation Group (PVG) is an aggregation of Plant Association Groups (PAGs) with similar environmental regimes and dominant plant species. Each PVG typically includes PAGs representing a predominant temperature or moisture influence (Powell 2019).
Cold Upland Forest (0.1% of the project area)
• This forest type represents less than 1% of the project area and will not receive treatment, therefore it will not be discussed further.
Dry Upland Forest Group Characteristics (10% of the project area)
• Low to moderate productivity.
• Stands were historically maintained by fire and dominated by shade intolerant species like western larch and ponderosa pine.
• Species composition in these stands are now a mix of grand fir, Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine with some lodgepole, Engelmann spruce and western larch.
• Understory conifers are mostly grand fir and Douglas-fir seedlings and saplings. • Ground vegetation is dominated by snowberry, pinegrass, and elk sedge.
Moist Upland Forest Group Characteristics (63% of the project area)
• Most productive sites in the Blue Mountains.
• Species composition in these stands are a mix of species and size classes with predominantly Douglas- fir and grand fir, followed by lodgepole pine, spruce, and subalpine fir cover types. • Understories are dominated by ocean spray, big huckleberry, and twinflower.
Purpose and Need for Action
The district identified a set of resource conditions within the planning area that do not meet desired future conditions outlined in the 1990 Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended. To reduce the gap between desired and future conditions, there is a need to:
1. Create and maintain fuel profiles within the project area that minimize risk to firefighter and public safety, adjacent private and county lands, natural resources, and developed lands (ex. private residences/structures, Mount Emily Recreation Area) in the event of a wildfire.
2. Create and maintain vegetative conditions that are more resistant and/or resilient to anticipated increases in fire frequency and severity due to climate change.
3. Restore and maintain vegetative conditions and wildlife habitats consistent with the historic range of variation in terms of vegetation composition, structural stages, and disturbance patterns (fire regimes).
Proposed Action
The interdisciplinary team selected treatment units based on the following elements:
Treatments are focused on previously managed stands.
Most units have records of previous management. Units with no documented management records have large diameter stumps scattered throughout, indicating historic removal of large diameter early seral species.
Treatments are within an established WUI area.
Most units are in a WUI area identified by the Union County Wildfire Protection Plan. Proposed units could serve as a strategic fuel break and reduce the risk of wildfire transmission from National Forest System (NFS) land to adjacent private and county lands. Treatment would also improve fire management options by creating conditions that reduce risk to firefighter and public safety.
Treatments proposed within fire regime condition class 2 or 3.
Most treatments are proposed within moist PVG stands with moderate departure from historic conditions and where the expected fire regime is moderate frequency (35-200 years) with mixed severity (Low to High). Moist forest treatments focus on areas where remnant fire-tolerant western larch and ponderosa pine indicate large-diameter, widely spaced, and early seral species existed historically.
Most treatment units are adjacent to existing open and closed roads for unit access.
No new system roads are proposed. Unit proximity to high-use National Forest System (NFS) roads prevents these areas from functioning as satisfactory security habitat for big game species. We determined the project area includes sufficient cover and foraging habitat for big game species away from roads, and we do not plan to treat these critical habitat areas.
Commercial Fuels Reduction and Vegetation Management Treatments
HTH- Commercial Thinning
The proposed action includes three different intensity levels of commercial thinning (low, moderate, and high). In general, overstory conditions managed by high intensity thinning would remove more trees to create more open stands, while low intensity thinning would remove fewer trees to retain a denser canopy. Intensity levels would be informed by PVG, with the goal of returning stands to the historic range of variation1.
Unhealthy, suppressed, and/or fire or drought intolerant trees would be selectively removed to provide remaining healthy, fire and drought tolerant trees with enough resources to reduce the risk of disease and insect infestations. Additionally, commercial thinning would remove enough understory trees (ladder fuels) wildfire transmission into the forest canopy.
Non-commercial thinning may follow commercial thinning to remove trees less than seven inches diameter at breast height and other ladder fuels. Prescribed fire may also be applied to reintroduce natural processes into the ecosystem, reducing ground fuel loading, and remove the lower branches from remaining trees, helping to further reduce the chances of crown fire.
HTH-GS Commercial Thinning with Group Selection
Commercial thinning with group selection is a variation of commercial thinning (above) that includes patch cuts to create favorable conditions for early seral species in places with natural openings. Patch cuts would not exceed five acres and would be less than twenty percent of a stand’s total acreage. Within each patch cut, healthy drought tolerant species would be retained. Non-commercial thinning and prescribed burning (described in post-harvest for commercial thinning above) may follow to meet project objectives.
Non-Commercial Fuels Reduction and Vegetation Management Treatments
Shaded Fuel Breaks (FUM/FUH)
Shaded fuel breaks reduce fuel loading and modify fire intensity adjacent to fire control features such as roads or ridge tops. This treatment provides firefighters and fire managers with a selection of safer options for optimizing prescribed and natural fires and reduces the risk of high severity fire with associated impacts to nearby infrastructure such as electrical utilities, radio repeater towers and range allotments.
Managers would treat these units with non-commercial thinning and pile burning to increase tree spacing and remove ladder and ground fuels. Units can vary from 100 – 1,000 feet wide, depending on vegetation and topography. Shaded fuel breaks would be thinned periodically over time to maintain effectiveness.
With this prescription we plan to:
• Mechanically treat (FUM) vegetation on slopes 30% or less with a slash-buster or a grapple piling tracked machine.
• Treat slash (piled and burned or lopped and scattered) if located in a strategically important area for wildfire response.
Riparian Vegetation Non-commercial Treatments
Stands within riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) have moved away from historic composition and structure. Conifer competition has reduced the health and quantity of riparian hardwoods, shrubs, and grasses. Additionally, high fuel loads within RHCAs increase the risk of losing key ecosystem components such as streamside trees, downed wood, and snags in a wildfire. A high-intensity fire would also increase erosion potential.
Limited and site-specific non-commercial treatments within RHCAs are proposed to help return the riparian system to more historic conditions, reduce potential impacts from high-intensity wildfire, increase downed wood in RHCAs, and support wildlife and riparian plant health. Riparian buffers would depend on stream categories, and all riparian treatments would comply with the Blue Mountain Project Design Criteria; a document describing treatments with minimal effects to streams in the Blue Mountains. No ground-based equipment would be used for treatment within RHCAs.
To preserve stream shade and reduce potential impacts to water temperature, thinning within RHCAs would target trees in the understory. Cut trees in RHCAs may be left on the ground as whole trees or boles if they can provide large woody debris to the channel. Alternatively, trees may be lopped and scattered or piled and burned to meet fuels objectives outlined in non-commercial units outside of RHCAs.
Prescribed Burning
No landscape/broadcast burning is proposed. Slash generated from thinning would be grapple or hand piled and burned when conditions allow.
Post-Sale Road Management Plan
No permanent changes to the existing road system are proposed.
Categorical Exclusion
Project activities were designed within the treatment limits of the Wildfire Resilience Categorical Exclusion, Section 605 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
Scoping Comments
Our interdisciplinary team would like to hear your constructive feedback on this project. District specialists will consider issues raised in comment letters to help refine our proposal before a decision is made. Specific written comments should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the purpose and need, and include rationale for the responsible official to review. We must receive scoping comments by June 20, 2023 for consideration in this project.
You may submit comments in two ways. Hardcopy comments can be mailed to:
La Grande Ranger District
c/o District Ranger Stephaney Kerley
3502 Hwy 30
La Grande, OR 97850.
Electronic comments should be submitted through the project webpage:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=63562. Select the “Comment on Project” link in the “Get Connected” group at the right side of the project webpage. For additional information contact the project team leader, Steven Cooke, at steven.cooke@usda.gov or give him a call at 541-962-8566.
