Laserfiche WebLink
<br />... - '- <br /> <br />.... .~~ <br /> <br />I TABLE III <br /> Wildlife Habitat Evaluation <br /> Without Project With Project Difference <br /> Without With <br /> Recommendations Recommenda tions <br />Species 1/ Acres Man-Days Acres Man-Days Acres Man-Days <br />Mule Deer 4200 510 0 0 oy 480 -30 <br />Turkey 3800 24 0 0 0 0 -24 <br />Forest grouse 420 5 0 0 0 0 -5 <br />Sage grouse 900 1/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />Cottontail <br />rabbit 4700 50 0 0 0 y 30 -20 <br />Snowshoe hare 600 8 0 0 0 0 -8 <br />Furbearers 4700 226 200 14 200 14 -212 <br />Sub Total 823 14 494 -299 <br />Native Non-game <br />Wildlife 4700 670 0 0 1800 140 -530 <br /> <br />1/ Impact on elk, black bear, and waterfowl habitat is not measurable. <br />2/ Deer winter range lost is not replaced. Hunting use is restored by <br />increasing carrying capacity on existing ranges. <br />3/ Presently unoccupied sage grouse habitat. <br />4/ Hunting use is partially restored by increasing carrying capacity on <br />proposed management area. <br /> <br />I <br />N <br />a> <br />I <br />