Laserfiche WebLink
• these Leks in relation to the proposed alternative transportation routes is <br />depicted in Figure 4-4. <br />Within the proposed affected area, habitat suitability for sage grouse <br />appears to be low. Of the 2,860 ac of sagebrush shrub which occur within <br />the area (Horner and Associates 1985), the largest and best developed <br />stands occur in Sections 11, 15, 16, 20, and 21 of T3N, R93W. Leks most <br />frequently occur in openings surrounded by low, sparse sagebrush. Nests <br />are usually located within two miles of Leks, in sagebrush stands of 20-40 <br />percent canopy coverage where plants measure 7-31 in. in height (Call et <br />al. 1974). During winter, sage grouse are closely associated with <br />sagebrush which forms the greatest majority of their diet. Although <br />sagebrush stands in this area appear to meet structural requirements <br />preferred for mating and nesting, terrain is generally steep and may limit <br />sage grouse habitat suitability. No grouse were observed during fixed-wing <br />or helicopter surveys of the study area completed during 1983-1985. <br />• Sagebrush habitat occurs along both alternative transportation corridors <br />and probably provides year-around habitat for sage grouse. Segments of <br />these two routes which lie within the Wilson and Good Spring Creek canyons <br />have been impacted by agriculture and by roads which parallel the proposed <br />transportation corridors. Sage grouse habitat in these areas is probably <br />limited to sagebrush stands above the bottoms. Habitats transversed by <br />route No. 2 consist primarily of agricultural lands and appear to be <br />marginal as sage grouse cover. Sagebrush shrublands in Sections 15, 21, <br />and 22 of T4N, R93W along route No. 1, appear to be suitable as year-around <br />sage grouse habitat. Similarly, sagebrush surrounding the existing Wilson <br />Creek rail spur probably provides brood and winter sage grouse habitat. <br />Sage grouse are hunted throughout the state and the 1982 estimated harvest <br />in small game management unit 16 was regionally significant (Table 4-4). <br />Information concerning hunting pressure within the study area does not <br />exist, however harvest within the proposed affected area is probably very <br />i <br />limited and not regionally significant. <br />• <br />4-17 <br />