Hi-Grouse Project Scenic Report Amendment 1

Hi-Grouse Project Scenery Report Amendment

This amendment to the Hi-Grouse Project Scenery Report evaluates the effects of modifications to the 

alternatives on the analysis completed in August 2009.

Background

In December 2009, upon review of updated goshawk habitat information and further analysis, it was 

discovered that Forest Plan goshawk Standard and Guideline (S&G) 8-20 would not be met under any 

alternative. To meet goshawk S&G 8-20, alternative 2 would require substantial changes that would 

move it closer to alternatives 3 and 4; alternatives 3 and 4 would require slight modifications. 

On January 4, 2010, District Ranger Laura Allen reviewed the information from the ID team and 

recommended the proposed action (alternative 2) be dropped from further study, because it would not 

comply with NGH S&G 8-20, and modify alternatives 3 and 4 meet Forest Plan S&G 8-20. Forest 

Supervisor Patricia Grantham concurred with the recommendation and decided to drop the proposed 

action (alternative 2) from detailed study. Alternative 4 incorporated similar prescriptions as the original 

proposal and was identified as the modified proposed action.

Modifications to alternatives 3 and 4

The modifications to alternatives 3 and 4 include dropping approximately 86 acres and 108 acres of 

treatment, respectively. In addition under alternative 4 a modification in the treatment prescription for 

one unit was identified to maintain a higher level of basal area to maintain a higher level of canopy 

closure. See tables 1 and 2 for affected units and modifications to alternatives 3 and 4, respectively.

Table 1 Alternative 3 modifications to affected units

Unit # Original prescription and acres Changes/modified prescription and acres

11 192 acres underburn Unit boundary changed to drop 76 acres from treatment. 

Remaining 116 acres with underburn treatment

12a 245 acres of HTH-LP 9 acres dropped from treatment. Remaining 236 acres with 

HTH-LP treatment

13 183 acres of HTH-LP 1 acre will be excluded from unit, or left in untreated clump. 

Remaining 182 acres with HTH-LP treatment

Table 2 Alternative 4 modifications to affected units

Unit # Original prescription and acres Changes/modified prescription and acres

11 192 acres HTH-PP-Hvy with 

underburn

Unit boundary changed to drop 76 acres from treatment. 

Remaining 116 acres to be treated with HTH-PP with 

underburn treatment

12a 545 acres of HTH-LP 14 acres dropped from treatment. Remaining 531 acres with 

HTH-LP treatment

13 183 acres of HTH-LP 1 acre will be excluded from unit, or left in untreated clump. 

Remaining 182 acres with HTH-LP treatment

18 204 acres of HTH-MC-Hvy with Drop 17 acres from unit. Remaining 187 acres with HTH-MC-
Hi-Grouse Project Scenic Report Amendment 2

underburn Hvy treatment with underburn

Review of effects analysis

The units where treatments were dropped in alternatives 3 and 4 are dispersed in the western half of 

the Hi-Grouse project area. The units are located in areas with a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of 

Modification and are not near Scenic byways or concentrated public use areas such as snowmobile 

trails. 

The small reductions in treatment over the 7,450 acre project area does not change the effects 

discussed in the August 2009 Scenery Report. Table 3 reiterates the comparison of effects for scenic 

integrity/Forest Plan VQO and scenic stability for the alternatives studied in detail.

Table 3 Comparison of alternative effects for scenic integrity/Forest Plan VQO and scenic stability

Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Visual Quality Objective

Partial Retention Meets VQO Meets VQO Meets VQO

Modification Meets VQO Meets VQO Meets VQO

Scenic Stability

Overall Project Area 

Existing Condition is Very 

Low Stability 

No 

improvement

Minimal 

improvement

Minimal 

Improvement

Ponderosa Pine No 

improvement

Improves to low 

stability

Improves to low 

stability

Ponderosa Pine/Mixed 

Conifer

No 

improvement

No 

improvement

No 

improvement

Lodgepole Pine No 

improvement

Improves to low 

stability

Improves to 

moderate stability

Review completed by: Lois J. Pfeffer, Environmental Coordinator 1/28/2010