Nevada Department of Wildlife Wildlife Heritage Program

Project Summaries and State Fiscal Year 2022 Proposals

Table of Contents

Page

Section 1: Summaries of Recently Completed 1-1 and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects

Summary Table: Recently Completed and Active 1-2 Wildlife Heritage Projects

Project Summaries 1-5 to 1-22

2-1 Section 2: Wildlife Heritage Proposals Submitted for State Fiscal Year 2022 Funding 2-2 Summary Table: Wildlife Heritage Proposals Submitted for FY22 Funding

FY22 Proposals (proposal numbers from the 2-5 to 2-193 summary table are found on the upper right corner of each proposal page)

Section 1:

Summaries of Recently Completed and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects

This section provides brief summaries of Wildlife Heritage projects that were recently completed during State Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 and 2021. It also includes brief status reports for projects that were still active as of April 10, 2021.

The table on the following pages summarizes key characteristics about each of the projects that are addressed in this section. The financial status of these projects will be updated in early June and in time to be included in the support material for the June Wildlife Heritage Committee Meeting and the Board of Commissioners meeting.

1-1

Recently Completed and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects (active projects and those completed during FY20 and 21; expenditure data is according to DAWN as of April 10, 2021)

Heritage Project Heritage Award Dollars Spent as Number Name of Heritage Project Project Manager Amount of April 10 Status of Project

18-05 Overland Pass Pinyon and Juniper Thinning Caleb McAdoo, NDOW $150,000 $75,000 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 18-06 Goshute Mountains Springs Protection Matt Glenn, NDOW $45,000 $19,606.78 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 18-11 Cheatgrass Research Using Herbicides and a Biological Moira Kolada, NDOW $22,900 $0 Close, BLM unable to move forward Control Agent with clearances

19-07 Kern Mountain Habitat Improvement Project Moira Kolada, NDOW $30,000 $0 Completed with other funds

19-09 Bighorn Sheep Gene Transcription Analysis Nate LaHue, NDOW $84,500 $87,500 Completed

19-10 Comins Lake Boat Ramp Shane Boren, White Pine $55,000 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in CAB FY22 19-14 Cave Valley Ranch PJ Removal Project Lauren Williams, DCNR $59,674.01 $30.31 Completed

20-03 South Mountains Habitat Restoration Moira Kolada, NDOW $75,000 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 20-05 Egan Johnson Basin Restoration Moira Kolada, NDOW $70,000 52,190 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 20-06 North Cave Valley Habitat Restoration Moira Kolada, NDOW $60,157.65 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 20-07 Prioritizing and Protecting Natural Water Resources Cody Schroeder, NDOW $50,000 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 20-09 Big Game Survey Tool Cody McKee, NDOW $70,000 $41,415 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 20-10 Maximizing the Effectiveness of Common Raven Pat Jackson, NDOW $70,000 $68,194 Ongoing, completion expected in Removal FY22 20-12 Staheli Chaining Maintenance Project Cory Lytle, Lincoln County $75,000 $51,603 Ongoing, completion expected in CAB FY22

1-2

Recently Completed and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects (active projects and those completed during FY20 and 21; expenditure data is according to DAWN as of April 10, 2021)

Heritage Project Project Manager Heritage Dollars Spent Number Name of Heritage Project Award Amount as of April 10 Status of Project

20-13 Blacktop Apron Guzzler Upgrade Clint Bentley, $21,400 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Fraternity of the FY22 Desert Bighorn 20-14 Mormon #3 “Prospect” Guzzler Upgrade Clint Bentley, $21,615 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Fraternity of the FY22 Desert Bighorn 20-16 Bighorn Disease Susceptibility Analysis Matthew Blackburn, $59,530 $59,530 Completed Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn 21-01 2020-2021 Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Mike Cox, NDOW $68,900 $49,619 Completed, remaining funds Capture, Transplant and Monitoring invoiced 21-02 Rocky Mountain Elk Population Monitoring and Cody McKee, NDOW $61,000.00 $61,000 Completed Harvest Validation 21-03 Marlette Lake Broodstock Facilities/Passage Travis Hawks, NDOW $100,000.00 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Improvement Project Phase 2 FY22 21-04 Wildfire-Related Restoration and Seed Purchase Lee Davis, NDOW $146,000.00 $146,000 Completed 21-05 Desert Creek Conservation Easement Shawn Espinosa, $100,000.00 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in NDOW FY22 21-06 Middle Rock Creek Habitat Improvement Matt Glenn, NDOW $125,000.00 $29,495.15 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 21-07 Continued Monitoring of Moose Expansion in Nevada Cody McKee (Kari $20,000.00 $18,323 Completed Huebner), NDOW 21-08 Snake Range Aspen Habitat Restoration Project Moira Kolada, NDOW $30,000.00 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in FY22 21-09 Toano Mountain Restoration Project Lindsey Lesmeister $66,000.00 $40,000 Completed 21-10 Egan Johnson Basin Restoration Moira Kolada $75,000.00 $0 Completed 21-11 Area 10 Mule Deer Migration Corridor Habitat $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Caleb McAdoo $50,000.00 Enhancement FY22 21-12 Toiyabe PMU (Bates, Hickison and Wolf Ranches) $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Jeremy Lutz $75,000.00 Pinyon-Juniper Thinning FY22 21-13 $0 Ongoing, completion expected in SE Schell Habitat Restoration Project Moira Kolada $75,000.00 FY22

Recently Completed and Active Wildlife Heritage Projects (active projects and those completed during FY20 and 21; expenditure data is according to DAWN as of April 10, 2021) 1-3

Heritage Project Project Manager Heritage Dollars Spent Number Name of Heritage Project Award Amount as of April 10 Status of Project

21-14 Cody Schroeder (Mark $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Enhancement of Crucial Habitat for Antelope and Freese, Chris $100,000.00 FY22 Mule Deer in Washoe County, Nevada Hampson) 21-15 A New Population Model for Antelope to Improve $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Accuracy, Identify Limiting Factors, and Improve Cody Schroeder $37,500.00 FY22 Management Decisions 21-16 Investigating Potential Limiting Factors Impacting $50,788 Ongoing, completion expected in Pat Jackson $65,000.00 Mule Deer in Northwest Nevada FY22 21-17 Sam Sedillo, Truckee $0 Ongoing, completion expected in East Walker River Fish Habitat Enhancement Project $11,191.00 TU (Kris Urquhart) FY22 21-18 Dr. Gail Patricelli, UC $0 Ongoing, completion expected in The Interaction Between Restoration, Foraging Davis (Shawn $65,855.00 FY22 Ecology, and Mating Behavior in Greater Sage-Grouse Espinosa) 21-19 Clint Bentley, $0 Completed, billing submitted Survey and Maintenance of Existing Big Game Water Fraternity of the $36,000.00 Developments Desert Bighorn (Sam Hughes) 21-20 Diet Quality and Composition of Mule Deer in the $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Dr. Kelly Stewart, UNR Toiyabe Mountains Following Removal of Pinyon- $32,000.00 FY22 (Cody Schroeder) Juniper 21-21 Lauren Williams, $0 Ongoing, completion expected in Cave Valley Collaboration $50,000.00 DCNR (Moira Kolada) FY22 Totals $2,409,223 $850,294

1-4

Heritage Project 18-05: Overland Pass Pinyon and Juniper Thinning

The objective of this project is to thin or completely remove Pinyon-Juniper trees from identified polygons in order to promote a more healthy and biodiverse habitat for wildlife. The entire project area is 3,500 acres, where an estimated 7,000 mule deer transition through the project area twice a year.

An extension is requested as additional spring fencing projects are being planned based on reallocated funding from the FY21 cycle.

1-5

Heritage Project 18-06: Goshute Mountains Springs Protection

The project included the construction of a single 325-foot pipe rail fence to preclude access of wild horses to Rock Springs located in the northern portion of the Goshute Mountains. This fence was constructed as a part of a larger effort in this mountain range and the surrounding area to protect important natural water features from the negative impacts of wild horse over utilization. As natural water sources are limited in the cold desert, projects like this stand to benefit a myriad of wildlife species including but not limited to mule deer, elk, and upland bird species.

An extension is requested to utilized on an additional spring protection project in the Goshute Mountains during the 2021 field season.

1-6

Heritage Project 18-11: Cheatgrass Research Using Herbicides and a Biological Control Agent

This ongoing project in southern Newark Valley along the White Pine Mountain Range and in south Steptoe Valley along the Egan Mountain Range will treat eight test plots of 5 acres each to gauge the efficacy of Imazapic and Rimsulfuron in suppressing cheatgrass within post-wildfire plots.

BLM has been unable to complete NEPA for this project at this time and closure of the project is requested.

Heritage Project 19-07: Kern Mountain Habitat Improvement Project

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ely District, in coordination with the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) identified approximately 1,100 acres of being affected by Pinyon and Juniper encroachment and eligible for treatment under the Kern Mountain Landscape Restoration Project EA. Treatment consisted of complete removal of Pinyon and Juniper within the treatment area. Islands and stringers were designed to benefit big game, upland game, and nongame species. Tree removal was completed by hand crews with the use of chainsaws. Trees were cut as close as possible to ground level with a maximum stump height of 12 inches. Cut trees were be lopped and scattered/leave.

BLM received SNMPLA dollars and was able to contract out additional acres to complete this project without the use of Heritage Funds. Closure of the project is requested.

Heritage Project 19-09: Bighorn Sheep Gene Transcription Analysis

This project conducted immunological assays on 277 bighorn sheep within the state to assess herd susceptibility to pathogens by examining immunological response. Nevada has the most successful bighorn sheep restoration program in the West. However, a number of herds have also been impacted by disease events following pathogen spill-over, with some suffering catastrophic die-off events, followed by years of little to no lamb recruitment and others displaying little population impact following infection.

This gene transcription technology and assessment of herds will allow managers to gain knowledge about how the sheep themselves are responding to their environment and greatly compliment the knowledge of herd health that we have gained form physical exams, disease testing and herd demography profiles. By adding the information gained from these gene transcription profiles wildlife professionals can improve the management of individual herds in relation to their immediate environment and pathogen profiles, allowing improved health in all of Nevada’s bighorn herds.

Bighorn sheep herds in this study had unique transcript profiles, reflecting differential environmental stressors and herd immune function in each range. In general, some herd responses indicated: • contaminant exposure • inability to mount immune response • inability to mitigate immune response (potential immunopathology)

Differences in susceptibility may be due to differences in herd immune function and may be influenced by nutrition, contaminants, pathogens, and underlying genetics. In order to fully utilize the results of our immune response analyses, our data needs to be placed in the larger context of overall herd health and response to disease, including environmental information such as available forage (NDVI database). We

1-7 are currently overlaying our results with an NDVI database, examining how patterns in forage availability correlate with patterns of immune function. We will submit this work to a peer-reviewed journal. Ideally, researchers would combine results of our immune function/susceptibility analyses with disease dynamic data and, if available, translocation history and/or population genetics to identify the underlying pressures driving differential disease manifestations among populations.

Please see the following for more in-depth results and analyses:

Bowen, Lizabeth, et al. "Gene Transcript Profiling in Desert Bighorn Sheep." Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Heritage Project 19-10: Comins Lake Boat Ramp

NDOW’s Boating Access Program continues to work towards completion of the Comins Lake Boat Launch Project. The project will be ADA compliant and consists of a boat ramp, sled dock, primary boat trailer parking lot, overflow boat trailer parking lot, shoreline improvements to enhance shoreline fishing opportunities, and designated picnic sites, with concrete slabs, shade ramadas, tables, and trash containers.

Solicitation documents and plans were completed in February of 2021 and the project was advertised for bidding at that time. All bids were rejected in the Public’s Interest in March of 2021 due to unanticipated high bid costs. Design changes have been pursued since that time in an effort to reduce overall costs. Redesigns are expected in April with readvertisement expected in May of 2021. Bid openings are expected in June to allow for commencement of construction in August.

Heritage Project 19-14: Cave Valley Ranch Pinyon-Juniper Removal Project

To date 1,534 acres have been treated and project has been completed. Trees targeted for removal were masticated, lopped and dropped, and/or cut into firewood length and left onsite for removal by the ranch. Removal of Pinyon and Juniper trees will benefit a variety of wildlife including, but not limited to, sage grouse, mule deer, elk, and antelope. Sage grouse are priority in this removal effort, given that Pinyon and Juniper create an abundance of perch points for predatory birds and devastate grouse populations. It is anticipated that by removing the encroaching trees from the property, there will be an increase of surface water, which supports the valuable grasses, forbs, and shrubs on site.

This 3,400 acre ranch has prime wildlife habitat and is involved in several habitat improvement projects including: a conservation easement with Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, entry into the Conservation Credit System, and various habitat improvement grants. This ranch is a working cattle ranch, however they work to make every aspect of the property wildlife friendly. There are two sage grouse leks on the ranch property as well as an abundance of elk, deer, and other wildlife.

1-8

Heritage Project 20-03: South Mountains Habitat Restoration

The South Mountains Habitat contract has been issued, however the contractor was unable to complete the work due to Covid related restrictions. Work and billing are expected to be completed by December 31, 2021.

The Nevada Department of Wildlife, in coordination with B-Enterprises has identified approximately 1,800 acres of that would benefit from habitat restoration. These acres have been targeted based on the expected wildlife benefits, specifically grouse (sage grouse and blue grouse), mule deer, and elk. Treatments under development will consist of targeted removal of Pinyon and Juniper within the treatment areas, seeding, riparian fencing, and fence removal.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

Heritage Project 20-05: Egan Johnson Basin Restoration

A portion of this 1,093 acre Pinyon-Juniper removal project was completed in FY21, however field work to finalize treatment polygons was delayed due to covid restrictions.

The purpose of this project is to restore natural site conditions, reduce potential for large wildfires by reducing fuel loading, increase understory grass and forb species diversity, and improving wildlife habitat. The need of this action is to respond to the ecological departure of plant communities from the natural range of variability within Egan and Johnson Basins relative to desired conditions. The need arises primarily due to successional changes in sagebrush and Pinyon-Juniper stands resulting in establishment

1-9 and above normal density of single-leaf Pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) and Utah Juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) trees. Important habitat for greater sage-grouse, as well as other wildlife has been identified within the project area.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

Heritage Project 20-06: North Cave Valley Habitat Restoration

The North Cave Valley contract has been issued, however the contractor was unable to complete the work due to Covid related restrictions. Work and billing are expected to be completed by December 31, 2021.

Restoration treatments will encompass 1,287 acres with an additional potential option area of 117 acres for hand cutting and selective thinning of another 145 acres of Pinyon and Juniper.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

Heritage Project 20-07: Prioritizing and Protecting Natural Water Resources

To date, contracting procedures, data organization, and preliminary analysis have been completed for this project. We anticipate a final analysis and report, specific to Nevada, will be completed by Fall 2021. Due to internal and external delays in that contract process, and partially due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the project timeline has been delayed. NDOW will provide a full completion report to the Commission following the data analysis and final report for this project.

A preliminary analysis that pertains to the overlap between big game species and feral horses throughout the Western United States was published in the Journal of Wildlife Management at the following location: Distribution of Competition Potential Between Native Ungulates and Free‐Roaming Equids on Western Rangelands - Stoner - - The Journal of Wildlife Management - Wiley Online Library https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21993

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

Heritage Project 20-09: Big Game Survey Tool

Wildlife Heritage Trust project 20-03 (Aerial Survey Data Collection App) was delayed to late 2020 due to contractual obstacles. In September, the Nevada BOE approved the contract with our selected vendor, Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), and development of the Survey App began soon after. Since project kick-off in early October, Game Division and GIS staff have participated in biweekly development meetings and have field-tested prototype apps for Android and iOS devices. Project development is on-schedule for an anticipated final release during the 2021-2022 Aerial Survey Season. The Survey App is expected to standardize data collection processes and provide immediate time-savings to NDOW biologists conducting wildlife surveys. We are grateful to the Wildlife Heritage Trust Committee for valuing this project and look forward to providing a completion report next winter.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

1-10

Heritage Project 20-10: Maximizing the Effectiveness of Common Raven Removal

To date 17 ravens have been captured and fitted with transmitters and 411 point counts have been conducted post raven removal. Due to field work delays from COVID19 related closures field work for the spring 2020 did not occur; we anticipate completing this important field work in the spring of 2021 and 2022 as an alternative.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

Heritage Project 20-12: Staheli Chaining Maintenance Project

To date 880 acres have been treated and the majority of this project work has been completed. Initial bids were lower than expected and allowed an additional scope of work for more treatment acres to be released. The contract for the additional treatment was awarded but the contractor was unable to complete the work due to Covid related delays. Work and billing should be completed by December 31, 2021. The scope of the Staheli Project is to conduct maintenance on an area that was previously “chained” during the 1960s. The original Staheli Chaining project encompasses approximately 3,400 acres.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

Heritage Project 20-13: Blacktop Apron Guzzler Upgrade

The Blacktop apron guzzler upgrade project has been designed and planned and is currently awaiting implementation. This project relies on volunteer effort and was therefore delayed due to Covid restrictions.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

Heritage Project 20-14: Mormon #3 ‘Prospect’ Guzzler Upgrade

The Mormon #3 guzzler upgrade project has been designed and planned and is currently awaiting implementation. This project relies on volunteer effort and was therefore delayed due to Covid restrictions.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

Heritage Project 20-16: Bighorn Disease Susceptibility Analysis

To date this project has analyzed 277 bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) with our gene transcription panel consisting of 14 target genes and one reference gene. This data has been leveraged into three subprojects and has facilitated the initiation of a fourth project. These projects include 1) herd-level panel-wide associations with Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae infection/exposure rates, 2) development of a NDVI database to compare gene transcription profiles, 3) a case study of infection among the Rio Grande Gorge translocation populations, 4) a domestic sheep infection study M. ovi disease dynamics in bighorn sheep.

1-11

Heritage Project 21-01: 2020-2021 Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Capture, Transplant and Monitoring $64,006 cash donations from Nevada conservation NGOs received in FY2021 or unused in previous years available to use this year contributed to the completion of this project. Also an approximate $58,000 of USFWS Wildlife Restoration Funds were used to pay helicopter capture contract invoices. NDOW collaborated with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe in augmenting their newly introduced bighorn herd on the Lake Range that we helped facilitate in January 2020. They paid for helicopter capture services and GPS collars separately with their own funds they had acquired.

There were 89 bighorn sheep of all subspecies and 7 mountain goats captured, with 72 animals GPS collared during 20 capture events to meet a variety of objectives including: Presampling for translocation in 2 herds; support monitoring risk of contact and sheep separation efforts with adjacent domestic sheep and goat operations in 5 herds; ongoing or newly initiated Test and Remove projects for bighorn in Snowstorm Mountains, Leppy Hills, Badlands, and Santa Rosa Range, and mountain goats in the East Humboldt Range; conducting disease surveillance to affirm we didn’t have a pathogen spillover in the newly introduced Bloody Run Hills and sampling and collaring post disease event in the Tobin Range that was struck by pneumonia fall 2020; conduct 2 captures and translocations involving Black Rock Range California bighorn to augment the Lake Range and the Sheep Creek Range to augment the North McGee Mountain.

Geneticists at University of Nevada, Reno and Oregon State University continued their work in collecting California and Rocky Mountain bighorn tissue samples from all the western states including Nevada and Canadian provinces, preparing them for DNA sequencing to assess various genetic metrics in both native and introduced herds.

21-02 Rocky Mountain Elk Population Monitoring and Harvest Validation

Movement Monitoring – A private contractor successfully caught 26 elk in 3 different regions of Nevada using a netgun fired by helicopter. Radio-collars were deployed on 5 adult females near Black Mountain (Unit 077), 8 adult females near and surrounding Spruce Mountain (Unit 105), and 10 adult females and 3 adult males near the Kern Mountains and Schell Creek Range of Management Area 11. Movement data collected from deployed radio-collars will help Department personnel identify seasonal ranges and movement corridors for elk occupying southern Elko County, White Pine County, and Nye County. Data collected will also be used to inform evaluations of elk use for the elk incentive program and effectiveness of habitat treatment projects, as well as enhance the Department’s knowledge of elk abundance and survival.

Aging Analysis – The Department requested incisors from about 2,000 antlered elk hunters during the 2020 hunting season. About 45% of successful hunters voluntarily complied with our request (420 out of 938 successful hunters). Incisors were sorted and shipped to Matson’s Lab in Montana for aging analysis in late January. Initial results are expected to be received by the end of March. Since 2018, the Department has used composition of 50-in antlers as a representation of age class in the harvest of antlered elk. Collection and aging of elk incisors following the 2020 hunt season will help Department biologists understand the efficacy of this harvest objective, as well as provide a snapshot of male age structure in their respective populations.

1-12

21-03 Marlette Lake Broodstock Facilities/Passage Improvement Project Phase 2

The “Marlette Lake Broodstock Facilities/Passage Improvement Project Phase 2” is currently on track to be completed in the fall of 2021. As of February, 2021 the design for the culvert replacement has been finalized and is awaiting one last approval before going out to bid for construction. Once a contractor is selected NDOW will work closely with them to ensure the project stays on track and is completed as scheduled. To date, none of the heritage funds have been utilized as they are specific to construction.

At the end of fiscal year 21, one hundred percent of the approved heritage funds for the “Marlette Lake Broodstock Facilities/Passage Improvement Project Phase 2” will remain. The Heritage funded phase 2 of this project was initially scheduled for the fall of 2020 but several delays in the design phase of the project lead to the project being rescheduled to 2021. A combination of COVID shutdowns for the design contractor as well as limited work capacity for NDOW are the main reasons for this extension request.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

21-04 Wildfire-related Restoration and Seed Purchase

The FY21 Heritage Restoration and Seed purchase dollars and associated matching funds contributed to support of completion of the following projects as well as support for associated post-treatment monitoring:

2020 Fire Rehab Aerial Seeding Drill Seeding Herbicide Seedlings Acres Acres Acres Argenta Rim - - 1,920

Francis/Copper (2018) 2,000 - -

Phoenix (2017) 3,500 - -

Toiyabe Fingers - - 5,624

Kelly Creek (2019) 1,203 1,346 -

Osgood (2020) 1,101 - - Baccarat (2020) 2,743 - - 16 North (2020) 2,019 - - 27

Poodle (2020) - - 7,755

1-13

Reno Area herbicide - - 3,789

Poeville Fire 999 S4 283 Boulder Valley - - 1,000 - Cedar (2020) 3,054 - - - Dixie Fuel Break - - 973 - Hot Pot (2016) - - 2,763 - Izzenhood Road Fuel Break 1,562 - 1,562 - Shafter (2019) - - 1,801 - Shafter/Lost (2020) 1,750 - - - Bishop (2020) 2,650 - -

Miller (2020) 3,633 - -

Stewart Canyon (2020) 7,190 - - Martin (2018) - - - 185 Total: 313,108 13,396 118,308 228

21-05 Desert Creek Conservation Easement

To date, a draft Grant Deed of Conservation Easement has been developed for this proposed conservation easement. The draft language of the easement has been reviewed by the Deputy Attorney’s General office; however, additional review will be necessary as final dealings approach. Additionally, a draft funding agreement has been developed between the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Eastern Sierra Land Trust for the matching sources of funding for the easement. Meanwhile, a federally approved appraisal will need to be conducted for the property, which is scheduled for the summer of 2021. The Eastern Sierra Land Trust will continue to negotiate with the landowner regarding the easement language, all the while keeping the State of Nevada apprised of these negotiations. Much depends on the appraisal and these negotiations, but we anticipate that the conservation easement will be finalized during the winter of 2021-2022.

1-14

This project requires some additional matching funds (approximately $30,417) which we will be seeking through various other sources of funding for State Fiscal Year 2022 (SFY22). Thus, we are requesting an extension of the Wildlife Heritage Trust Account funding through SFY 22.

The purpose of this project is to conserve an essential parcel(s) of private land for the long-term conservation of the Bi-State sage-grouse Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and other wildlife species in western Nevada. The Desert Creek Ranch is composed of 1,228 acres of irrigated pasture, meadow and riparian systems that provides a significant amount of breeding and brood rearing habitat for the Bi-State sage-grouse. A lek is located on the property that had 17 males observed displaying on it during the spring of 2019 and two other leks are located in the vicinity of the property. This property was identified in the 2012 Bi-State Action Plan as being one of the high priority properties in Nevada for the conservation of the Bi-State sage-grouse. The Nevada Department of Wildlife is working in conjunction with the Eastern Sierra Land Trust and other partners to purchase a conservation easement on this property and prevent potential future subdivision and development of the property. This request serves as a partial match requirement for easement acquisition.

21-06 Middle Rock Creek Habitat Improvement

In the implementation of the Middle Rock Creek Habitat Improvement Project, winter annual grass densities were significantly reduced in a 2,000-acre treatment area which allowed for the aerial seeding sagebrush and snowstorm forage kochia. In time, this treatment should develop into an even greater resource for a myriad of wildlife species and most notably mule deer.

In November 2019, 2,000 acres were treated with Imazapic on the East and West side of Rock Creek in the Middle Rock Creek area (see attached map). The pre-emergent application was modeled after an approach successful elsewhere as a foliar application with similar ESDs that has demonstrated high levels of cheatgrass control. This approach does not use an adjuvant/surfactant that is generally tanked to promote adhesion of the formulation to the target plant material but instead, allows the pre-emergent (imazapic) chemical to leech past the dried stems and leaves of the standing grass to the thatch layer and soil horizon where annual grass seeds persist.

Aerial seeding of the same 2,000-acre pre-emergent footprint was implemented in January 2021. The proposed treatment plan and schedule included seedling planting however due to contracting constraints aerial seeding was determined most feasible. Future Treatment of the site with seedling planting is likely but not planned.

Remote sensing modeling is planned for the 2021 field season where approximately 800,000 acres of range land will be mapped for multiple vegetation groups including annual grasses, perennial grasses, brush species, forage kochia, and bare ground. This modeling exercise will be integral in more efficient and effective planning of projects such as this one into the future.

Monitoring for pre-emergent treatment effectiveness in the 2020 field season with multiple confounding ecological variables potentially impacting winter annual densities made it difficult to discern any one causal factor in winter annual density reductions. Confounding variables that occurred in the fall, winter, and spring of 2019- 2020 included but are not limited to very high winds (events up to 70 mph), drought, and a Mormon cricket infestation.

Nearly range wide winter annual density reductions were observed in the Elko District during the 2020 field season.

1-15

21-07 Continued Monitoring of Moose Expansion in Nevada

Funding received from the Wildlife Heritage Trust Account supported an aerial infrared (IR) survey to locate possible capture targets in late January 2021. Variable weather encountered during the IR survey created conditions difficult for moose detection. Unfortunately, the IR survey was unsuccessful in 2021. Using citizen science reports and recent observations from elk surveys, Department biologists directed a contracted capture crew to locations possibly occupied by moose. The integration of multiple sources of information proved fruitful and crews successfully darted 3 moose from a helicopter (2 adult females, 1 adult male). Biological and morphological data were collected, and each moose was fit with a radio-collar capable of collecting 6 GPS locations per day for 4 years. All moose were released in good health and radio-collars continue to transmit important habitat use data. Currently, the Department is actively monitoring 7 moose (6 adult females, 1 adult male) with all 3 deployments in 2021 appearing to be residents of Nevada (i.e., no movements into neighboring jurisdictions have occurred).

Back-to-back seasons of successful capture and deployment of radio-collars on moose in Nevada bolsters the Nevada Department of Wildlife’s management program for moose. The Department will gain a significant amount of information about habitat-use and movement patterns of moose in Nevada through the life of the radio-collar deployments (~4 years).

1-16

21-08 Snake Range Aspen Habitat Restoration Project

The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, Ely District (BLM) has identified approximately 300 acres where removal of encroaching conifers would benefit aspen health. Treatment will consist of selectively thinning or complete removal of conifer within the aspen stand (including a 75 foot buffer). Some conifer trees may be left for the benefit of those species that rely on mixed conifer and aspen stands. Additional acreage may be treated on the Great Basin National Park pending completion of NEPA and availability of funds.

The primary method of tree removal would be done by hand crews with the use of chainsaws. Trees would be cut as close as possible to ground level with a maximum stump height of 12 inches. Cut trees would be lopped and scattered or piled and burned.

Work was delayed due to Covid related contracting issues. A contract will be issued spring of 2021 with work to be completed by December 31, 2021.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

21-09 Toano Mountain Restoration

Much of the funding for the Toanos Mountain Restoration Project (TMRP) was secured during the NEPA development of the Long Canyon Mine Phase 1 to offset impacts to mule deer crucial winter range. In addition to mitigation funds, NDOW received a charitable donation of $40,000 from the Mule Deer Foundation for the TMRP.

In November of 2020 Summit Forests Inc started work on the TMRP, as of December 12, 2020 the contractor had lopped and dropped 3,258 acres of PJ.

The TMRP has significantly set back the encroaching P/J in a high elevation sage brush basin that is identified as crucial winter habitat for the Area 7 mule deer herd. In addition to benefiting mule deer, the TMRP will benefit all sagebrush obligate species. The removal of P/J will improve native vegetation response including shrubs, grasses and forbs which would have a secondary benefit to a diversity of species within the basin.

On all field inspections large concentrations of mule deer were observed within the treatment polygons.

1-17

21-10 Egan Johnson Basin Restoration

The purpose of this project is to help restore natural site conditions, reduce potential for large wildfires by reducing fuel loading, increase understory grass and forb species diversity, and to improve wildlife habitat. The need of this action is to respond to the ecological departure of plant communities from the natural range of variability within Egan and Johnson Basins relative to desired conditions. The need arises primarily due to successional changes in sagebrush and pinyon-juniper stands resulting in establishment and above normal density of single-leaf pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) trees.

The Egan Johnson project boundary is approximately 84,675 acres and encompasses 21 treatment units identified within that boundary. The 21 treatment units are approximately 37,455 acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 1,045 acres of private lands in the Egan and Johnson Basins. Treatment of private land would only occur if a cooperative agreement is executed with the private landowners. Up to 65% of the treatment unit acres may be treated within the identified units. A combination of vegetation treatment methods would be used to achieve resource objectives. The proposed treatment methods would include mechanical and manual tree thinning. Areas targeted for treatment are sagebrush communities where pinyon-juniper trees have become established. Within that project boundary and between treatment units, hand thinning of Phase I pinyon-juniper would occur.

Work has been delayed due to Covid related issues. A contract will be issued spring of 2021 with work to be completed by December 31, 2021.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

21-11 Area 10 Mule Deer Migration Corridor Habitat Enhancement

The Area 10 mule deer herd is the largest in the state of Nevada, accounting for 15-20% of the statewide deer population. The Area 10 deer herd is comprised of several sub-herds that are highly migratory and exhibit long distance migrations from summer to winter ranges. The largest of these sub-herds is the one that summers in the Ruby Mountains of Hunt Units 102 and 103, and winters in the southern portion of the Ruby Mountains, the north end of the White Pine Range, and the Butte Mountains. Deer collared within this sub-herd have been documented to move more than 130 miles between their seasonal ranges. The summer range is generally defined by highly productive mid-elevation shrub communities mixed with aspen and mahogany stands, transitioning into productive alpine zones with scattered whitebark and limber pine stands. The winter ranges are comprised of sage steppe vegetation, with varying degrees of pinyon/juniper encroachment.

To enhance and protect the extensive migratory corridor, the stopover sites, and the winter ranges of the Area 10 mule deer herd there has been multiple NEPA processes completed in the past decade. The various projects focus on treating the tree encroachment that is so pervasive at the terminal reaches of the different migration corridors. The treatments include a combination of chaining, hand-thinning, mastication, weed abatement, and seeding. The projects are intended to reduce the potential of catastrophic wildfires as well as increasing the vegetative productivity of the winter range of the Area 10 mule deer herd.

The Proposed project is to conduct vegetation treatments in a minimum of 1100 acres in the Project Area to increase the diversity of herbaceous species, reduce fuel loads, and increase vigor and abundance of browse species. Areas targeted for treatment are crucial winter habitat for mule deer, classified as sagebrush communities where pinyon and juniper trees have become established and are invading/encroaching and creating undesirable conditions for forage/thermal cover balance. The stage of woodland development on

1-18 sagebrush sites would influence the type of treatment method selected, follow-up treatment methods and management, understory competition, seed selection, and vegetation response following management.

The BLM has completed NEPA and cultural clearances for the project, and NDOW plans on issuing a contract for the work early summer 2021. We anticipate the work being completed by December 31, 2021.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

21-12 Toiyabe OMU (Bates, Hickison and Wolf Ranches) Pinyon Juniper Thinning

The project will thin or substantially remove encroaching pinyon pine and juniper trees from as much as 2,700 acres of important wildlife habitat located within the Toiyabe PMU using a contracted hand thinning crews.

Due to COVID related restrictions the thinning contract for the Toiyabe PMU has not been released (Bates, Hickison and Wolf Ranches PJ thinning project). We fully intend to put this project out to bid after April with work slated to being this October and finished by February 2022. All NEPA clearances associated with this project are current as well as the additional funding sources.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

21-13 SE Schell Habitat Restoration

The Nevada Department of Wildlife in coordination with United States Forest Service, Ely Ranger District (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management, Ely District (BLM) has identified approximately 3,500 acres where removal of encroaching pinyon and juniper would benefit wildlife habitats. Treatment will consist of the complete removal of pinyon and juniper throughout most of the treatment area; some areas would have islands and stringers left uncut to benefit big game, upland game, and non-game species.

The areas prioritized by the Ely FS, Ely BLM and NDOW were chosen because of the habitat values they provide to wildlife. While mule deer and sage-grouse are the primary target species, antelope and elk will also benefit from these treatments. Treatment designs implemented in this project will encompass a variety of features to benefit other game and non-game wildlife species. One main species targeted for with these design features is the ferruginous hawk, who use stringer for PJ for nesting habitat.

BLM has completed the CX for this work. The contract will be issued spring of 2021 with work to be completed by December 31, 2021.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

21-14 Enhancement of Crucial Habitat for Antelope and Mule Deer in Washoe County, Nevada

The purpose of this project is to enhance and improve crucial habitat for mule deer, antelope, and sage- grouse within the boundaries of the BLM Applegate and Eagle Lake Field Offices in northern Washoe County. Specifically, it will improve visual openness of habitat corridors for migrating mule deer and antelope, reduce predation rates, improve body condition, and protect crucial water resources for all wildlife. We expect this project to have direct and immediate benefits to many species of wildlife in this region.

1-19

NDOW receive a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant in March of 2021 that was designed to be a 1:1 to match for this project. Because we were only recently notified of that grant award recently, we likely will not be able to spend the Heritage funding until FY 2022.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

21-15 A New Population Model for Antelope to Improve Accuracy, Identify Limiting Factors, and Improve Management Decisions

This project will directly benefit NDOW biologists who manage mule deer and pronghorn in the state, the NDOW Wildlife Commission who set policies and regulations pertaining to this species and the public of Nevada who enjoy these species. The Integrated Population Model (IPM) has been in development for about 2 years now and should be completed by June 15, 2021. Below is a screen capture of a similar model for mule deer that was published in The Wildlife Society Bulletin: https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.841

To date, about 40% of the cloud-based website has been built for Nevada. We have used Federal Funds so far to pay server and maintenance costs. The remainder of the Heritage funds will be used to pay when we receive final delivery of product. Estimated delivery of a working website is June 15, 2021.

An extension is requested to allow for bill processing as the deliverables are expected at the end of FY21.

21-16 Investigating Potential Limiting Factors Impacting Mule Deer in Northwest Nevada

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations in northwest Nevada have experienced declining population trends. Consequently, both tag numbers and quality of hunt experiences for the user community have also declined. So that we can improve tags and hunting experiences, we must first quantify the current population density of mule deer in this region and quantify the causes of the declining population trends. The purpose of this project is to determine the densities of mule deer, mountain lions (Puma concolor), and feral horses (Equus ferus) in Northwest Nevada, and to describe the spatial and temporal variation in these densities.

To date trail cameras and weather stations have been purchased but have not been deployed due to field work and travel restrictions related to Covid.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

21-17 East Walker Fish Habitat Enhancement

This project will improve fishery habitat in the East Walker near the Bighorn Campground through construction of in-stream structures that will diversify habitat and increase holding water during winter low-flow periods. Site assessments, initial engineering details, and location mapping has been conducted by an external contractor (Stream Wise).

Clearance’s and permitting are running behind schedule, it has taken longer than expected to determine exactly which permits and at what level will be required from the ACOE and NDEP. Irrigation flows typically begin in April and will continue through November so the work will most likely need to be done after flows come back down in the Fall 2021.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

1-20

21-18 The Interaction Between Restoration, Foraging Ecology, and Mating Behavior in Greater Sage-Grouse The increasing frequency and severity of wildfires in the sagebrush ecosystem is a primary threat to sagebrush species, such as Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage-grouse). Restoration efforts have focused on regrowth of native plant communities, but we still know too little about the effectiveness of these efforts in protecting species of concern. Studies have addressed sage-grouse population trends and large-scale habitat selection in response to restoration. However, no studies to date have linked wildfire impacts and restoration treatments to foraging behavior (time spent foraging, diet choice in restored areas, and diet quality) and breeding behaviors (display behavior, lek visitations, and mating rate), though these microhabitat-scale processes are critical drivers of population health and habitat use. We propose to coordinate with ongoing restoration efforts by NDOW and the BLM, and ongoing large-scale monitoring and habitat-selection mapping by the USGS, to investigate how fire and restoration practices alter sage- grouse microhabitat selection processes. We will conduct this work in the Santa Rosa Mountains (Humboldt County, NV), which burned in the 2018 Martin fire, and is in the early stages of restoration. This project has 3 objectives. Objective 1 is to use non-invasive biomarkers from fecal samples to assay health and diet quality (systemic stress and nutritional stress) of sage-grouse across a mosaic of unburned and recently burned areas, with different types of ongoing restoration (post-fire seeding, herbicide treatment, drill-seeding). Objective 2 is to follow telemetry-tagged hens to foraging sites to examine how nutritional quality of sagebrush differs with different burn/restoration status, and to examine sage-grouse diet preference at the large-scale (patch choice) and microhabitat scale (plant choice). Objective 3 is to assess movement of telemetry-tagged hens among leks and foraging sites relative to burn/restoration status, and whether the habitat quality of lek sites affects male and female lek behaviors and the browsing on sagebrush or forbs/grasses on the lek area. This project will allow us to leverage and expand upon ongoing efforts for restoration and monitoring, helping to understand the mechanisms that drive large-scale patterns of habitat selection, informing future restoration efforts in the Santa Rosa Mountains and across the range of the species.

Field work on this project is currently ongoing but was disrupted by Covid restrictions.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

21-19 Survey and Maintenance of Existing Big Game Water Developments

The guzzler program opens habitat that are suitable for wildlife, as the only limiting factor is water. Supplying these areas with water allows Nevada’s wildlife to live in areas that were once uninhabitable. Monitoring these water levels and checking for maintenance issues is a big part of the guzzler program. Accessing these sites with a helicopter allows a large number of sites to be checked over the course of a few days.

Four days of aerial survey on 84 big game wildlife water developments (guzzlers) were completed in FY21. These sites were landed at to check water level, repair minor maintenance issues, and note major maintenance issues. Many of these sites are in remote locations with difficult access and long hikes. Surveying all these sites in four days is imperative in understanding the water level and maintenance these projects need.

21-20 Diet Quality and Composition of Mule Deer in the Toiyabe Mountains Following Removal of Pinyon and Juniper

This project is looking at how removal of Pinyon-juniper woodland to benefit mule deer is ongoing. Fecal pellets have been analyzed for diet composition and statistical analysis of those data is ongoing.

To date the following have been conducted:

1-21

-Analysis of fecal pellets of mule deer for diet composition has been completed and statistical analysis of those data is ongoing.

-Analysis of fecal pellets of mule deer for dietary nitrogen, an index of diet quality, is currently ongoing.

-Vegetation response to PJ removal via Before/After/Control/Impact design. Analysis of vegetation for diet quality, including digestible energy and crude protein analysis is ongoing through the University of Nevada, Reno.

Final analyses and a full completion report are expected at the end of FY21.

21-21 Cave Valley Collaboration

This project has two components, each equally important, and necessary for continued habitat enhancement on private and federal land in Cave Valley. Our first goal is to properly fence two areas of private property on Cave Valley Ranch while our second goal involves Pinyon Juniper removal on nearby public lands. In the last year this ranch has continued its transformation with 1,300 acres of pinyon and juniper (PJ) removed, 2,600 pounds of seed put on the ground, and continued weed treatments throughout the ranch. These two fences will provide much needed protection for all of this on the ground work. Both large ungulates and cattle utilize this ranch and, in turn, the ranch is committed to a management style that results in healthy rangelands for both. In recent years there have also been sign of wild horses moving into Cave Valley as well as parts of the ranch that are not fenced. Wild horse access to the property must be controlled in order to preserve seeded areas and allow for regrowth.

The first component of this project is fencing to private parcels. Both fencing projects will be wildlife friendly (see attached document for design specifications) and will include wildlife jumps. The first an 80 acre parcel, Haggerty parcel. Haggerty needs three sides of a fence and a readjustment of the fourth side to meet wildlife friendly fence specifications. This will include eight strategically placed elk jumps, two cattle guards, and four gates for proper management. The second parcel is known as the Homestead parcel, which is 650 acres total and includes a large meadow. The Homestead parcel fence needs new fence construction due to elk damage as well as adjustment to also make it wildlife friendly.

The second phase of this project involves pinyon and juniper removal in partnership with the Great Bain Institute Conservation Corps Program (GBI). GBI has obtained a grant for $50,000 from National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The requirements of this funding are, it needs to be spent on public land and it needs to have a 1:1 match of non-federal dollars. White Pine Conservation District (CD) is in a unique position to partner with GBI to continue ongoing work that NDOW is currently partnering with BLM in North Cave Valley. The CD in coordination with NDOW and BLM has identified 473 acres of PJ just west of Cave Valley Ranch on BLM land that are approved for removal. GBI would complete the PJ removal.

Ground crews contracted through the Great Basin Institute started work in the fall of 2020 but were delayed in completing the project due to Covid restrictions. We are anticipating completion by the end of FY22 when restrictions on field work are lifted.

An extension is requested to allow for project completion.

1-22

Section 2:

Wildlife Heritage Proposals Submitted for State Fiscal Year 2022 Funding

2-1

Wildlife Heritage Proposals Submitted for FY22 Funding (Total Wildlife Heritage funds available for FY22 projects: $1,355,649.24)

Proposals Submitted by NDOW Personnel

Heritage Amount of Proposal Name of Proposed Project Submitted By Heritage $ Other Funding Sources Number Requested 22-01 2021-2022 Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Mike Cox $161,950 NGO Contributions ($83,600), NDOW Federal Big Game Capture, Transplant, Test and Remove, Investigations Grant ($45,000), In-kind Volunteer Time and Monitoring, and Research Programs Travel ($22,080) 22-02 Wildfire Related Restoration and Seed Purchase Lee Davis $150,000 Dream Tag ($225,000), Fish and Wildlife Grant ($300,000), NGO Contributions ($396,600), other NDOW Funds ($364,140)

22-03 Wildlife Water Development- Emergency Water Matt Maples $50,000 NDOW Water Development Grant ($150,000) Haul Update budget table

22-04 Izzenhood WMA Mule Deer Winter Habitat Brittany Trimble $71,850 NDOW Habitat Conservation Fee ($14,000) Restoration Project

22-05 Area 10 Mule Deer Migration Corridor Habitat Moira Kolada $75,000 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation ($200,000) Enhancement

22-06 Pole Canyon Conservation Easement Madi Stout and Caleb $200,000 National Fish and Wildlife Grant ($150,000), NDOW McAdoo Industrial Development Fund ($180,000), Dream Tag ($120,000), National Fish and Wildlife Foundation-Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation ($260,000)

22-07 Nelson Creek Mule Deer Habitat Improvement Caleb McAdoo $57,750 NDOW Habitat Conservation Fee ($25,000), NDOW Upland Game Bird Stamp ($18,750)

22-08 Smith Valley Habitat Restoration Moira Kolada $75,000 NDOW Habitat Conservation Fee ($25,000), Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation ($25,000)

22-09 Whistler Mountain Pinyon/Juniper Hand Jeremy Lutz $40,000 NDOW Habitat Conservation Fee ($20,000), Dream Tag Thinning Charitable Fund ($100,000)

2-2

Wildlife Heritage Proposals Submitted for FY22 Funding (continued)

Heritage Amount of Proposal Name of Proposed Project Submitted By (and NDOW Heritage $ Other Funding Sources Number Monitor) Requested 22-10 Argenta Rim Mule Deer Enhancement Project Jeremy Lutz $75,000 NDOW Partners Funding (Fish and Wildlife R&R Grant) ($75,560)

22-11 Optimizing management towards maximizing Shawn Espinosa $50,000 BLM ($9,987), Greater Hart-Sheldon Conservation Fund brood habitat for Greater Sage-grouse ($18,051), USFWS ($28,462)

22-12 Mule Deer radio-collaring study in Northwest Cody Schroeder $25,000 FWS Grant ($25,000), Mule Deer Foundation ($25,000) Nevada 22-13 Area 6 Elk Mortality Investigation Cody McKee $85,000 FWS Grant (TBD)

22-14 Moose Monitoring Cody McKee/Kari Huebner $20,000 FWS Grant (TBD)

22-15 Common Raven Monitoring Pat Jackson $30,000 NDOW Predator Plan ($300,000)

22-16 Investigating Potential Limiting Factors Impacting Pat Jackson $30,000 NDOW Predator Plan ($60,000) Mule Deer in Northwest Nevada

Subtotals from Proposals Submitted by NDOW $1,196,550 $3,131,230 Personnel

2-3

Proposals Submitted by Others

Wildlife Heritage Proposals Submitted for FY22 Funding (continued)

Heritage Amount of Proposal Name of Proposed Project Submitted By (and NDOW Heritage $ Other Funding Sources Number Monitor) Requested 22-17 Milk Ranch Spring and Habitat Enhancement Cory Lytle (Moira Kolada) $90,000 Meadow Valley Wildlife Unlimited ($5,000), BLM In-Kind Burn Crew Labor ($15,000), Volunteer Time ($1,500)

22-18 Cave Valley Ranch Pinyon Juniper Removal Lauren Williams (Moira $50,000 Volunteer Time ($4,896), In Kind Materials ($3,450), DCNR Kolada) Specialist Time ($2,080)

22-19 Survey and Maintenance of Existing Big Game Clint Bentley (Sam Hughs) $41,000 In-kind($250) Guzzlers 22-20 Restoration, foraging ecology, and mating Gail Patricelli (Shawn $69,521 In-Kind Personnel ($66,018) behavior in Greater Sage-Grouse (phase 2) Espinosa) 22-21 Quantifying the influence of feral horses on Steve Petersen (Mark Freese) $5,900 BLM ($21,000), BYU ($54,410) greater sage-grouse populations in Nevada” $256,421 $154,704 Subtotals from Proposals Submitted by Others

Total Costs from All Proposals $1,452,971 $3,285,934 Requested from Other Funding Sources from the Heritage Program

2-4

#22-01

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Mike Cox

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW)

Date: January 15, 2021

Address: 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Ste 120 City: Reno

State: NV Zip Code: 89511

Cell: 775-240-1335 Phone: 775-688-1556

Email: [email protected] Fax: ______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

______

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: 2021-2022 Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Capture, Transplant, Test and Remove, Monitoring, and Research Programs

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY2022

Project Location: Statewide

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $161,950

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

Conduct 1 California bighorn (CBS) and 1 desert bighorn sheep (DBS) translocation involving helicopter netgun capture. Conduct ongoing Test and Remove Projects to remove chronic carriers of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (Movi) in the Snowstorm Mountains CBS, Santa Rosa Range CBS, Leppy Hills Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (RMBS), Badlands RMBS, East Humboldt Range Mountain Goat. May consider initiating Test and Remove projects for DBS in specific subherds on the NTTR/Stonewall Mountain and Bare Mountains.

2-5

#22-01

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Monitor herd recoveries from recent pneumonia disease events involving the Fairview/Slate Movi strain in the Clan Alpine Mountains, Stillwater, and Tobin Ranges. Continue monitoring (GPS collar download costs) all the previously deployed GPS collars on bighorn sheep and mountain goats for home range, foray/dispersal, and potential for risk of contact with domestic sheep and goats. Conduct disease surveillance capture in Virginia Range DBS. Provide travel and per diem assistance to volunteers as part of a new “citizen science” project to monitor lamb survival in various bighorn herds mentioned above.

Provide support for new project involving sampling and testing domestic sheep for Movi and other bacteria in the University of Nevada Reno’s Rafter 7 flock in Diamond Valley and Ted Borda’s band of domestic sheep that graze on the Carson Range above Carson City and Reno.

Purchase new Drop Net materials and release mechanism to conduct drop net captures in desert bighorn herds.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

Potential California Bighorn augmentations under consideration for Winter 2021-2022 are the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, South McGee Mountain, Cherry Creek of Calico Mountains, and Little High Rock Canyon. Various source stock herds will be considered that are the most appropriate for the release site with regards to matching terrain features, key pathogen presence, wilderness considerations, and population levels. Discussions are still occurring in assessing a desert bighorn translocation for Fall 2021. Pre-sampling for source herds would occur within a few weeks prior to capturing animals from source herds to confirm their health status and pathogen profiles are consistent with that of the release area.

Continued costs exist for satellite data transmission for previously deployed GPS collars on approximately 130 bighorn sheep that will continue to be functioning in FY2021. The average cost/collar/year is $120.

Test and Remove Projects

Previous pathogen spillovers have occurred to bighorn sheep herds in Nevada with some having severe and long-term impacts to population growth. This is also occurring westwide. WAFWA’s Wild Sheep Working Group along with key professionals in the wild sheep circles have developed guidelines for conducting what is now called “Test and Remove”. The concept is that persistent/chronic carriers/shedders exist in a herd after they have been exposed to a novel strain of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (Movi). Most bighorns that survive a disease event will mount an immune response and clear the active Movi from their body. They will have antibodies for Movi telling us they were previously exposed but are no longer shedding Movi. But a small percent of the adults will continue to have Movi active in their bodies but yet look fine or be asymptomatic for Movi. Each year when nursery groups form, a single chronic-shedding ewe can reinfect lambs and other adults in the nursery group which then will cause lambs to die because their immune system is not yet fully developed until 4 months of age. Research and several trials conducted westwide have shown if you can identify the chronic shedders through capture and testing, remove them from the herd, you can help improve lamb/kid recruitment to recover herds that have struggled for years primarily from pneumonia-caused neonates deaths preventing herd growth. • The Snowstorm Mountains CBS has been involved in test and removal since 2014. It was thought the last remaining Movi carrier was removed in 2019, but monitoring has shown lamb mortality

2-6

#22-01

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

from pneumonia has reoccurred and more testing is needed to detect the chronic shedders in the herd. • Santa Rosa Range CBS herd had a Movi spillover event in 2003 and many of its subherds have struggled ever since. Collaborative research from 2016 -2019 with Oregon State University on the subherds in Oregon with connectivity to the Santa Rosa Range also showed high lamb mortality. In the last year of the study a chronic shedder ewe died of natural causes and the following year high lamb survival was documented. The plan is to start testing bighorn in the southern most portion of the Santa Rosa Range, remove any chronic shedders and continue north sampling, testing, and removing shedders from the various subherds and monitoring lamb recruitment. Also in collaboration with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, conduct Test and Remove on the interstate subherds associated with the Santa Rosa Range. • Leppy Hills RMBS herd had its first Movi spillover event in 2010 and slowly declined since then due to chronic lamb mortality from pneumonia. Due to several domestic sheep operators adjacent to the NV/UT interstate herd and their desires to continue operations on public lands, little effort was made to restore the herd. The Wild & Wool documentary in 2020 highlighted this herd and its sad situation and brought both NDOW and UDWR together to initiate an abridged Test and Remove effort. August 2020, 6 ewes and rams were darted and tested for Movi. An agreement was made to remove Movi positive animals and continue to test animals through low-cost darting efforts. • Badlands RMBS herd first succumbed to pneumonia mortalities in 1999. It had reached 100 adults then and has slowly declined to below 35 in 2020. Formal testing started in December 2020 to detect chronic shedders with removal of Movi positive animals. This effort will opportunistically continue. • East Humboldt Range Mountain Goat herd experienced its first Movi pathogen spillover event in 2010, same time the sympatric RMBS herd experienced its severe dieoff. Though the mountain goats had minimal adult mortality, persistent poor kid recruitment has plagued the herd for a decade declining from 180 adults in 2009 to approximately 30 in 2020. Test and Remove Project was identified in 2019 but successful captures didn’t happen until 2020 to test for chronic shedders. Seven mountain goats were captured, collared and pathogen tested in January 2020; all had titers but none actively shedding Movi. On a positive note, 3 nannies (2 collared) were observed high up in the East Humboldts in late July with 3 kids and 2 yearlings. Plans are to continue to capture and sample more adult mountain goats in early 2021 and 2022 and remove any chronic shedders. Time is critical to this project since many nannies are too old to be reproductively fit. • May consider initiating Test and Remove projects for DBS in specific subherds on the NTTR/Stonewall Mountain and Bare Mountains. The NTTR/Stonewall herd has been impacted by extremely low lamb survival since 2014 and its population has declined 50% since then. The Bare Mountains has had single digit lamb ratios for the last 4 years and has shown a 40% decline.

NDOW is nearing its completion of the statewide disease surveillance of all bighorn herds that was initiated in 2011. That effort also supports the WAFWA’s Adaptive West Wide Wild Sheep Disease Management Venture (DMV) involving enhance monitoring of key herds exposed to Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae but with varied herd responses. The Virginia Range desert bighorn herd is yet to be sampled for pathogens.

To assist the Game Division’s on-the-ground monitoring of recent disease events in desert bighorn sheep herds in west-central Nevada, we propose to initiate a Bighorn Lamb Survival “Citizen Science” project, using the general public to “adopt” a herd and monitor lamb production and survival post pathogen

2-7

#22-01

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

spillover. Costs would primarily be providing data recording devices and travel and per diem to encourage the general public to participate and to get commitment to follow through with monitoring for 2-3 months.

Provide support for new project involving sampling and testing domestic sheep for Movi and other bacteria in the and Ted Borda’s band of domestic sheep that graze on the Carson Range above Carson City and Reno.

The University of Nevada Reno’s Rafter 7 domestic sheep flock in Diamond Valley provides replacement rams for the majority of Nevada woolgrowers’ domestic sheep bands (like Ted Borda’s in the Carson Range) that graze on public lands in Nevada. The overall goal of the project is to attempt to detect chronic carriers of Movi and remove them and/or eliminate Movi from their sinuses, throat and upper respiratory system in both the Rafter 7 and Ted Borda’s domestic sheep flocks. The project would evaluate the feasibility of producing a Movi-free band of domestic sheep that would graze on public lands near bighorn herds and severely reduce the threat of pathogen transmission. The initial pilot stage of this project will involve sampling and testing 200 ewes and rams to estimate Movi prevalence rate in the entire flock and then to conduct a longitudinal study over 2-3 years with a group of ewes and rams evaluating immune system DNA markers and testing for Movi multiple times in each sheep while applying various antibiotics, spatial separation, and removal treatments attempting to clear Movi from the domestic sheep study group. The project is a collaboration with UNR’s Agricultural Experiment Station, UNR’s Great Basin Research and Extension Center, NDOW’s Game Division, Nevada Department of Agriculture, and Dr. Tom Besser, former research pathologist and Rocky Crate Chair at Washington State University.

The purchase new Drop Net materials and release mechanism will allow Game Division to reinstitute a summer drop net capture method in desert bighorn herds in southern Nevada to remove animals for use in translocations to other parts of the state.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575) The many projects are directly involved with the propagation, restoration, transplantation, and introduction of game mammals to the state of Nevada. Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

The project involves multiple big game herds distributed widely across the state of Nevada on various public and private land jurisdictions.

How Does this Project Meet the Objectives of the Wildlife Heritage Program? (See NRS 501.3575)

It is directly involved with the propagation, restoration, transplantation, and introduction of game mammals to the state of Nevada. Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature?

2-8

#22-01

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Yes ☐ No ☒

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

A sizeable part of the annual donations that support the Heritage Trust Account come from the sale and auction of bighorn sheep tags that are the direct result of the highly successful Nevada bighorn sheep restoration program. From the tremendous growth of the transplant herds, comes a huge responsibility to actively manage these herds. Just like the purchase of a large tract of land for long-term conservation and wildlife values, you must conduct annual operating and maintenance.

There is too much of a sportsmen’s investment in past bighorn restoration projects to not continue to oversee responsible herd expansion and growth, better understand resource needs of the herds, minimize potential conflicts on public and private lands and lessen the probability of severe herd declines. This program has always been highly dependent on proceeds of special big game tags before and after the creation of the Heritage Trust Account. It only makes sense that the very same dollar that is generated from the success of the bighorn restoration program be used to maintain it.

By understanding bighorn sheep herd disease transmission processes, herd responses to diseases, and evaluate management alternatives to protect and restore herds to sustainable levels, NDOW can better advocate with local and federal land management agencies appropriate land conservation and protection for the long-term survival of these herds. Consumptive and noncomptive use of bighorn sheep will increase, benefiting not only the general public and sportsmen but local rural communities adjacent to these bighorn herds.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: July 1, 2021 Estimated End: June 30, 2022

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). (Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.)

2-9

#22-01

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

1. Amount of Wildlife Heritage Account Cash Requested $ 161,950.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. Various bighorn and wildlife conservation NGOs $ 83,600.00

b. NDOW's Federal Big Game Investigations Grant $ 45,000.00

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 128,600.00

3. Donations or In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time and Travel $ 22,080.00

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ 22,080.00

4. Total Project Funding $ 312,630.00 (add lines 1, 2e,3h)

2-10

#22-01

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS

The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. (Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.) Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included)

a. Per diem $ 2,500.00

b. Mileage $ 2,550.00 $ 4,080.00

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ 5,050.00 $ 4,080.00

3. Equipment Items a. Drop Net and release mechanism $ 11,000.00

b. Biomeme Real-Time PCR Unit $ 12,000.00

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ 23,000.00 $ -

4. Materials

a. GPS collars $ 59,000.00 $ 37,000.00

b. Rafter 7 & Borda sheep pathogen testing & $ 12,300.00 supplies

c. Satellite Data Transmission Costs $ 15,600.00

d. Pathogen Testing - Test & Remove Projects $ 1,600.00

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ 86,900.00 $ 38,600.00

5. Miscellaneous Costs including Contractor Costs (if you will be using a contractor, include their name and list the specific services they will be providing) a. Helicopter capture services $ 47,000.00 $ 45,000.00

b. Volunteer labor - Captures & Citizen Science $ 18,000.00

c. NDOW Personnel Costs $ 45,000.00

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 47,000.00 $ 108,000.00

6. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 161,950.00 (add lines 1, 2c, 3d, 4e, and 5e)

7. Total All Other Costs $ 150,680.00 (add lines 1, 2c, 3d, 4e, and 5e)

8. Total Project Costs $ 312,630.00 (add lines 6 & 7) (Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-11

#22-01

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are there going to be any Ongoing Costs for this Project? Yes ☒ No ☐

Satellite Data Transmission Costs for GPS collars

If There will be Ongoing Costs Associated with this Project, is there an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☒ No ☐

Will submit another Heritage Trust Project Proposal in FY2022.

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

Press Releases, Facebook, NDOW publications, podcasts, local TV interviews, Wild Sheep Magazine, GoHunt

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 2/23/2021

2-12

#22-02

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Lee Davis, Habitat Division

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: Jan 15, 2021

Address: 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite City: Reno 120

State: NV Zip Code: 89511

Cell: Phone: 775-688-1562

Email: [email protected] Fax: 775-688-1577

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

______

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Wildfire-Related Restoration and Seed Purchase

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY22

Project Location: At locations across northern Nevada where wildfires burned during 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. This proposal will address funding needs for restoration resulting from both past and future fires; please see attached map.

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $150,000

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

The primary goal of this project is to work with the Nevada BLM to supplement their fire rehabilitation efforts. Funds awarded for this project will be used to purchase seeds, apply seed, and conduct other seed bed preparation during the rehabilitation of fires across high priority sage grouse and mule deer habitat across the state of Nevada (see the attached map). The seeding and other

2-13

#22-02

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

activities will augment the amount and diversity of plant species that will be applied to key burned habitats on public and private lands across Nevada. Post-seeding monitoring will also be conducted to inform future management plans. As noted above, the seeding and other treatment efforts included in this project will be focused on high priority sage grouse and critical mule deer habitat.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

NDOW will work with the BLM to apply seeds to high priority habitat within current and historic fires. Approximately 2,604,402 acres of habitat have burned in Nevada during the 2017-2020 period. The funding granted to BLM covers only a portion of the acres burned. BLM has requested that NDOW assist with securing additional funding to purchase seeds, apply seeds and conduct seed bed preparation to the remaining acreage and to partner with the BLM to leverage funding and contracting abilities so that the largest acreage and most effective treatments can be put on the ground.

NDOW is seeking funding to aid on the ground post-fire restoration projects in two main ways. First, NDOW can add important species to seed mixes. Second, NDOW can seed and provide additional restoration activities on areas the BLM may not have received funding for. NDOW can also monitor reseeding efforts through time under the Vegetation Health Assessment program. This monitoring helps track the effectiveness of seedings and can inform the need for future actions. As noted above, the seeding and other treatment efforts included in this project will be focused on high priority sage grouse and critical mule deer habitat.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

The wildfire restoration activities to be funded by this grant are focused largely on the rehabilitation of big game habitat. Each of the fire rehabilitation projects would benefit sage grouse habitat as well.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

Multiple fires across northern Nevada. See attached map.

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☒ No ☐

2-14

#22-02

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

Wildfires in Nevada have had an enormously detrimental impact to big game and non-game wildlife habitat over recent decades. Heritage funding is key to providing real dollars for habitat restoration and to provide matching funds for many grant sources in efforts to restore game habitat.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: August 1, 2021 Estimated End Date: April 30, 2022

2-15

#22-02

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 150,000.00 2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. Dream Tag $ 225,000.00

b. NDOW's Federal Wildlife Habitat Restoration Grant $ 300,000.00

c. NGO Contributions $ 396,600.00

d. Other NDOW Funds $ 364,140.00

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – e) $ 1,285,740.00 3. In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g. h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ - 4. Total Project Funding $ 1,435,740.00 (add lines 1, 2e,3h)

2-16

#22-02

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition 2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column)

a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

4. Equipment Items

a. d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – $ - $ - c) 5. Materials

a. Seed Purchases $ 135,000.00 $ 885,740.00

b. Weed treatment Chemicals $ 175,000.00

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ 135,000.00 $ 1,060,740.00

6. Miscellaneous Costs a. Contracts for weed treatments $ 225,000.00 and seeding b. Treatment monitoring $ 15,000.00

c.

d. e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines $ 15,000.00 $ 225,000.00 a – d)

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 150,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e) 8. Total All Other Costs $1,285,740.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $1,435,740.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

2-17

#22-02

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☒

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

None anticipated

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

During all press releases, on-air productions and all other communications with the public, the Heritage program will be named as an important contributor toward wildfire rehabilitation across Nevada.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date: 3/27/2021

2-18

#22-02

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-19

# 22-03 BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Matt Maples

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife, Habitat Division

Date: January 15, 2021

Address: 6980 Sierra Center Pkwy, Suite 120 City: Reno

State: Nevada Zip Code: 89511

Cell: 775-771-9135 Phone: 775-688-1568

Email: [email protected] Fax: n/a

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Wildlife Water Development – Emergency Water Hauling

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY2012

Project Location: Central and Southern Nevada

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account:

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☐ No ☒ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

The purpose of this project is to conduct emergency water hauling to wildlife water developments in central and southern Nevada.

2-20

# 22-03 BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

Emergency water hauling activities will provide supplemental water to guzzlers at high of going dry due to continued and unprecedented drought conditions in central and southern Nevada. Exceptional drought conditions during the summer and fall of 2020 resulted in approximately 38 guzzlers across 20 mountain ranges requiring supplemental water. With the help of sportsman-conservation groups, NDOW hauled over 167,000 gallons of water via helicopter or water tender. This action prevented large-scale and widespread loss of bighorn sheep due to dehydration.

Unfortunately, the drought conditions leading to the 2020 emergency water hauls are largely continuing and without a significant shift in precipitation across southern Nevada, additional water hauls in the spring, summer, and fall of 2021 are possible. Currently, the water supply for most of central and southern Nevada basins, as measured at NRCS weather stations, is less than 60 percent of average.

NDOW will continue to monitor water levels at key guzzlers through the end of February or March at which time, a determination on additional water hauls for the short-term will be made. Water level monitoring will continue throughout the late spring and summer to track water levels and understand when supplemental water may be necessary. If emergency water hauling is necessary, NDOW crews will use helicopters outfitted with specialized water buckets to transport water from a staging area to the guzzler. Staging areas are set-up in areas where a water tender has reasonable access and can fill temporary tanks and water pumpkins. The helicopter then dips water out of these pumpkins and transports it to the guzzler. Previously, the bucket would then be emptied on the guzzler’s apron where it could fill the storage tanks. We have improved our methods by placing temporary fold-a-tanks adjacent to the guzzler’s water storage tanks and running a direct line from the fold-a-tank to the guzzler. The helicopter now drops the water into the fold-a-tank. This minimizes water loss and ultimately reduces the number of trips necessary to fill a guzzler.

If awarded, Heritage funding will help NDOW pay for additional helicopter flight costs associated with more emergency water hauling activities. Currently, the water development program lacks sufficient funding to continue paying for emergency water hauls while simultaneously funding standard, ongoing program costs to build and maintain guzzlers.

2-21

# 22-03 BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

NDOW’s water development program has been exceptionally successful at expanding the range and population size of bighorn sheep since it began in the 1950s. A side-effect of this success is that many bighorn sheep populations are now partially or wholly dependent on artificial water developments for free water. Without sufficient water available in guzzlers, it is highly likely that bighorn sheep will be lost to dehydration. Maintaining sufficient water supply at guzzlers directly supports the protection, propagation, and management of bighorn sheep populations. This activity also protects past investments and efforts to restore and transplant bighorn sheep.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

Water developments likely to receive emergency water primarily exist on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service (Desert National Wildlife Refuge), and US Air Force (National Test and Training Range).

The exact location and water developments that will receive emergency water will be determined based on need and priority.

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☐ No ☒

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

The cost of hauling supplemental water via helicopter is significant and greater than the available budget generally allocated for these types of activities within the Water Development Grant. Additional funding will allow NDOW to continue hauling supplemental water to guzzlers while still performing standard guzzler construction and maintenance needs.

Heritage funding will also be used as non-Federal match necessary to fund the Water Development Grant. The non-Federal match requirement for the grant is typically fulfilled with volunteer hours and miles. With the onset of Covid-19 precautions, there has been a substantial loss of volunteer opportunity and thus the program is generally lacking a matching funding source. As an ancillary benefit, Heritage funds will help provide matching dollars to the program, thus allowing NDOW greater ability to use Federal grant dollars.

2-22

# 22-03 BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: February 2021 Estimated End Date: February 2022

2-23

# 22-03 BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 50,000.00 2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project a. Water Development Grant $ 150,000.00 b. c. d. e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 150,000.00 3. In-kind Services for this Project a. Volunteer Time b. Equipment c. Materials d. e. f. g. h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ - 4. Total Project Funding $ 200,000.00 *Other cash funding source from Water Development Grant based upon a 3:1 ratio of Federal:Non-Federal dollars. No In-Kind services included due to uncertaintly of using volunteers under Covid-19 precautions. If restrictions change and volunteers can be used safely, this is an option that will be considered.

2-24

# 22-03 BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition 2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem b. Mileage c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ - 4. Equipment Items a. b. c. d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ - 5. Materials a. b. c. d. $ - e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ - 6. Miscellaneous Costs a. Helicopter Flight Time $ 50,000.00 $ 150,000.00 b. c. d. e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 50,000.00 $ 150,000.00

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 50,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e) 8. Total All Other Costs $ 150,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 9. Total Project Costs $ 200,000.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-25

# 22-03 BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☒

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

None.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account will be provided during press-releases grant reporting, or other reports/presentations developed for emergency water hauling activities.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/29/2021

2-26

#22-04

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Brittany Trimble

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: 1/15/2021

Address: 60 Youth Center Rd City: Elko

State: NV Zip Code: 89801

Cell: 775-762-9076 Phone: 775-777-2393

Email: [email protected] Fax:

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

Caleb McAdoo

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: 2021 Izzenhood WMA Mule Deer Winter Habitat Restoration Project

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY22

Project Location: Izzenhood WMA - western front of the Izzenhood Range

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $71,850.00

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

This project will enhance winter habitat for the Management Area 6 (Area 6) mule deer herd on the Izzenhood Wildlife Management Area (IWMA). Additionally, this project will build on previous investments for the restoration of rangeland on this state-owned property in crucial winter range of the Area 6 mule deer herd.

Since being at its peak population (~30,000) in in the 1960’s, the Area 6 mule deer herd has experienced multiple factors that together have caused a large decline in the population to what is currently estimated to be less than 9,000 individuals. One of the main contributors to population descent is habitat loss and degradation via the invasive annual-wildfire cycle. More than 2 million acres of habitat have burned in Area 6 in the last 20 years, including expanses of winter range the herd depends on for forage and thermal cover during the harsh winter months.

2-27

#22-04

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

The IWMA consists of seven parcels on the western front of the Izzenhood Range, totaling 4,196 acres of state-owned property. This area has repeatedly burned in sizeable wildfires occurring in the mid-1980’s, the mid- and late-1990’s, the 2001 Hot Lake Fire, the 2011 Izzenhood Fire, and the 2016 Hot Pot Fire. The unnaturally high frequency of wildfire renders vegetation native to the Izzenhood front unable to re-establish between burn events, leaving large expanses of dominated by invasive annual grass, namely cheatgrass, that increases fine fuel loads and creates a positive feedback loop for the invasive-fire cycle. Mule deer require a robust brush component on their winter range to help in offsetting their continual decline of critical body fat reserves during the winter months after migrating over 100 miles from summer range. Healthy and nutritious browse species directly influence body condition for doe mule deer which create the foundational basis for birth rates and neonatal fawn survival. The stands of shrubs that mule deer have historically depended on for winter habitat have been largely eliminated by type conversion from recurring wildfires, thus intervention via herbicide, seeding, and transplanting is vital for the re-establishment of species required by the Area 6 mule deer herd to persevere.

In addition to the various efforts of post-fire rehabilitation since the 1980’s, the flyable portions of Parcels G and D of the IWMA (see project map) were treated with the pre-emergent herbicide indaziflam in fall 2019. As a new tool for invasive annual grass control on rangelands, indaziflam is expected to provide control of invasive annual grasses for at least 3 years by persisting in the surface soil layer high in organic matter and preventing germination of seeds, though many recent studies have shown control for up to 5 years post-treatment. Researchers have also had success with drill seeding perennial species following indaziflam treatments without increasing the presence of invasive annual grasses. While monitoring information has revealed that past seedings were successful on Parcel G and there is currently a perennial community growing alongside cheatgrass, it has also revealed that Parcel D has developed an extremely dense cheatgrass stand with inches of litter buildup since it last burned, leaving virtually zero opportunity for native perennials to establish. The indaziflam treatment on Parcel G will allow for the release and recruitment of present perennials in the absence of cheatgrass, whereas the indaziflam treatment on Parcel D is primarily providing a window of opportunity for drill seeding desirable grasses, forbs, and shrubs and transplanting shrub seedlings in the absence of competition from cheatgrass to re-establish a desirable perennial community for winter habitat. While a robust shrub community is the essential component of winter range for mule deer survival, an established community of perennial grasses and forbs will be able to compete with cheatgrass for limited resources, restricting the buildup of fine fuels and creating a break in fuel continuity across the landscape. This, in addition to the 24-mile fuel break established in 2019 along the Izzenhood Road adjacent to the Izzenhood WMA parcels, could drastically alter the ability for wildfire to spread through this area at the increased frequencies it has experienced in recent history, allowing desirable plant communities to grow and persist.

By implementing this project, the Nevada Department of Wildlife will work to restore crucial winter range on the Izzenhood front, specifically within state-owned property boundaries on the IWMA. The importance of the Izzenhood front winter range habitat for the Area 6 mule deer herd cannot be overstated. Approximately one-third of the Area 6 mule deer herd utilizes the Izzenhood front winter habitat in any given year, which, when considering this is one of the largest mule deer herds in the state, only emphasizes the importance of this area.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

Restoration of winter habitat on the IWMA began with the application of indaziflam in fall 2019. The FFA program at Wells High School grew out approximately 3,000 Wyoming sagebrush seedlings in 2020 and will be planted at this project site in spring 2021 on approximately 10 acres of the project site. Due to the limited supply of these seedlings, they will be used partially as an experiment and planted in combination with different soil amendments for increased soil moisture retention to aid in plant survival.

2-28

#22-04

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Implementation of the proposed project would be a phased approach. Phases 1 and 2 are included in this funding proposal while Phase 3 is contingent on future funding and need.

Phase 1: Drill seed approximately 500 acres of suitable topography in Parcel D in the fall of 2021. A seed mix suitable to the current soil and climate conditions will be developed and will include perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs suitable for drill seeding and cultivating mule deer forage and thermal cover.

Phase 2: Locally-adapted Wyoming sagebrush and whitestem rubber rabbitbrush seed will be collected from sites with similar characteristics as the project site in late fall 2021 and sent to a nursery for growout in spring 2022. Seedlings will be transplanted at the project site in islands, as opposed to covering the entire project area with consistent spacing, in fall 2022. Monitoring results of Wyoming sagebrush seedlings from Wells High School planted with and without soil amendments in spring 2021 will determine whether soil amendments will be utilized to increase seedling survival during transplanting of seedlings in 2022. Whichever soil amendment(s) prove to aid in seedling survival will be added to holes during transplanting of the seedlings in fall 2022.

Phase 3: Additional seedlings will be grown out and transplanted at the project site for more complete coverage of winter habitat forage and cover for area six mule deer.

NEPA is not required for this project since it is completely on state-owned land.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

With the abundance of habitat alteration and loss in management Area 6, the perseverance of the Area 6 mule deer herd depends heavily on the success of habitat restoration efforts. Not for lack of effort, conventional restoration methods have not proven to be successful on winter range that this herd relies on and more novel approaches need to be tried to increase efficacy of restoration practices. Successful winter range restoration will support the growth of the Area 6 mule deer herd, enhancing one of the great resources for the sportsmen of Nevada. The goals of this project align with the mission and objectives of the Wildlife Heritage Trust Account as defined in NRS 501.3575.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

The project area can be most easily accessed by heading north from Battle Mountain, NV on SR 806/Izzenhood Road for 20 miles, then northwest through the 25 Ranch on the Izzenhood Road for another 4 miles.

Izzenhood WMA Restoration Polygon Township Range Sections Izzenhood WMA Parcel D T36N R45E 31

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☒ No ☐ 2-29

#22-04

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

The remoteness, complexity, and labor-intensive nature of rangeland restoration in challenging climates makes this type of project difficult and expensive. Though this project will only cover one parcel of state-owned land, the parcel comprises important winter habitat for a large proportion of the state’s mule deer population in an area where fire, cheatgrass invasion, and drought have rendered previous restoration efforts largely unsuccessful. The novel methods outlined in this project are supported by scientific research and will be used with the goal of refining conventional methods to increase efficacy of future restoration projects. Given the previous investments into the restoration of this area, continued investment of resources is essential, so as not to let conditions worsen further and let previous investments go to waste. It is the generosity of entities like the Heritage Committee that allow for informed and well- placed restoration efforts on Nevada’s rangelands to support healthy mule deer populations and encourage their growth.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: Fall 2021 Estimated End Date: Fall 2022

2-30

#22-04

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 71,850.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. Habitat Conservation Fee $ 14,000.00

b. 2019 Indaziflam Treatment $ 82,332.65

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 96,332.65

3. In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ -

4. Total Project Funding $ 168,182.65

2-31

#22-04

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

4. Equipment Items

a.

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

5. Materials

a. Drill Seed Mix $ 31,250.00

b. Seedlings $ 12,400.00

c. Soil Amendments $ 2,500.00

d. Indaziflam for 2019 treatment $62,520.15

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ 43,650.00 $ 65,020.15

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a. Drill Seed Application $ 10,000.00

b. Seed Collection for Seedlings $ 1,500.00

c. Seedling planting $ 28,200.00

d. Aerial application indaziflam 2019 $ 20,312.50

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 28,200.00 $ 31,812.50

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 71,850.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e) 8. Total All Other Costs $ 96,832.65 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 168,682.65 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-32

#22-04

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☒

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

No additional funding will be necessary for the 2021 Izzenhood WMA Mule Deer Winter Habitat Restoration Project.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

It will be the privilege of the project proponent to identify all funding donors of Izzenhood WMA Mule Deer Winter Habitat Restoration Project in any publications, signage, media releases, presentations, or the like.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/1/2021

2-33

#22-04

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Map:

2-34

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Moira Kolada

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: 14 January 2021

Address: 1218 N. Alpha St City: Ely

State: Nevada Zip Code: 89301

Cell: 775-233-4798 Phone: 775-289-1655 ext 29

Email: [email protected] Fax: ______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: 2021 Area 10 Mule Deer Migration Corridor Habitat Enhancement

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY22

Project Location: Elko and White Pine Counties

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $75,000.00

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

The Area 10 mule deer herd is the largest in the state of Nevada, accounting for 15-20% of the statewide deer population. The Area 10 deer herd is comprised of several sub-herds that are highly migratory and exhibit long distance migrations from summer to winter ranges. The largest of these sub-herds is the one that summers in the Ruby Mountains of Hunt Units 102 and 103, and winters in the southern portion of the Ruby Mountains, the 2-35

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

north end of the White Pine Range, and the Butte Mountains. Deer collared within this sub-herd have been documented to move more than 130 miles between their seasonal ranges. The summer range is generally defined by highly productive mid-elevation shrub communities mixed with aspen and mahogany stands, transitioning into productive alpine zones with scattered whitebark and limber pine stands. The winter ranges are comprised of sage steppe vegetation, with varying degrees of pinyon/juniper encroachment. To enhance and protect the extensive migratory corridor, the stopover sites, and the winter ranges of the Area 10 mule deer herd there has been multiple NEPA processes completed in the past decade. The various projects focus on treating the tree encroachment that is so pervasive at the terminal reaches of the different migration corridors. The treatments include a combination of chaining, hand-thinning, mastication, weed abatement, and seeding. The projects are intended to reduce the potential of catastrophic wildfires, as well as, increasing the vegetative productivity of the winter range of the Area 10 mule deer herd. To date, millions of dollars have been expended by the Nevada Department of Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Forest Service, and numerous other private partners and NGOs to conduct treatment projects on the winter ranges of the Area 10 deer herd. The 2021 project season will expand the footprint of the work that has been completed since 2015.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

The Proposed project is to conduct vegetation treatments in a minimum of 1,000 acres in the Project Area to increase the diversity of herbaceous species, reduce fuel loads, and increase vigor and abundance of browse species. Areas targeted for treatment are crucial winter habitat for mule deer, classified as sagebrush communities where pinyon and juniper trees have become established and are invading/encroaching and creating undesirable conditions for forage/thermal cover balance. The stage of woodland development on sagebrush sites would influence the type of treatment method selected, follow-up treatment methods and management, understory competition, seed selection, and vegetation response following management.

Selecting the appropriate treatment to be applied would involve consideration of the vegetation composition, soils, slope, aspect, elevation, and the current successional and hydrologic state of the sites. In addition to the site conditions, it is equally important to determine how the management unit fits into the overall landscape mosaic, including, but not limited to wildlife habitat values, potential for wildfire, and other existing land use objectives.

2-36

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

The principal tree treatment methods under consideration for the Project include chaining, mastication, mulching, whole tree thinning, and hand thinning (both lop and scatter and cut and pile). Maintenance of treatments may be required in the future to maintain desired vegetative conditions. Maintenance (re-treatment or additional treatment) of treated areas may be implemented if the treatment unit and/or the watershed is departing, as indicated through monitoring, from the respective objectives listed. Any maintenance treatments would be held to the same design features identified within the respective NEPA analysis.

Mastication or Mechanical Whole Tree Thinning Mastication or mechanical tree thinning would be the preferred treatment method for those areas of the Project in succession Phases II and III and where selective tree thinning is important. Mastication, mulching, and mechanical whole tree thinning includes a cutting head attached to a wheeled or tracked piece of machinery. Mastication grinds brush and trees into small, chipped pieces or mulch that are left on-site. Whole tree mechanical thinning uses an attachment (e.g., feller buncher) that cuts trees at the base. The tree could then be left on-site or moved off-site. Mastication or mechanical tree thinning would be restricted to slopes appropriate for the machinery and attachment being used (generally less than 20 percent slope). These treatment methods allow for selective tree removal (thinning areas or areas with desirable tree species intermixed) and would be used in areas where tree selection is desired, and where mahogany is prevalent within the area. Seeding prior to treatment would be considered in areas where mastication or whole tree thinning is used, especially in late Phase II and most Phase III areas.

Mastication could be used in areas where chaining is impracticable (e.g., due to soil or hydrological conditions), where selective tree retention is needed, where prescribed fire could create unsafe conditions, or where the trees are too large for hand thinning. The mobility of the machines would allow the selective removal of trees to create indistinct edges instead of a straight edge. Mastication could be used either by itself or in conjunction with prescribed burning and chaining to achieve the desired treatment unit objectives.

Biomass created from mastication or mulching equipment would be left on-site to naturally degrade. When masticating or mulching, biomass material depth would be restricted to six inches or less. Whole tree thinning methods could be utilized for biomass removal and utilization, piling, or scattering.

2-37

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Biomass removal and utilization would be used in areas where the current road structure supports the use of vehicles to transport trees off-site is present. In areas with little to no vehicle access, trees could be cut and piled and disposed of at a later time with prescribed fire or scattered throughout the site. Felled trees would have the limbs removed to decrease visual impacts and to promote decomposition.

Hand thinning, fuelwood harvest, prescribed fire, and seeding, may be used in conjunction with or in addition to the primary methods mentioned above in order to meet the management objectives for each treatment unit.

Chaining Chaining would be the primary treatment method for those areas of the Project identified for treatment in woodland succession Phases II (late) and III. Soil conditions, such as texture and moisture content would be factored into treatment plans in order to minimize soil compaction and surface disturbance.

Chaining would be accomplished using the Ely Anchor Chain (Navy ship anchor chain with 90-120 pound links and 18-inch railroad iron welded perpendicular to the chain link) pulled between two bulldozers. Chaining treatments would consist of a two-way chaining (chaining the trees twice, once from one direction, then from the opposite direction). Areas that are chained would be aerially seeded with perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs after the first pass, and prior to the final pass. In addition to aerial seeding, seed dribblers attached to the track of the bulldozer may be used to press shrub seeds such as antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) into the soil to promote establishment. Seed mixes would be determined as described below. Biomass may be left on-site for natural degradation, or treated with a secondary treatment (e.g., prescribed fire). Fuelwood utilization may be allowed in specific areas after restoration objectives have been accomplished.

Chaining would be conducted in a mosaic pattern, to the greatest extent possible, with approximately 200 feet between islands to blend and contrast the treatment area with the surrounding environment and replicate natural disturbance. Treatment edges would be blended or graduated using mechanical or manual tree felling methods or would utilize natural breaks in vegetation to further reduce sharp visual contrast of the area. Islands of untreated trees would be left to provide escape and thermal cover for wildlife, and to meet visual resource objectives. Chaining could occur anytime (outside design feature restrictions) but would generally occur in the late fall or winter months.

2-38

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Chaining would generally be used where heavy to moderate densities of pinyon and juniper are causing decline of understory shrubs, grasses, and forbs within the Project Area. For the purpose of removing pinyon and juniper trees and maintaining sagebrush communities, chaining would not be a desirable method in areas with less than 10 percent tree cover. Chaining could be used on slopes of less than 20 percent, however this method may be considered on slopes up to 30 percent. Chaining would not be used in areas where selective tree removal is needed to meet treatment objectives. Chaining treatments would be designed to avoid existing and established stands of mahogany (Cercocarpus sp.) and where other limiting factors are present, such as wildlife, botany, hydrology, and/or soils.

Hand Thinning Hand thinning would primarily occur in Phase I woodland development areas within sagebrush habitat, and the goal is to remove the encroaching trees. The main objective would be to halt and reverse establishment of pinyon and juniper trees into the sagebrush dominated habitat. Hand thinning would involve the use of chainsaws to selectively hand cut trees within the treatment area. Hand thinning would primarily be utilized in areas where tree cover densities are less than 20 percent or where slopes exceed 30 percent. This treatment may also be used in denser stands to meet specific treatment objectives. Hand thinning may also be used as a pre-treatment or as a component of other treatments (e.g., prescribed fire, chaining, and mastication). In the lower bench areas where smaller diameter trees occur or where low tree densities are present, cut material would be left on- site with limbs scattered or placed next to the cut trunk. In areas where higher tree densities occur, cut material could be piled and later burned with prescribed fire or scattered throughout the treatment unit. Cut tree material in greater sage-grouse habitat would be scattered or piled next to the tree trunk to allow better movement of greater sage-grouse through and around the area.

Seeding Seeding would primarily occur in late Phase II and all Phase III pinyon and juniper expansion areas. Seeding would also occur in areas where it is determined that existing understory vegetation is not sufficient (e.g., less than 10 percent relative cover of desirable perennial grass and forb species). Seeding would occur through aerial application, broadcast with a tractor or all-terrain vehicle (ATV), by dribblers mounted to dozers, or by hand application. Seeding would be conducted during the fall or early winter months, preferably prior to snow fall. Seed mixes would consist of a variety of grasses, forbs, and shrubs that are adapted to the site characteristics. Preference would be given to using a purely native seed mix; however, if it is determined that the threat of recurring wildland fire, invasive species establishment, or site characteristics may prevent achieving the 2-39

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

treatment unit objectives, non-native perennials may be utilized to reduce these threats. Seed mixes would be determined by reviewing the ecological site descriptions for the treated areas to determine common species with a high probability of success to accomplish the desired objectives.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

Area 10 has long been the stronghold for mule deer in the State of Nevada. Improving and maintaining critical habitats for this population increases the likelihood that mule deer will persist in sustainable levels. This project, and it’s on the ground benefits aligns well with mission and objectives of the intended use of Wildlife Heritage Trust Account as defined in NRS 501.3575.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

The Project is located approximately 70-100 miles south of Elko, Nevada, in the southern portion of the Ruby Mountains, and is within Elko and White Pine counties. The Figure below shows the vicinity of proposed Project location. The Project Area encompasses both National Forest System (NFS) land in the Ruby Mountains Ranger District, as well as lands administered by the BLM's Egan Field Office. Some small in holdings of private land occur within the Project Area; however, the proposed Project does not include conducting treatments on these private lands.

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☒ No ☐

2-40

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

Significant federal grant funding is available to work on migratory big game herds in the west; however, non-federal match is necessary to leverage these funds. NDOW has received a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which requires 1:1 match. Heritage monies are ideally suited in scope and context to match towards grant funding and are ultimately the lynchpin to large-scale projects.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: July 2021 Estimated End Date: March 2022

2-41

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 75,000.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. NFWF Grant $ 200,000.00

b. Existing Heritage Funds from previous fiscal years $ 125,000.00

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 325,000.00

3. In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d. Contract Labor

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ -

4. Total Project Funding $ 400,000.00

2-42

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

4. Equipment Items

a.

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

5. Materials

a. Seed

b. Seedlings

c. Herbicide $ -

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a. Contract Labor $ 75,000.00 $ 325,000.00

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 75,000.00 $ 325,000.00

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 75,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 325,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 400,000.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-43

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☒

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

No additional funding will be necessary for this project.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

It will be the privilege of the project proponent to identify all funding donors of in any publications, signage, media releases, presentations, or the like.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/2/2021

2-44

#22-05

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-45

#22-06

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Caleb McAdoo & Madi Stout

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: 29 January 2021

Address: 60 Youth Center Rd City: Elko

State: Nevada Zip Code: 89801

Cell: 775-388-1982 Phone: 775-777-2392

Email: [email protected] Fax: ______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Pole Canyon Conservation Easement

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY22

Project Location: Elko County

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $200,000.00

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

2-46

#22-06

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Purpose of the Project:

The primary purpose of the Pole Canyon Conservation Easement is to purchase a conservation easement on the approximately 12,122.43 acres of the Pole Canyon Ranch. The property lies along the southern boundary of the United States Forest Service Wilderness, 30 miles east of Elko, Nevada in the East Humboldt Range. The property is in Hunt Unit 101, which is one of nine hunt units that make up Management Area 10, one of the State’s priority mule deer herds. The 12,122.43-acre Pole Canyon Ranch is comprised some of the most productive mule deer habitat in the State of Nevada. The property spans from approximately 6,700 ft in elevation to over 10,500 ft. and contains the headwaters of Lemons Creek, Wright Creek, Secret Creek, Woods Creek, and the Franklin River. The expansive ranch serves as summer, winter, and transition range for a large proportion of the Unit 101 deer herd. The Area 10 mule deer herd is the largest in the state of Nevada, accounting for 15-20% of the statewide deer population. The Area 10 deer herd is comprised of several sub-herds that are highly migratory and exhibit long distance migrations from summer to winter ranges. The second largest of these sub-herds is the one that summers in the East Humboldt Mountains of Hunt Units 101, and then migrates through Hunt Unit 109 en route to winter ranges near Spruce Mountain in Hunt Unit 105. While not currently identified with updated GPS collars, over fifty years of ground and aerial surveys have documented this migratory movement. Further, collars have been purchased to deploy 30 GPS collars on mule deer in the winter of 2020-2021 to clearly define corridors, stopovers, and winter ranges along this highly important migration corridor for the Area 10 mule deer herd. The summer range is generally defined by highly productive mid-elevation shrub communities mixed with aspen and mahogany stands, transitioning into productive alpine zones with scattered whitebark and limber pine stands. The winter ranges are comprised of sage steppe vegetation, with varying degrees of pinyon/juniper encroachment. Generally speaking, winter conditions force the deer out of their summer ranges in the late fall, where they begin their migration to wintering areas where they can more easily obtain forage and thermal cover thus reducing the energy they expend to survive (metabolic demands). This movement, often over 60 miles, is energetically costly and potentially dangerous as deer must navigate across State Route 229 and US 93. These two highway crossings are becoming increasingly more dangerous as traffic levels continue to increase. Topographically, the benches and foothills typically serve as the most optimal and least metabolically expensive route for the mule deer to travel to their end destination, be it summer or winter range. There has been a holistic approach to protecting the seasonal habitats of the Area 10 deer herd and the Pole Canyon Conservation Easement is a crucial piece in the overall puzzle. With a large percentage of the summer range protected by Forest Service management

2-47

#22-06

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

and a majority of the utilized winter range being protected by BLM management, the Pole Canyon Conservation Easement will complete the long-term protection of the majority of the seasonal habitats and the migration corridor of the East Humboldt mule deer herd. To further confirm the importance of the East Humboldt Range mule deer sub-herd to the overall health of Area 10 mule deer herd, look no further than the investments the Department has made at enhancing and protecting these extensive migratory corridors, the stopover sites, and the winter ranges in Unit 105 with the Spruce Mountain Restoration Project. The Spruce Mountain Restoration Project has been in the implementation stage since 2013, with a final treatment footprint of 10,000 acres to be completed in the winter of 2020-2021. The primary objective of this NEPA document was to restore, enhance, and rehabilitate BLM administered lands, with specific focus on the mule deer herd that summers within and adjacent to the targeted conservation easement. To date, millions of dollars have been expended by the Nevada Department of Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Forest Service, and numerous other private partners and NGOs to conduct treatment projects on the winter ranges specific to the same mule deer that would utilize the Pole Canyon Ranch during the summer, winter and transition periods.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

The Pole Canyon Conservation Easement will permanently protect 12,122.43 acres of private rangeland along the base of the East Humboldt mountains in northern Nevada. The proposed conservation easement will conserve habitat along a critical migratory corridor for the largest population of mule deer in Nevada and will serve as important sagebrush, grassland and riparian habitat for mule deer, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and several species of conservation priority, including the greater sage-grouse. The proposed conservation easement will also improve habitat connectivity to neighboring U.S. Forest Service administered lands for game and non-game species movement across the landscape.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

Area 10 has long been the stronghold for mule deer in the State of Nevada. Improving and maintaining critical habitats for this population increases the likelihood that mule deer will persist in sustainable levels. This project, and it’s on the ground benefits aligns

2-48

#22-06

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

well with mission and objectives of the intended use of Wildlife Heritage Trust Account as defined in NRS 501.3575.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

The Project is located approximately 30 miles east of Elko, Nevada, in the northern portion of the East Humboldt Range in Elko County, Nevada. The Figure 1(attached) shows the vicinity of proposed Project location. The Project Area is located on private lands surrounded by National Forest System (NFS) land in the Ruby Mountain Ranger District.

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☒ No ☐

2-49

#22-06

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

Significant federal grant funding is available to work on migratory big game herds in the west; however, non-federal match is necessary to leverage these funds. NDOW has received a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which requires 1:1 match. Heritage monies are ideally suited in scope and context to match towards grant funding and are ultimately the lynchpin to large-scale projects.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: March 2021 Estimated End Date: July 2022

2-50

#22-06

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 200,000.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. NFWF-NDOW Submitted $ 150,000.00 b. IDF $ 180,000.00 c. Dream Tag $ 120,000.00 d. NFWF-RMEF $ 260,000.00 e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a - d) $ 710,000.00 3. In-kind Servies for this Project a.Volunteer Time b. Equipment c. Materials d. Contract Labor e. f. g. h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a - g) $ -

4. Total Project Funding $ 910,000.00

2-51

#22-06

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition $ 200,000.00 $ 710,000.00

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

4. Equipment Items

a.

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

5. Materials

a. Seed

b. Seedlings

c. Herbicide $ -

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a. Contract Labor

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ -

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 200,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 710,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 910,000.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-52

#22-06

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☒

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

No additional funding will be necessary for this project.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

It will be the privilege of the project proponent to identify all funding donors of in any publications, signage, media releases, presentations, or the like.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/2/2021

2-53

#22-06

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Maps

2-54

#22-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Matt Glenn

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: 1/5/21

Address: 60 Youth Center Dr City: Elko

State: Nevada Zip Code: 89801

Cell: 775-388-3848 Phone: 775-777-2369

Email: [email protected] Fax: ______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

Caleb McAdoo

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: 2021 Nelson Creek Mule Deer Habitat Improvement Project

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY 2022

Project Location: North Tuscarora Mountains, Elko Nevada

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $57,750.00

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

The primary objective of the Nelson Creek Habitat Improvement Project is to provide mule deer a critical forage and thermal cover component as they transition and migrate from summer to winter range. The proposed treatment areas represent two polygons within the greater stop-over, transition, and winter range located in the North Tuscarora mountains. At present, the two polygons identified in this proposal can be characterized by a mix of native herbaceous species and winter annuals (cheatgrass primarily) with little to no brush species. As a result of multiple wildfires, the seed bank has become depleted of brush species which in turn has significantly slowed the recovery of a crucial brush component.

2-55

#22-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

The importance of the North Tuscarora mountains cannot be overstated as it relates to the overall Management Area 6 mule deer herd health. On heavy snow years this is an important stop-over site as deer migrate to winter range, and on lighter snow years a large proportion of the deer will select to stay here throughout the winter. As this area provides crucial habitat annually regardless of winter conditions for one of Nevada’s largest deer herds, its importance for the resource is critical.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

Project implementation at the Nelson Creek sites will be initiated in the late summer of 2021 with an application of pre-emergent herbicide to approximately 700 acres of crucial mule deer habitat. The pre- emergent herbicide controls and prevents the germination of cheatgrass, which presents a window to establish desirable plant materials like sagebrush and bitterbrush. The pre-emergent chosen for this project is an imazapic (active pre-emergent agent) based formulation that is bound to sand so that when applied aerially it easily falls through the vegetation canopy and is not captured by the leaves and stems of existing vegetation like a traditional liquid herbicide application.

Controlling cheatgrass germination to free up resources for existing vegetation and future seedling plantings provides desirable plant materials a competitive advantage that could not otherwise be achieved. The use of the pre-emergent herbicide imazapic in post fire applications has been implemented with consistent success in controlling cheatgrass gemination; however, application of the herbicide over existing vegetation has not been employed historically without having a mechanism to achieve soil contact with the herbicide. The formulation identified for use in this proposal being attached to inert sand granules allows for the necessary canopy penetration and soil contact needed to be effective.

As the native herbaceous component and its seed source remain present in the system, seedling planting to promote brush species recovery in the absence of winter annuals completes a crucial step in recovering a fully functional system for mule deer. The seedling planting phase of this project will be implemented in the spring or fall of 2022 in coordination with the Humboldt River Ranch to avoid unintended use by cattle until seedlings reach a mature state.

As this project lies completely on private land, it presents a unique opportunity to improve crucial mule deer habitat without the cumbersome and sometimes slow NEPA process. It should be highlighted that this project is in cooperation with Nevada Gold Mines and the Humboldt River Ranch with a joint objective of achieving well-functioning range condition.

2-56

#22-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

As the Area 6 mule deer herd continues to face adversity, primarily in loss of habitat, it becomes more important for NDOW and land management agencies to increase effectiveness and efficiency in the rehabilitation of crucial habitats for the herd. As one of the state’s largest mule deer herds that has real potential to rebound and remain stable to provide an even greater resource for the sportsmen of Nevada, projects like this one are congruent with objectives and mission of the intended use of Wildlife Heritage Trust Account as defined in NRS 501.3575.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

The project area lies completely on private land located in the North Tuscarora Mountains, Elko County, NV. The sites can be most easily accessed from the Midas Tuscarora County Road then heading north along Willow creek on a private two track road until you reach the sites. See legal description below:

Site Section Township Range Western Polygon Portions of S5 T39N R49E Eastern Polygon Portions of S4, S3, S9, T39N R49E S10,

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☒ No ☐

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

As with most range restoration projects, the process can be both difficult and expensive. Most, if not all phases of this project require contract labor, herbicide, seed, seedlings, etc. that all have significant costs associated with them. When working to improve a large enough tract of rangeland that will have real value for mule deer, costs become an obstacle, and it is important to NDOW, as well as sportsman, that no single entity bear the brunt of this funding burden.

2-57

#22-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

The Management Area 6 mule deer herd has been severely impacted over the last 20 years with winter, transition and stop over habitat taking the largest share of these negative impacts. Fire, cheatgrass invasion, and then drought have kept these habitats from responding in a productive manner that provides utility and viable habitat to the heard. It is the generosity of the groups and committees like the Heritage Commission that allow for well-placed and implemented restoration on Nevada’s rangeland to maintain healthy sustainable mule deer populations.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: August 2021 Estimated End Date: Fall 2022

2-58

#22-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 57,750.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project a. Habitat Consevation Fee $ 25,000.00 b. Upland Game Bird $ 18,750.00

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 43,750.00

3. In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ -

4. Total Project Funding $ 101,500.00

2-59

#22-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

4. Equipment Items

a.

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

5. Materials

a. Seedlings $ 23,625.00

b. Herbicide $ 25,725.00 $ -

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ 49,350.00 $ -

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a. Herbicide Application $ 8,400.00 $ -

b. Seedling Planting $ 43,750.00

c. $ -

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 8,400.00 $ 43,750.00

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 57,750.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 43,750.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 101,500.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-60

#22-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☐

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

It will be the privilege of the project proponent to identify all funding donors of Middle Rock Creek Restoration Project in any publications, signage, media releases, presentations, or the like.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 2/25/2021

2-61

#22-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-62

#22-08

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

WILDLIFE HERITAGE ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Moira Kolada

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife Date: 8 January 2020

Address: 1218 N. Alpha St. City: Ely

State: NV Zip Code: 89301

Cell: 775-233-4798 Phone:775-289-1655 ext 29

Email: [email protected] Fax: 775-289-1649

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: 2021 Smith Valley Habitat Restoration

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY22

Project Location: Smith Valley/Egan Range, White Pine County

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project: The Smith Valley Habitat Restoration project aims to restore sagebrush and mountain shrub habitats that provide crucial summer and winter habitat and migration corridors for Management Area 12 (Area 12) mule deer; priority and general habitat for greater sage- grouse; summer/brood rearing habitat for dusky grouse; as well as summer and year- round habitat for Rocky Mountain elk. These areas, like many areas of sagebrush habitats, are experiencing in increase in the pinyon and juniper infilling caused by departure from natural disturbance regime. This infilling of pinyon and juniper has led to a decrease in the

2-63

#22-08

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

quality habitat for wildlife and has been identified as limiting factor for mule deer and sage-grouse populations. Treatments would allow for the reduction in fuel loading, an increase of understory grass and forb species diversity and productivity, and improvement in overall wildlife habitat quality and wildlife diversity.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

The Smith Valley project boundary is approximately 12,000 acres and encompasses 14 treatment units identified within that boundary. The areas selected for treatment would directly benefit the Area 12 mule deer herd by improving and expanding crucial summer and crucial winter habitat. This project targets the core area of the Area 12 herd; upwards of 1,000 mule deer use this area and would benefit from these treatments The Tank Springs West greater sage-grouse lek will have trees removed from the lek site, decreasing perching opportunities for avian predators. Additionally, brood rearing and winter habitat would be improved for the greater sage-grouse that use Tank Springs West lek, as well as greater sage-grouse that lek in south Butte Valley. Dusky grouse live year-round in this area and their summer brood rearing habitat will also benefit. The vast majority of the proposed treatments are proposed on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Ely District (Ely BLM), though some small portions are located on private lands. Treatment of private land would only occur if a cooperative agreement is signed and executed with the private landowners prior to treatment. A combination of vegetation treatment methods would be used to achieve resource objectives, including: hand thinning, mastication, chaining, and aerial seeding. Hand thinning would primarily be used in areas of phase 1 (trees are present but grasses and shrubs are still dominant) and early phase 2 (trees, grasses, and shrubs are codominant) pinyon and juniper encroachment. Chaining and/or mastication would be use in areas of phase 2 and early phase 3 (trees are dominant) pinyon and juniper encroachment. Seeding would be done in those areas that that have depleted understory vegetation and would benefit from an additional seed source for desirable vegetation. All treatments would include design features to benefit the greatest array of wildlife species. The Ely BLM has committed to processing a categorical exclusion to meet the NEPA requirements for this project and is currently developing treatment polygons in coordination with the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

How Does this Project Meet the Objectives of the Wildlife Heritage Program? (See NRS 501.3575)

This project specifically meets the objectives in subsection 1(a) of NRS 501.3575, “…the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction, and management of 2-64

#22-08

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

any game fish or mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this state. The treatments funded by the Wildlife Heritage Fund would greatly improve habitat for many big game, non-game species, greater sage-grouse, and dusky grouse.

2-65

#22-08

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

T17N R62E Sections: 1-5, 9-14, 24, 25

T17N 63E Sections: 6, 7, 18, 19

T18N R61E Sections: 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 24

T18N R62E Sections: 2-4, 9-11, 14-16, 19-22, 24, 25, 27-30, 32-34

T18N R63E Sections: 19, 23-26, 30-35

T19N R62E Sections: 26, 27, 34, 35

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☒ No ☐

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

While many other funding sources have been identified and will be pursued outside of the Heritage Account, restoration activities are inherently expensive and any contribution towards this endeavor would provide great benefit to achievement of project objectives.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: July 20221 Estimated End Date: July 2022

2-66

#22-08

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). (Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.)

1. Amount of Wildlife Heritage Account Cash Requested $ 75,000.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. Habitat Conservation Fee $ 25,000.00

b. RMEF PAC $ 25,000.00

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 50,000.00

3. Donations or In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ -

4. Total Project Funding $ 125,000.00

2-67

#22-08

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS

The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. (Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.) Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included)

a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

3. Equipment Items a. $ -

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

4. Materials

a. Fencing $ -

b.

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

5. Miscellaneous Costs including Contractor Costs (if you will be using a contractor, include their name and list the specific services they will be providing) a. PJ Removal Contract $ 75,000.00 $ 50,000.00

b. In Kind Labor

c.

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 75,000.00 $ 50,000.00

6. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 75,000.00 (add lines 1, 2c, 3d, 4e, and 5e)

7. Total All Other Costs $ 50,000.00 (add lines 1, 2c, 3d, 4e, and 5e)

8. Total Project Costs $ 125,000.00 (add lines 6 & 7) (Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-68

#22-08

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are there going to be any Ongoing Costs for this Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There will be Ongoing Costs Associated with this Project, is there an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☐

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.): It is likely that we will seek additional Heritage Funding in subsequent years for this project. This request is for specific treatment work associated with FY21.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

NDOW and the Heritage Program would be credited as partners in the project for all public information releases and post treatment reports.

NDOW Authorizing Signature:

Review Date:2/25/2021

2-69

#22-08

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-70

#22-09

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Jeremy Lutz

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: March 9, 2021

Address: 525 Round Mountain Dr. City: Battle Mountain

State: Nevada Zip Code: 89820

Cell: 775-722-7326 Phone: 775-635-5070

Email: [email protected] Fax: ______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

______

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Whistler Mountain Pinyon/Juniper Hand Thinning Project.

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: 2021.

Project Location: Project will take place entirely within the 3-Bars Project Area located in Eureka County, Nevada.

The project area is located directly north west of Eureka, NV. Thinning will take place entirely within the Whistler Mountains polygon of the 3 Bars Project Area. See Attached maps.

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $40.000.00

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

2-71

#22-09

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Purpose of the Project:

The proposed project would thin or substantially remove encroaching pinyon pine and juniper trees from as much as 1,500 acres of important wildlife habitat located within the 3-Bars Project Area using a contracted hand thinning crew.

The 3 Bars Project Area encompasses approximately 725,000 acres throughout Eureka County, Nevada. The 3 Bars ecosystem is a shrub steppe ecosystem where land health has declined to state 5 of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Ecological Site Characteristics State and Transition Model, which is a tree dominate state. Large amounts of wildlife habitat, particularly mountain big sagebrush sites are at risk of PJ encroachment within the 3 Bars Project Area. As trees begin to dominate a site, the shrub, grass, and forb understory is essentially lost or greatly reduced through competitive exclusion. Sage-grouse generally avoid areas largely dominated by trees and most sagebrush obligate species will avoid nonfunctioning sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Once an ecosystem has degraded to a tree dominated state, natural recovery without intervention is considered unlikely.

In an effort to enhance important shrub steppe habitat found within the 3 Bars Project Area, specifically around Whistler Mountain, up to 1,500 acres of pinyon/juniper will be hand thinned. Thinning pinyon/juniper from native sagebrush steppe habitat has shown to have a positive impact for a myriad of sagebrush obligate species including mule deer, pronghorn antelope and the many endemic bird species, including the sage thrasher and sage sparrow, that depend on healthy sage brush plant communities. As pinion/juniper stands increase in size and density, the grass, forb and brush community start to die off due to the trees ability to out compete these fragile plant communities for water and sunlight. Once this threshold has been crossed it is very hard to bring it back to a productive sagebrush steppe ecosystem again.

Several spring sources including Hash Springs, Railroad Spring, Stinking Spring, and Trap Corral Spring will be targeted for thinning as well within the Whistler polygon. Due to pinyon-juniper encroachment around these important areas, spring or riparian health has been compromised. Up to 17 acres will be manually thinned around each spring, specifically targeting Phase 1 and Phase 2 stands.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

More specifically, the Proposed Project is to implement vegetation treatments within the Whistler treatment polygon with the specific objectives of:

• Reversing the expansion of pinyon-juniper woodlands; • Prevent catastrophic large-scale wildland fires resulting from the buildup of fuels and the conversion of fuel type based on prediction from historic assessments; • Improve species composition and diversity; • Reverse the decreasing quality of wildlife habitat and forage due to damage from wildfires and pinyon and juniper encroachment; and • Prevent the establishment and expansion of invasive non-native species.

2-72

#22-09

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

• Help protect and restore important spring and riparian sources for wildlife.

Once funding is secure a Scope of Work will be released where the Department will award the contract to the lowest bidder. All work will be conducted according to the specifications outlined in the NEPA documents pertinent to that federal land management agency. All work at the site will be implemented outside of the migratory bird, and sage-grouse lekking and early brood rearing seasons.

All NEPA requirements have been completed and are covered under BLM’s 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project EIS (DOI-BLM-NV-B010-2011-0200).

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

Large amounts of wildlife habitat, particularly mountain big sagebrush sites are at risk of PJ encroachment within the 3 Bars Project Area. As trees begin to take over a site, the shrub and grass understory is essentially lost or greatly reduced through competitive exclusion. Sage-grouse generally avoid areas largely dominated by trees and most sagebrush obligate species will avoid nonfunctioning sagebrush steppe ecosystems. This project will specifically help to reduce PJ encroachment in high value wildlife habitat before it is lost.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

Polygon Acres Township Range Section Whistler 1500 20 52 11,12,13,14,23,24,25 20 53 18,19 21 52 26,35

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☒ No ☐

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

Wildland restoration is inherently expensive which is why several other funding sources have been asked to help fund this project including the Habitat Conservation Fee as well as the Dream Tag Charitable Fund. By collaboratively matching additional funding sources we will be able to perform more restoration activities in the 3 Bars Project Area with the hopes of reversing the downward trend in the sagebrush steppe ecosystem by enhancing or restoring more of its critical habitat. 2-73

#22-09

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated End Date: February 2022 Estimated Start Date: October 2021

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 40,000.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. NDOW's Habitat Conservation Fee $ 20,000.00

b. Dream Tag Cheritable Fund $ 100,000.00

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 120,000.00

3. In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ -

4. Total Project Funding $ 160,000.00

2-74

#22-09

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

4. Equipment Items

a.

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

5. Materials

a. PJ removal contractor $ 40,000.00 $ 120,000.00

b.

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ 40,000.00 $ 120,000.00

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a.

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 40,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 120,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 160,000.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-75

#22-09

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☒

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

No additional funding will be necessary for this specific project until additional archeological clearances have been completed.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

It will be the privilege of the project proponent to identify all funding donors of this hand thinning project in any publications, signage, media releases, presentations, or the like.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/12/2021

2-76

#22-09

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-77

#22-09

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-78

#22-10

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Jeremy Lutz

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: 1/7/2021

Address: 525 Round Mountain Dr. City: Battle Mountain

State: NV Zip Code: 89820

Cell: (775) 722-7326 Phone: (775) 635-5070

Email: [email protected] Fax: (775) 635-3430

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

______

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: 2021 Argenta Rim Mule Deer Enhancement Project

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY22

Project Location: The project area is located in Eureka County, east of Battle Mountain, Nevada.

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $75,000.00

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

The purpose of this project is to establish important forage for wintering mule deer and pronghorn antelope on degraded winter ranges within the Shoshone Mountains.

Since 1986, over 60,000 acres has burned on what is referred to as the Argenta Rim. The Argenta Rim is located in the very northern portion of the Shoshone Mountains, in Lander and Eureka Counties. This area is extremely important for mule deer, pronghorn, and sage-grouse; as well as a variety of other upland game species. Portions of the Argenta Rim are considered crucial winter range for mule deer and antelope from two different management areas. Extensive collaring data suggests that mule deer from Area 6, as well as mule deer from Area 15, will migrate over 40 miles to utilize this degraded winter 2-79

#22-10

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

range. Survey data suggests that several hundred mule deer and antelope can be found wintering along the rim during average winters, with more animals present on above average precipitation years.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

In the fall of 2020, 1,920 acres were aerially sprayed with liquid herbicide (Imazapic) to prevent germination of invasive annuals on the Argenta Rim. Three private land sections that fall within crucial winter range were targeted for wildland restoration practices that have been shown to increase the success of rangeland seedings. This restoration practice drastically reduces the competition with non- desirable species and allows for the successful establishment of targeted seeded species.

Once funding is secure, a wildlife seed mix consisting of both native and non-native species that includes; sagebrush, forage kochia, yarrow, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and annual Sunflower will be aerially applied to provide wildlife with not only cover, but also crucial forage. Aerial seeding would be completed under a contract using a fixed wing aircraft.

No NEPA is required as all work being done is located on private land with full written permission from the landowner.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

Large amounts of wildlife habitat have been lost on the Argenta Rim due to wildfires. Once invasive annuals dominate a site, wildlife values are diminished and wildlife abundance and diversity are significantly reduced. Areas dominated by invasive annuals are more prone to catastrophic wildfires that greatly reduce the ability of native grasses and shrubs to become established on the landscape and provided a positive feedback loop in the fire cycle. Using selective herbicide and allowing the area to chemically fallow for one year, greatly increases the chances of a successful seeding treatment. In concert with the aforementioned herbicide treatment, the seeding of grass, forb and shrub species which have a demonstrated ability to germinate, persist and provide long-term forage and cover values to wildlife, will specifically provide value to mule deer in an area otherwise largely dominated by invasive annual grass.

In brief, this project will help to reduce the amount of invasive annuals on the landscape, increase forage and cover for wildlife and act in some capacity as a fuel break during large wildfire events.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

Township Range Section Acres 32 48 11 640 32 48 15 640 32 48 21 640

2-80

#22-10

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☒ No ☐

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

Wildland restoration is inherently expensive which is why several other funding sources have been asked to help fund this project including: the Upland Game Stamp, Habitat Conservation Fee, as well as our Federal funds received by our Partners Program. By collaboratively matching additional funding sources we will be able to perform more restoration activities on this winter range by enhancing or restoring more of its critical habitat for wildlife.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: January 2022 Estimated End Date: February 2022

2-81

#22-10

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $75,000.00 2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. NDOW Partners Funding (Fish and Wildlife R&R Grant) $ 75,560.00

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 75,560.00 3. In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g. h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ - 4. Total Project Funding $ 150,560.00

2-82

#22-10

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

4. Equipment Items

a.

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

5. Materials Seed Purchase: 7,050 lbs Wildlife Mix $ 75,000.00 $ 65,000.00

b.

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ 75,000.00 $ 65,000.00

6. Miscellaneous Costs Aerial Seed Application. 1,920 acres@ $ 10,560.00 $5.50 acre. b.

c.

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ 10,560.00

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 75,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 75,560.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 150,560.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-83

#22-10

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☒

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

No additional funding will be necessary for this project.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

It will be the privilege of the project proponent to identify all funding donors of this seeding project in any publications, signage, media releases, presentations, or the like.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/1/2021 2-84

#22-10

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-85

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Shawn Espinosa

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: January 13, 2021

Address: 6980 Sierra Center Parkway City: Reno

State: NV Zip Code: 89511

Cell: (775) 771-4243 Phone: (775) 688-1523

Email: [email protected] Fax: ______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

______

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Optimizing management towards maximizing brood habitat for Greater Sage-grouse.

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed:

2022 Project Location:

This project will use two data sources. Brood locations were collected from Southern Oregon as well as Central and Northern Nevada. Statewide lek counts will also be used from Oregon and Nevada. Using Bayesian hierarchal modeling, the linkage between the datasets will be made so that the tool will be applicable to the entire sage-grouse range in Nevada and Oregon.

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account:

$50,000.00

2-86

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

To develop a tool to evaluate the response of Greater Sage-grouse populations to different management strategies directed towards maximizing brood rearing habitat.

2-87

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

The University of Nevada-Reno (hereafter UNR) conducted research in Central Nevada from 2003-2012 with the goal of quantifying the effect of a transmission line on Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus, hereafter sage-grouse) demography. Following a similar data collection protocol, UNR conducted a research project in Northern Nevada and Southern Oregon from 2013-2019 with the primary goal of assessing the effect of feral horses and livestock on Sage-grouse habitat and demographics. Both projects found fluctuations in annual weather patterns to be drivers of sage-grouse productivity (Blomberg et al 2012, Blomberg et al 2014, Gibson et al 2017, Street et al 2020), highlighting the need for long-term data to evaluate drivers that can be influenced through management. Using Bayesian hierarchical modeling, this project would leverage data collected over 16 years from both datasets to identify the primary drivers influencing sage-grouse populations and ultimately develop a flexible tool that the Nevada Department of Wildlife could use to evaluate management strategies and target areas for potential conservation actions. One management strategy is to evaluate different life-history stages and focus efforts towards the stage most likely to result in increased populations. For sage-grouse, pre-fledging survival is thought to be one of the most influential parameters associated with variation in population growth of sage-grouse, as survival of chicks is highly variable and associated with environmental and habitat variation (Taylor et al 2012, Dahlgren et al 2016, Gibson 2017). To better direct management to seasonal use, Coates et al. (2020) developed seasonal sage-grouse habitat indices and found water availability was a limiting factor during the summer and fall months, a period when sage-grouse are raising their chicks. The pre-fledging period can be divided into roughly two contiguous periods, early versus late brood-rearing. Broods are restricted to habitats near nests immediately after hatch (Gibson 2016), but as broods age the vegetation near the nesting site desiccates and females are forced to move to either higher elevations or more mesic areas in search of water (Fischer 1996, Atamian 2010, Gibson 2017). In central Nevada, Atamian et al (2010) estimated that late brood-rearing habitat essential for fledging young represented < 2% of the landscape. Kane (2017) found that late brood habitat had the greatest influence on regional population dynamics of sage-grouse in central Nevada. Additionally, drought severity has increased in the Great Basin and sage- grouse survival and reproduction are negatively affected by drought (Blomberg et al 2012, Guttery et al 2013), furthering the need to identify late brood-rearing habitat and how it varies from year to year. To determine habitat available for sage-grouse during the brooding period, Street (2020) examined distances moved from where birds were initially captured to locations during the breeding season. These distances were used to model an index of how far a female was willing to travel from a lek to nest, and how far they would be willing to move to reach late brood-rearing habitat. Concomitantly, they used remotely sensed data to compare points known to be used by sage-grouse to brood their chicks to random available points, and ultimately model the best early and late brood rearing habitat for each lek. The end result is a lek-specific map of early and late brood rearing habitat. This approach offers several advantages for management. First, it allows investigators to evaluate early and late brood-rearing habitat specific to leks of concern. Second, estimates of suitable habitat are at the level of the lek, thus lek-specific metrics of abundance (lek counts) are easy to incorporate. Third, mosaics of the individual maps can be tailored towards specific management goals at any scale desired from the individual lek up to statewide estimates for Nevada and Oregon. For example, NDOW might be interested in answering the question, where is the best early and late brood-rearing habitat for sage-grouse within the Vya, Massacre, and Sheldon population management units? The results from this query identified that

2-88

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

contemporary estimates of early and late brood rearing habitat classified less than 5.35% of the landscape to be considered high quality early brood rearing habitat, and less than 4.64% to be considered high quality late brood rearing habitat. If the assumption that the number of attending males is representative of the number of females that breed on each lek is made, then each lek-specific map can be weighted by the number of attending males. When mosaicked into a continuous surface these maps have the ability to identify specific features of the landscape to direct management towards maximizing the number of chicks that survive to breed. While it may seem intuitive that having high quality brood-rearing habitat will result in more breeding sage- grouse attending leks in the following years, this linkage has yet to be established. If funded, this project would use detailed pre-fledging survival data collected from Central and Northern Nevada as well as Southern Oregon to link brood-rearing habitat to fluctuations in lek counts from year to year. Once this linkage is established, managers can directly relate changes in late brood rearing habitat to changes in lek counts over time at different temporal and spatial scales. Knowing how changes in brood-rearing habitat result in population changes will allow managers to evaluate the effectiveness of different management strategies into the future. This project would quantify this linkage and develop a simulation tool for NDOW to use to evaluate management strategies and the uncertainty in the outcome.

2-89

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

With any management action directed towards wildlife, uncertainty exists in how the population will respond. Because the Great-Basin is an arid environment and weather varies annually, the response of Nevada Sage-grouse populations to management will likely occur years after the action has been implemented. For these reasons, quantifying the uncertainty associated with sage-grouse populations as well as the drivers of their populations is of utmost importance to the persistence of the species. A Bayesian hierarchical modeling approach provides a framework to quantify these uncertainties. Once these uncertainties have been quantified, NDOW can use simulation to project the outcome of different management strategies into the future. This project will develop a tool with input from NDOW employees to be a user-friendly application to assess the outcome of different management scenarios associated with maximizing brood-rearing habitat. The app will use program R as an interface to download necessary remotely sensed data and provide results to specific queries in a PDF format as well as mapping products that can be imported into GIS. An example of how such a tool could be applied can be found on the Massacre population management unit. In this unit, a growing population of feral horses, livestock grazing, and fire has resulted in reduced quality of sage-grouse brood habitat (Street 2020) and is thought to be the leading cause of several leks in the unit becoming unoccupied. In partnership with the Bureau of Land Management, NDOW has planned several fencing exclosures to be implemented during the summer of 2021. The goal of the exclosures is to prevent feral horse grazing, allow more control of livestock grazing, and improve meadows critical to brood rearing sage-grouse (e.g., Figure 1). Like any project, funding is limited and priorities have to be assigned to a few meadows. Using data from similar projects such as feral horse removal on Sheldon, our tool would allow NDOW to evaluate several planning scenarios for the fencing project and pick the scenario that would most likely result in the greatest benefit to sage-grouse populations. Lastly, once the fencing exclosures are in place, the tool will allow NDOW to monitor the results as they occur.

2-90

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Figure 1) Meadow being considered for restoration for sage-grouse brood habitat. Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

Sage-grouse habitat in Nevada and Oregon

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☐ No ☒

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project: Federal Wildlife Restoration Grant funding has been reduced and more broadly available non- governmental organization funding has declined due to the Coronavirus pandemic. The requested funding is designated as 6 months of salary for Phillip Street at the University of Nevada- Reno to develop the application for NDOW to evaluate management strategies.

2-91

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐ Estimated Start Date: 07/01/2021 Estimated End Date: 6/30/2022

2-92

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 50,000.00 2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project a. Bureau of Land Management $ 9,987.00 b. Greater Hart-Sheldon Conservation Fund $ 18,051.00 c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Regions 1 and 6) $ 28,462.00 d. e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 56,500.00 3. In-kind Services for this Project a. Volunteer Time b. Equipment c. Materials d. e. f. g. h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ - 4. Total Project Funding $ 106,500.00

2-93

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the $ 50,000.00 $ 48,500.00 Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem $ 1,000.00

b. Mileage $ 2,000.00

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ 3,000.00

4. Equipment Items

a.

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

5. Materials

a.

b.

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a. Publication Costs $ 5,000.00

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ 5,000.00

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 50,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e) 8. Total All Other Costs $ 56,500.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 106,500.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-94

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☒

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

NO

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

The Wildlife Heritage account will be acknowledged in any publications and presentations resulting from this project.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/1/2021

2-95

#22-11

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Literature Cited: Atamian, M.T., Sedinger, J.S., Heaton, J.S. & Blomberg, E.J. (2010) Landscape-level assessment of brood rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse in Nevada. The Journal of Wildlife Management,74, 1533–1543.

Blomberg, E.J., Sedinger, J.S., Atamian, M.T. & Nonne, D.V. (2012) Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations. Ecosphere, 3,1–20.

Blomberg, E.J., Sedinger, J.S., Gibson, D., Coates, P.S. & Casazza, M.L. (2014b) Carryover effects and climatic conditions influence the postfledging survival of greater sage-grouse. Ecology and Evolution, 4, 4488– 4499.

Coates, P.S., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Severson, J.P., Casazza, M.L., Gustafson, K.B., Espinosa, S.P., Gardner, S.C. & Delehanty, D.J. (2020) Spatially explicit models of seasonal habitat for Greater sage- grouse at broad spatial scales: Informing areas for management in Nevada and northeastern California. Ecology and Evolution, 10, 104–118.

Dahlgren, D.K., Guttery, M.R., Messmer, T.A., Caudill, D., Dwayne Elmore, R., Chi, R. & Koons, D.N. (2016) Evaluating vital rate contributions to greater sage-grouse population dynamics to inform conservation. Ecosphere, 7, e01249.

Fischer, R.A., Reese, K.P. & Connelly, J.W. (1996) Influence of vegetal moisture content and nest fate on timing of female sage grouse migration. The Condor, 98, 868–872.

Gibson, D., Blomberg, E.J., Atamian, M.T. & Sedinger, J.S. (2016a) Nesting habitat selection influences nest and early offspring survival in Greater Sage-Grouse. The Condor, 118, 689–702.

Gibson, D., Blomberg, E.J., Atamian, M.T. & Sedinger, J.S. (2017) Weather, habitat composition, and female behavior interact to modify offspring survival in greater sage-grouse. Ecological Applications, 27, 168– 181.

Guttery, M.R., Dahlgren, D.K., Messmer, T.A., Connelly, J.W., Reese, K.P., Terletzky, P.A.,Burkepile, N. & Koons, D.N. (2013) Effects of landscape-scale environmental variation on Greater sage-grouse chick survival. PLoS One, 8.

Kane, K., Sedinger, J.S., Gibson, D., Blomberg, E. & Atamian, M. (2017) Fitness landscapes and life-table response experiments predict the importance of local areas to population dynamics. Ecosphere, 8, e01869.

Street, Phillip A. (2020) Greater Sage-grouse habitat and demographic response to grazing by non-native ungulates, Doctoral dissertation

Taylor, R.L., Walker, B.L., Naugle, D.E. & Mills, L.S. (2012) Managing multiple vital rates to maximize Greater sage-grouse population growth. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 76, 336–347.

2-96

#22-12

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person/Organization/Agency: Cody Schroeder – Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: 03-08-2021

Name: Cody Schroeder Title: Wildlife Staff Specialist Address: 6980 Sierra Center Pkwy. City: Reno State: NV Zip 89511 Phone: 688-1659 Cell: Fax: Email: [email protected] Other:

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Mule deer radio-collaring study in Northwest Nevada

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY 2022

Project Location: Northern Washoe County and portions of Humboldt County; Hunt Units 021, 022, 011- 015, 032-034 to be coordinated with on-going Predation Management Project 46 titled “Investigating potential limiting factors impacting mule deer in Northwest Nevada.”

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $25,000

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

The purpose of this project is to investigate potential limiting factors of mule deer survival and better understand predator-prey dynamics in Northwest Nevada. Several factors have been identified as being potential limiting factors based on previous radio collaring efforts including predation, poor habitat quality, severe drought, and possible competitive interactions with feral horses and burros. This study seeks to enhance the information obtained in previous radio-collaring efforts by providing contemporary data on mule deer survival, mark a representative sample of individuals, and provide additional information on the distribution and population performance of these declining herds.

2-97

#22-12

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

We propose to capture and collar up to 30 mule deer in northwestern Nevada in areas of known mule deer concentrations and in coordination with project collaborators (Fig. 1). The information from the GPS collars will be used to increase the scope and extent of previous study’s that were initially designed to delineate movement patterns, spatial distribution, and to quantify the amount of time spent in crucial seasonal habitats. Additionally, we will collect information on cause-specific mortality to investigate the potential role of predation in limiting populations in northern Nevada. We will use Brownian Bridge Movement Models (Horne et al. 2007, Sawyer et al 2009) to analyze the GPS telemetry data we collect on marked animals. We will use standard survival models to analyze mule deer collar data to ascertain annual and seasonal survival rates. To accomplish this goal, NDOW will use a third-party contractor to analyze the movement data upon project completion. The movement corridors, seasonal range use, and resource selection analyses will be used by NDOW to identify priority habitat and restoration projects. We will share these data and analyses with our federal partners and local wildlife conservation organizations to facilitate conservation efforts.

Helicopter capture of mule deer will be arranged by NDOW using a private contractor. NDOW will delineate capture locations and provide helicopter and capture safety briefings before any capture work is conducted and consult with BLM on plan of operations and locations of capture zones. NEPA analysis may be required for some aspects of this project; however, we will avoid Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas until appropriate permissions have been obtained.

References:

Horne, Jon S., et al. "Analyzing animal movements using Brownian bridges." Ecology 88.9 (2007): 2354- 2363.

Sawyer, Hall, Matthew J. Kauffman, and Ryan M. Nielson. "Influence of well pad activity on winter habitat selection patterns of mule deer." The Journal of Wildlife Management 73.7 (2009): 1052-1061.

2-98

#22-12

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

How Does this Project Meet the Objectives of the Wildlife Heritage Program? (See NRS 501.3575)

This project directly meets the objectives of the Wildlife Heritage Program in several ways. By learning about cause-specific mortality, nutritional condition, and movement patterns of mule deer in Northwest Nevada we can pinpoint where to focus restoration efforts for enhancing mule deer habitat in the future. Moreover, these data will help to provide a better understanding of mule deer ecology and provide a baseline to monitor future efforts to restore mule deer in other parts of the state of Nevada that have similar issues.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

These are free-ranging mule deer across multiple state and county boundaries including Washoe, Humboldt, and portions of California, thus specific legal descriptions do not apply.

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☐ No ☒ However, the results will be used to directly inform where future habitat enhancement projects may occur.

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

Heritage funds will be used in conjunction with several other sources including Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid funds and private donations by Mule Deer Foundation. By receiving Heritage dollars, we can secure additional federal funds at the rate of 3:1, effectively quadrupling the total amount of funds being used towards this worthy endeavor.

Project Duration: one year ☐ two years ☒ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: July 1, 2022 Estimated End Date: June 30, 2024

PROJECT FUNDING

2-99

#22-12

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

The funding breakdown below should only be for the upcoming fiscal year. While projects may be extended beyond the first fiscal year, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Wildlife Heritage Account Cash Amount Requested $ 25,000.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. Federal Aid Pitman-Robertson $ 25,000.00 b. Mule Deer Foundation $ 25,000.00

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 50,000.00

3. Donations or In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ -

4. Total Project Funding $ 75,000.00

2-100

#22-12

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should only be for the first fiscal year of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the first fiscal year, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included)

3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included)

a. Per diem costs for population workshop $ -

b. Mileage for instructors $ -

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

4. Equipment Items

a. Radio Collars $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Equipment Costs (line a – d) $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00

5. Materials

a. $ -

b.

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a. Contract services for capture work $ - $ 25,000.00

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ 25,000.00

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 25,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 50,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 75,000.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-101

#22-12

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are there going to be any Ongoing Costs for this Project? Yes ☒ No ☐

If there are Ongoing Costs Associated with this Project, is there an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☒ No ☐

Yes, we will use P/R funds or seek additional funding from private donations to fulfill any associated funding needs.

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes It is not anticipated we will need additional funding from the Heritage Account in future years.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

The Wildlife Heritage Account will be acknowledged by the department in any professional presentations or public meetings. Additionally, we will acknowledge the Wildlife Heritage Account in professional publications such as scientific journals or any media-related publications such as news media outlets and departmental press releases.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/8/2021

2-102

#22-12

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Figure 1. Map of proposed mule deer study areas in Northwest Nevada. Specific capture areas will be identified in conjunction with Area Biologist and other project collaborators.

2-103

#22-13

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

WILDLIFE HERITAGE ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Cody McKee (Elk Staff Specialist)

Co-Project Manager: Travis Allen (Area 6 Game Biologist)

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: February 12, 2021

Address: 6980 Sierra Center Pkwy, Ste 120 City: Reno

State: Nevada Zip Code: 89503

Cell: (541) 910-5639 Phone: (775) 688-1525

Email: [email protected] Fax: (775) 688-1495

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Investigation of Elk Mortalities in Management Area 6

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY22

Project Location: Elko County

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $85,000

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☐ No ☒ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

Investigation of unknown elk mortalities occurring in Unit Hunts 062 and 067 of western Elko County.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

2-104

#22-13

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Overview

Periodic reports of carcasses of mature elk found on the southern edge of the Owyhee Desert in western Elko County have been received by the Department since, at least, 2009. Carcasses are often reported intact and evidence of predation is absent. Beginning in 2015, the Department increased monitoring efforts of expanding elk herds in northern Nevada to improve understanding of herd boundaries and interstate movement dynamics. During this initial effort, 5 radio-collars were deployed on cow elk in the Tuscarora Range (Hunt Unit 062). During May 2015, Department personnel investigated the mortality notification transmitted by 1 of those 5 cows. Due to rapid necrosis, the cause of death was inconclusive but consistent with previous carcass reports (i.e., intact carcass, no visible signs of predation, seemingly healthy). As of January 2020, 17 of 42 elk radio-collared in the southern Owyhee Desert, mostly comprising Hunt Units 062 and 067, have succumbed to this unknown source of mortality.

In 2015, many of Nevada’s elk herds were above population objectives, including the portions of the Management Area 6 herd wintering along the southern Owyhee Desert. Aggressive harvest and, likely, below-average annual survival, contributed to the reduction of the southern Owyhee portion of the Area 6 elk herd. While the northern portion of the Management Area 6 herd, residing near the Idaho border, is currently stable to slight increasing, the southern portion has exhibited a slight but steady decline in overall numbers since 2015. The Department believes light harvest and a larger population likely masked additive effects of these seasonal mortality events.

In 2018, the Department invested in 10 mortality implant transmitters (hereafter, MIT) to improve response time during mortality investigations. The MIT is implanted in the rumen of the cow elk, via bolus gun, and monitors subtle movements of the organs. The Department receives instantaneous notification when organs cease to function. The MIT technology has greatly increased our ability to collect viable tissue samples from elk carcasses, while also providing a better understanding of the various bodily processes occurring at the time of death. For instance, temperature reading from the MITs indicate body temperatures spike immediately preceding death, a comparison of mortality notifications transmitted from movement sensors on the radio-collar to those by the MIT, determined elk experience a state of paralysis for several hours before complete organ failure, and off-colored fluid surrounding the heart suggests cardiac arrest is the ultimate cause of death. Despite these breakthroughs, we have not yet identified the proximal agent instigating these physiological changes leading to organ failure.

The Area 6 elk herd, in particular those occupying the southern Owyhee Desert, continues to maintain popularity among Nevadans despite recent declining trends. While identifying the mortality agent may help alleviate various concerns of the many stakeholders interested in this elk herd, it could help guide conservation efforts to reverse the declining trend in the herd. MIT technology has the Department on the cusp of solving this long-standing mystery, unfortunately, expiring equipment has left the project in limbo. Therefore, the Department seeks funds from the Wildlife Heritage Trust Account to acquire additional equipment and fund laboratory analyses.

How Does this Project Meet the Objectives of the Wildlife Heritage Program? (See NRS 501.3575)

This project and resulting products will enhance the Department’s knowledge of current elk distribution, abundance, survival, habitat use, and harvest objectives.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

Western Elko County, primarily Hunt Units 062 and 067

2-105

#22-13

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☐ No ☒

Although this project does not directly involve habitat restoration, effectiveness of restoration efforts can be evaluated based on space use patterns and body condition of captured elk.

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

Rocky Mountain elk are as synonymous with the west as vertical mountains and wide-open spaces. Nevada elk continue to generate a tremendous amount of interest from sportsmen and wildlife enthusiasts across North America. Funds generated through the annual auction of Governor tags will be directed to on-the- ground elk conservation efforts. Further, this project will provide positive exposure, through media and publications, to the Wildlife Heritage Trust Fund. Additionally, Wildlife Heritage Account funds can be leveraged to obtain 3:1 matching Federal Aid through the Wildlife Restoration Act to extend funding for this project.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: 07/01/2021 Estimated End Date:06/30/2022

2-106

#22-13

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). (Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.)

1. Amount of Wildlife Heritage Account Cash Requested $ 85,000.00 2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project a. Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid (TBD) TBD b. c. d. e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ - 3. Donations or In-kind Services for this Project a. Volunteer Time b. Equipment c. Materials d. e. f. g. h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ - 4. Total Project Funding $ 85,000.00 (add lines 1, 2e,3h)

2-107

#22-13

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS

The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. (Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.) Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included)

a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

3. Equipment Items a. Cow elk radio-collar (Survey Iridium 2D x10) $ 31,000.00 b. Paired Mortality Implant Transmitter (x10) $ 11,000.00 $ -

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ 42,000.00 $ -

4. Materials

a. Capture, monitoring, and field supplies $ 4,200.00 $ -

a. c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ 4,200.00 $ -

5. Miscellaneous Costs including Contractor Costs (if you will be using a contractor, include their name and list the specific services they will be providing) a. Capture rate ($1200.00/animal) $ 12,000.00 $ - b. Capture Crew Per Diem $ 1,000.00 $ - c. Ferry Costs ($900.00/hr) $ 3,600.00 $ - d. Annual data transmission fees ($120/collar) $ 1,200.00 $ - e. Sample analysis ($100/sample) $ 8,000.00 f. NDOW Air-Ops Flight Time for Necropsy $ 13,000.00 g. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – f) $ 38,800.00 $ -

6. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 85,000.00 (add lines 1, 2c, 3d, 4e, and 5e) 7. Total All Other Costs $ - (add lines 1, 2c, 3d, 4e, and 5e)

8. Total Project Costs $ 85,000.00 (add lines 6 & 7) (Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-108

#22-13

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are there going to be any Ongoing Costs for this Project? Yes ☒ No ☐

If There will be Ongoing Costs Associated with this Project, is there an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☒ No ☐

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

Additional radio-collar purchases, recapture costs, and satellite data transmission fees

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

The Wildlife Heritage Account will be credited in all media and publications as a primary funding source.

NDOW Authorizing Signature:

Review Date: __3/6/2021______

2-109

#22-14

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

WILDLIFE HERITAGE ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Cody McKee (Moose Staff Specialist)

Co-Project Manager: Kari Huebner (Area 7 Game Biologist)

Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife

Date: February 12, 2021

Address: 6980 Sierra Center Pkwy, Ste 120 City: Reno

State: Nevada Zip Code: 89503

Cell: (541) 910-5639 Phone: (775) 688-1525

Email: [email protected] Fax: (775) 688-1495

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: On-going monitoring of Moose Expansion in Nevada

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY22

Project Location: Elko County, Nevada

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $20,000

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

Continue to develop a comprehensive understanding of movement patterns and population status of Shiras moose (Alces alces shirasi) in northern Nevada. Identify and protect critical moose habitats and movement corridors. Determine long-term viability of moose by identifying potential threats and opportunities for growth.

2-110

#22-14

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

Since 2013, the Department has recorded more than 100 Shiras moose (Alces alces shirasi) sightings in northern Nevada. Observations are becoming more frequent and are distributed throughout northern Nevada including Paradise Valley in Humboldt County and the Ruby Mountains in Elko County. While dispersal behavior if often characteristic of young bulls, recent observations include mature bulls, cows, and calves indicating the fledgling moose population in Nevada is reproductively viable.

The purpose of the proposed project is to develop a comprehensive understanding of movement patterns and population status of moose in northern Nevada. Specific objectives include the evaluation of dispersal behavior, identification of movement corridors, the development of a map identifying potential and realized habitat in Nevada, and develop current and potential population estimates. Radio-collars deployed on young bulls and adult cows will be the primary mechanism for achieving project objectives.

During winter 2020, the Department successfully caught and released 4 female moose in northeast Nevada. An additional 3 moose were caught in winter 2021 (2 females, 1 male). Each moose was fitted with a GPS-enabled radio-collar capable of collecting 6 locations per day for 4 years enabling biologists for the Department to track real-time movements through the Global Iridium Satellite Network.

Moose prefer isolation and occur in low density, even in productive habitat. Capturing moose in Nevada has proved challenging. In 2020 and 2021, the Department supplemented capture efforts with aerial infrared (IR) surveys with mixed success, in addition to incidental aerial survey and citizen science observations. Despite these efforts, three radio-collars, designed explicitly for moose, have yet to be to be deployed.

The Department requests additional funding from the Wildlife Heritage Trust Account to support on-going moose monitoring efforts in FY22. Anticipated costs include annual data transmission fees, capture efforts, survey time, and other miscellaneous costs associated with moose management in Nevada.

How Does this Project Meet the Objectives of the Wildlife Heritage Program? (See NRS 501.3575)

This project and resulting products will inform management, encourage propagation, and be the foundation for the long-term conservation of moose in Nevada. Ultimately, data collected and analyzed during this effort will be used to determine the long-term sustainability of Nevada’s moose population and its ability to support regulated harvest.

2-111

#22-14

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

Primarily Elko County, Nevada but property may expand if moose are located outside of this boundary.

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☐ No ☒

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

The proliferation of moose in Nevada is a unique and exciting opportunity for the Department to better understand Nevada’s newest ungulate. Given the attention garnered by the Department’s first moose capture and citizen science efforts, this project will provide positive media exposure to the Wildlife Heritage Trust Fund. Additionally, Wildlife Heritage Account funds can be leveraged to obtain 3:1 matching Federal Aid through the Wildlife Restoration Act to fully fund this project.

Project Duration: one year ☐ two years ☐ three years ☒ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: 07/01/2021 Estimated End Date:06/30/2024

2-112

#22-14

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). (Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.)

1. Amount of Wildlife Heritage Account Cash Requested $ 20,000.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid TBD

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ -

3. Donations or In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ -

4. Total Project Funding $ 20,000.00 (add lines 1, 2e,3h)

2-113

#22-14

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS

The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. (Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.) Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included)

a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

3. Equipment Items a. b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

4. Materials

a. Capture and monitoring supplies $ 1,000.00

b.

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ 1,000.00 $ -

5. Miscellaneous Costs including Contractor Costs (if you will be using a contractor, include their name and list the specific services they will be providing) a. Hourly capture rate ($1,800.00/hr) $ 10,800.00 b. Capture Crew Per Diem (2 nights) $ 800.00 c. Ferry Costs ($900.00/hr) $ 1,800.00 d. Annual data transmission fees ($120/collar) $ 1,200.00 e. Survey Time $ 4,400.00

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 19,000.00 $ -

6. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 20,000.00 (add lines 1, 2c, 3d, 4e, and 5e)

7. Total All Other Costs $ - (add lines 1, 2c, 3d, 4e, and 5e)

8. Total Project Costs $ 20,000.00 (add lines 6 & 7) (Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-114

#22-14

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are there going to be any Ongoing Costs for this Project? Yes ☒ No ☐

If There will be Ongoing Costs Associated with this Project, is there an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☒ No ☐

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

The Department is unlikely to purchase additional radio-collars after FY21. However, redeployment of already purchased radio-collars will occur if any are recovered from dead study animals. Further, data transmission fees are charged on an annual basis and funding may be requested in future years.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

The Wildlife Heritage Account will be credited in all media and publications as a primary funding source.

NDOW Authorizing Signature:

Review Date: 3/6/2021

2-115

#22-15

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: ______Pat Jackson______

Organization/Agency: _NDOW______

Date: ______12.28.2020______

Address: __6980 Sierra Center Parkway__ City: ______Reno______

State: __NV______Zip Code: __89511______

Cell: ___816-716-6924______Phone: __775-688-1676______

Email: [email protected]______Fax: __775-688-1987______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

______

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Common Raven Monitoring

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: 2022

Project Location: Statewide

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $30,000

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☐ No ☒ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

Common ravens (hereafter ravens) are a limiting factor for Greater sage-grouse nest success. Common raven populations have increased dramatically in the last decade. This increase combined with degrading Greater sage-grouse nesting and leking habitat has exacerbated common raven impacts on sage-grouse. Common ravens also prey on young Desert tortoise and other species of concern in Nevada.

The purpose of the project is to collect data that can be used to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of common raven removal efforts in Nevada.

2-116

#22-15

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

We intend to hire 3 temporary technicians to conduct point counts pre- and post-raven removal. These data will provide the Department with accurate removal numbers, allowing for more educated management decisions and ensuring the Department can remove as many ravens as possible.

Common raven population growth throughout Nevada and the Great Basin is increasing at an alarming rate. Lethal removal can likely only be used to create temporary voids for Greater Sage-Grouse during certain times of the year (lekking and nesting seasons). Raven point count surveys conducted prior to USDA Wildlife Services removal efforts will provide the Department with real time raven density data, allowing for targeted yet economic removal. Post treatment surveys will allow the Department the highest level of inference on raven removal impacts.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

If this project is successful, Greater sage-grouse, Desert tortoise and other wildlife species will benefit and NDOW will maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of its common raven management efforts.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

Transmitter deployment will occur in Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, Lyon, Washoe, and White Pine counties.

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☐ No ☒

2-117

#22-15

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

Due to a decrease in the availability of NDOW’s Federal grant funds, and a need to increase the amount of match used to access Federal grant funds, some of NDOW’s raven monitoring costs must be covered by additional funding sources.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: July 1, 2021 Estimated End Date: June 30, 2022

2-118

#22-15

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 30,000.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. FY2022 Predator Plan $ 300,000.00

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 300,000.00

3. In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ -

4. Total Project Funding $ 330,000.00

2-119

#22-15

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the $ 21,000.00 Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem $ 2,000.00 $ 5,000.00

b. Mileage $ 7,000.00 $ 8,000.00

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ 9,000.00 $ 13,000.00

4. Equipment Items

a. Survey materials $ 2,000.00

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ 2,000.00

5. Materials

a. NDOW Technicians, raven survey $ 5,000.00

b. NDOW Technicians, transmitter $ 5,000.00 deployment

c. USGS Subgrants $ 250,000.00

d. PTT backpacks and service $ 25,000.00

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ 285,000.00

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a.

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 30,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 300,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 330,000.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-120

#22-15

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☒ No ☐

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☒ No ☐

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

We will likely need future funding to conduct point counts for raven removal.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

Any peer-reviewed publications will acknowledge fiscal support from the Heritage Account.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 4/1/2021

2-121

#22-16

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: ______Pat Jackson______

Organization/Agency: _NDOW______

Date: ______12.28.2020______

Address: __6980 Sierra Center Parkway__ City: ______Reno______

State: __NV______Zip Code: __89511______

Cell: ___816-716-6924______Phone: __775-688-1676______

Email: [email protected]______Fax: __775-688-1987______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

______

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Investigating Potential Limiting Factors Impacting Mule Deer in Northwest Nevada

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: 2022

Project Location: Statewide

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $30,000

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☐ No ☒ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations in northwest Nevada have experienced declining population trends. Consequently, both tag numbers and quality of hunt experiences for the user community have also declined. So that we can improve tags and hunting experiences, we must first quantify the current population density of mule deer in this region and quantify the causes of the declining population trends. The purpose of this project is to determine the densities of mule deer, mountain lions (Puma concolor), and feral horses (Equus ferus) in Northwest Nevada, and to describe the spatial and temporal variation in these densities.

2-122

#22-16

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

We intend to subgrant with an outside entity to place camera trap grids in strategic portions of Northwest Nevada. Using a series of trail camera grids, temporal and spatial changes in feral horse, mule deer, and mountain lion occurrence will be detected. Once detected, models will be built to estimate the density of each of these populations from via unmarked individuals. These data will greatly assist the Department make management decisions pertaining to predator removal, habitat projects, and recommendations for feral horse roundups.

We propose to use a grid sampling approach for passive sampling of mule deer, mountain lion, and feral horse populations. The grid sampling approach will provide the most reliable means to precisely measure the density and distribution of these species in the study area. At each site we will deploy a Bushnell Trophy Cam camera trap. The camera traps will be positioned in a northerly direction to decrease false triggers caused by sunrise and sunset. The camera traps will be programmed to take three images per trigger with a time interval between triggers of 5 minutes. Previous research has shown that this time interval does not compromise detections of conspicuous species, but can drastically extend battery life and memory.

Encounter histories from camera traps will be analyzed using a spatial capture modeling for unmarked populations. From trapping rate and encounter data (i.e, interpretation of camera trap photographs) mule deer, mountain lions, population density will be estimated. The camera encounter histories will simply be the total number of detections ( ) at a particular trap ( ) on a given occasion ( ). The observed encounter histories from the camera ( ) can be thought of as the sum of unobserved individual encounter histories 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 ( ) over all detected animals, 𝑛𝑛such that = . 𝑗𝑗The number of detections𝑘𝑘 ( ) are then assumed 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 to be Poisson distributed with𝑛𝑛 probability such that 𝑦𝑦́𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 ∑𝑖𝑖 𝑦𝑦́𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 ~ Λ𝑗𝑗 where , 𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃�Λ𝑗𝑗� 2 = �𝒙𝒙𝑗𝑗−𝒔𝒔𝑖𝑖� � 2 � 2𝜎𝜎 is the rate at which an animal is detected𝑗𝑗 at a trap0 given the animal encountered the trap, Λ 𝜆𝜆 �𝑖𝑖𝑒𝑒 is the location of trap j, 0 𝜆𝜆 is the unobserved location of the center of activity for animal i, 𝑗𝑗 𝒙𝒙 is the scale parameter, relating how detection probability decreases with distance and 𝑖𝑖 𝒔𝒔 is the Euclidean distance between trap j and unobserved activity center location i. 𝜎𝜎 𝑗𝑗 𝑖𝑖 � 𝒙𝒙 − 𝒔𝒔 � Models will be implemented using appropriate software (STAN, BUGS, glmmADMB), or depending on the computational complexity (e.g., if spatio-temporal residual dependence structures are necessary to meet model assumptions) new software will be written.

Predictor variables in these models will feature a range of biotic and abiotic covariates. Biotic covariates will include habitat type, proximity to water sources, and soil structure, among others, while abiotic

2-123

#22-16

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

covariates will include distance to nearest road and sources of human activity. We will also predict the effect of dynamic covariates including temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and snow depth, collected from 33 remote weather stations distributed throughout the study area. This design will provide unparalleled access to fine-scale predictions of mule deer population dynamics and vital rates.

The analytical frameworks will include an integrated approach for assessing model performance and comparing different models using replicated datasets. Statistical sensitivity analyses will also be implemented for all models. All data, code, results, and predictions will be provided to NDOW. The objective is to use the information derived from this study to optimize future efforts to map the population density and occurrence of mule deer, mountain lion, and feral horses using non-invasive techniques that are robust.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

Mule deer, mountain lions, feral horse, and other endemic species to Northwest Nevada will benefit through well-planned management actions.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

Hunt units 021, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 032, 033, 034

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☐ No ☒

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

Due to a decrease in the availability of NDOW’s Federal grant funds, and the sheer scope of the mule deer population issue facing Northwest Nevada, funds outside of the $3 predator fee program must be pursued.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: July 1, 2021 Estimated End Date: June 30, 2022 2-124

#22-16

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 30,000.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. FY2021 Predator Plan $60,000

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 60,000.00

3. In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d.

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ -

4. Total Project Funding $ 90,000.00

2-125

#22-16

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00

b. Mileage $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00

4. Equipment Items

a.

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

5. Materials

a. Survey materials $ 2,000.00 $ 12,000.00

b. Trail cameras $ 13,000.00

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ 15,000.00 $ 12,000.00

6. Miscellaneous Costs technicians to deploy trail cameras $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 subgrant obligations $ 33,000.00

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 5,000.00 $ 38,000.00

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 30,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 60,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 90,000.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-126

#22-16

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☒ No ☐

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☒ No ☐

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

Future funds will likely be needed for future field seasons, as well as informed management actions.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

Any peer-reviewed publications will acknowledge fiscal support from the Heritage Account.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/1/2021

2-127

#22-17

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: ___Cory Lytle______

Organization/Agency: ______Lincoln CAB______

Date: ___2/25/2021______

Address: ____PO BOX 329______City: ___Pioche______

State: ______NV______Zip Code: __89043______

Cell: ___(775) 962-1774______Phone: ___(775) 962-8071______

Email: [email protected]______Fax: _____(775) 962-5877______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

Moira Kolada, NDOW

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Milk Ranch Spring and Habitat Enhancement

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY 22

Project Location: Northern Lincoln County in Hunt Unit 222; approximately 40 miles north of the Town of Pioche and 3.5 miles west of US Highway 93; within the South Schell Creek Range.

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $90,000.00

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project: The purpose of the project is to strategically cut and remove encroaching pinion and juniper within close proximity to (3) spring areas. The goal of the project would be to enhance spring flows for increased water availability and riparian zone productivity and overall amount if desired vegetation within the area.

2-128

#22-17

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

The scope of the Milk Ranch Spring and Habitat Enhancement Project will be to manually sever encroaching pinion and juniper trees (PJ), in relatively close proximity to (3) existing spring areas. The (3) Springs in the project area are Milk Ranch, Upper Rosebud and Lower Rosebud Spring. (lower Rosebud is sometimes referred to as Antelope Spring) Leftover "slash" will be piled throughout the entire project area and burned at an appropriate time. (Please refer to the attached maps.)

The project scope includes: 1. Hand crews will be contracted to manually sever all PJ within the mapped polygons shown on the map. The project area encompasses approximately 80 acres. The distance between each spring is approximately .75 miles. Cutting will be done in close proximity to the (3) Springs in the area and will beperformed in a mosaic pattern. Most of the cutting will occur in "Phase 1 and 2" PJ where a good percentage of desired understory is already present, but hindered by the PJ. Steep slopes and larger areas of dense "Phase 3" PJ in the area will be avoided to assist with providing a larger project footprint and reduce costs. 2. Once the PJ is cut, the leftover "slash" will be piled. BLM hand crews will burn the slash at an appropriate time . Some slash will be placed in strategic areas to aid in erosion control. 3. The removal of the PJ will enhance growth of the desired understory that includes a host of grasses, forbs, sage and bitterbrush. 4. The removal of the PJ will also enhance the spring areas where the overall productivity of the riparian zone will increase. Spring flows will increase and that, in turn, will provide an increase of overall water availability for desired vegetation and wildlife. 5. The proposed pattern of PJ removal indirectly follows the Milk Ranch Spring Road and once PJ is removed, it will also aid in creating a fire break through the area.

The project is basically "shovel ready," as NEPA was completed under the Cave Valley and Lake Valley Watershed Restoration Plan Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-NV-L020_2011-0021-EA. The project will have coordination through the BLM Caliente Field Office. Kyle Teel, Fire Ecologist, (775) 726- 8117, will provide technical assistance as needed. The Lincoln County Conservation District will also partner with the Lincoln CAB and BLM Caliente office to provide any necessary technical assistance.

How Would this Project Help with "the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fi sh, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State"? (See NRS 501.3575)

The project would provide numerous benefits to both game and non-game species of wildlife, notably through increased availability of water and enhanced habitat. By removing the encroaching PJ, the beneficial and desired vegetation that is currently hindered as the "understory" will not have to compete with PJ for water and nutrients.

This location is also in close proximity to recent vegetation removal projects in both Cave and Lake Valleys. (Please see attached "relationship to recent chainings" Map) It also sits in close proximity to the Muleshoe Burn area. By providing enhanced water availability within close proximity to these other improvements and locations, wildlife benefit from having broader expanses of which to range and forage and greater distribution is likely. 2-129

#22-17

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section): Milk Ranch Summit Area near the Muleshoe Burn, Hunt Unit 222, Lincoln County. (Milk Ranch Spring, Upper Rosebud Spring, Lower Rosebud or Antelope Spring)

Located within TBN R65E 519 and TBN R64E 524 and 25, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

Directions from Pioche: Take US 93 north approximately 43 miles to MP 162.9; turn west on dirt road travel approximately 2 miles to Milk Ranch Well Road; turn north and travel along fence line road for approximately . 5 miles; turn and angle northwest along two-track road for approximately 1.25 miles; turn west on Milk Ranch Spring Road and travel approximately 3 miles to project location.

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☐ No ☒

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project: Heritage funding provides the best opportunity to complete a project of this scope and size. Timing is also a key factor in that once awarded, there is minimal delay and project implementation. This project will fit within the upcoming Mule Deer Enhancement Project for Lincoln County and be an example for projects in the future. Without Heritage Funding, this project would likely not occur.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: Fall 2021 Estimated End Date: Spring 2022

2-130

#22-17

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 90,000.00

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. Meadow Valley W ildlife Unlimited5000 $ 5,000.00

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 5,000.00

3. In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time $ 1,500.00

b. Equipment

c. Materials

d. BLM Crew Labor to Burn Slash15000 $ 15,000.00

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ 16,500.00

4. Total Project Funding $ 111,500.00

2-131

#22-17

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

4. Equipment Items

a.

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ -

5. Materials

a.

b.

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a. Project Contract $ 90,000.00 $ 5,000.00

b. BLM Crew $ 15,000.00

c. Volunteer Assistance $ 1,500.00

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 90,000.00 $ 21,500.00

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 90,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 21,500.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 111,500.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-132

#22-17

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☐

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

No

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

The Lincoln CAB in conjunction with Meadow Valley Wildlife Unlimited will provide continuing updates on wildlife-related projects. MVWU will have its annual banquet on March 19, 2022 and provide a detailed summary of this and other beneficial project completed in recent years. Heritage funds are a highlighted source and are fully supported by the sportsmen and conservation community.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/8/2021

2-133

#22-17

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-134

#22-17

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-135

#22-17

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-136

#22-18

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Lauren Williams______

Organization/Agency: DCNR, on behalf of White Pine County Conservation District

Date: 2/24/2021

Address: 744 N. Industrial Way City: Ely

State: NV Zip Code: 89301

Cell: 775-461-6469 Phone: 775-289-4065_x106

Email: [email protected] Fax: ______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

______Moira Kolada______

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Cave Valley Ranch Pinyon Juniper Removal

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: 2022

Project Location: Cave Valley Ranch

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $50,000

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

2-137

#22-18

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Purpose of the Project: The project will be a part of ongoing restoration work in Lincoln County’s Cave Valley and, more specifically, at the Cave Valley Ranch. This 3,400 acre ranch contains prime wildlife habitat, including priority sage grouse habitat, and has been involved in several habitat improvement projects including: a conservation easement with Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, entry into the Conservation Credit System, and diverse habitat improvement projects. This is a working cattle ranch, however every aspect of the property is targeted to be wildlife friendly. There are two sage grouse leks on the ranch as well as an abundance of elk, deer, and other wildlife.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

In 2018, Heritage funded a pinyon and juniper removal effort with planned pile and burn. This effort is nearly complete, with approximately 60% of piles remaining. Due to multiple years of unseasonably dry weather, a majority of the piles were not suitable to burn safely. In order to keep with project goals in a timely manner, a masticator was rented to break down remaining piles. The masticator was rented for two weeks and approximately 250 piles were broken down. A seed mix of western wheatgrass, forage kochia, annual sunflower, and blanket flower was purchased to drill seed following this mastication. Drill seeding will assist in replenishing ground cover for wildlife, essential for proper habitat restoration. All work was, and will be, completed by ranch manager, Dana Johnson. Additional funds are requested to finish the 2018 project by masticating the remaining piles and purchasing additional seed. The second masticator rental will be utilized to masticate the remaining piles and allow for drill seeding. Mr. Johnson will provide a large amount of match to finish this project by operating the masticator and purchasing fuel. He will also drill seed once mastication is complete, which adds more land-owner participation and involvement with his labor and drill. Completing mastication and replenishing the project site with grasses and forbs will benefit deer, elk, antelope, raptors, sage grouse, as well as non-target wildlife species. Permits and NEPA compliance are not needed as this project is on private property. Permission for project work has been granted by Mr. Johnson. He, and DCNR, in coordination with NDOW, have designated treatment areas and seed mixes.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575) 2-138

#22-18

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

This project meets these objectives in multiple ways: 1) removal of pinyon and juniper biomass will reduce fire hazards in recent record-breaking dry weather and make way for existing understory as well as seed to be drilled in; 2) these efforts benefit local wildlife by increasing availability of forage; and, 3) mastication and subsequent seeding will increase insect activity and prey availability, a top food source for sage grouse chicks. This ranch supports two leks on the property. Restoration of Nevada’s wildlife habitat will, in turn, protect numerous wildlife species by providing more natural habitat conditions capable of supporting a diversity of wildlife.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

Property address not available; UTM 11S 690722E, 4281153N

TRS: T9N R64E Sec 4,5,6,8,9,15,16,17,20,21; T10N R64E Sec 19,30,31; T10N R63E Sec 25

Access roads: Patterson Pass, Lake Valley, Lincoln County; Cave Valley Road, Steptoe Valley, White Pine County

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☐ No ☒

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☒ No ☐

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

This project is the epitome of collaborative wildlife habitat restoration. Removal of appropriate pinyon and juniper with drill seeding in priority sage grouse habitat. There

2-139

#22-18

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

are also important benefits for local ungulates and birds in the area, that will greatly benefit from increased water supply and forage provided with drill seeding.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: August 1, 2021 Estimated End Date: June 30, 2022

2-140

#22-18

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Heritage Trust Fund cash amount requested 50,000 2. Other cash funding sources for this project a. b. c. d. e. Total other cash funding sources (lines a – d) 0 3. Donations for this project a. Volunteer time: ranch manager, 180 hrs @ 27.20/hour 4,896 b. Equipment c. Materials: fuel for masticator, 1000 gallons @$3.05/gallon, oil, anti freeze, and materials for maintaining 3,450 masticator ($400). d. DCNR Conservation Specialist time, 80 hours @ $26/hour 2,080 e. f. g. h. Total donations (lines a – g) 10,426 4. Total Project Funding 60,426

2-141

#22-18

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition

2. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included)

a. Per diem

b. Mileage

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ -

3. Equipment Items a. Masticator rental (30 days) $ 34,500.00 $ -

b.

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ 34,500.00 $ -

4. Materials

a. $ -

b.

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

5. Miscellaneous Costs including Contractor Costs (if you will be using a contractor, include their name and list the specific services they will be providing) a. Seed mix $ 15,500.00 b. Ranch manager volunteer time, 180 hrs @ $ 4,896.00 $27.20/hr

c. Ranch manager fuel purchase (masticator) , 1000 gallons @ $3.05/gallon, oil, anti freeze and $ 3,450.00 materials to maintain masticator ($400)

d. DCNR Conservation Specialist time, 80 hrs $ 2,080.00 @$26/hour

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 25,926.00 $ -

6. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 60,426.00 (add lines 1, 2c, 3d, 4e, and 5e) 7. Total All Other Costs $ - (add lines 1, 2c, 3d, 4e, and 5e)

8. Total Project Costs $ 60,426.00 (add lines 6 & 7) (Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-142

#22-18

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☒

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

Additional funds may be sought to continue habitat improvement projects in future years in this project area.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

Credit will be given in any and all documentation of work.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/4/2021

2-143

#22-19

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Clint Bentley

Organization/Agency: Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn

Date: 3/18/2021

Address: PO Box 27494 City: Las Vegas

State: Nevada Zip Code: 89126

Cell: 702-275-3525 Phone: 702-275-3525

Email: [email protected] Fax: 702-910-3699

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

Samuel Hughes, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Southern Region Water Development Biologist

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Survey and Maintenance of existing big game guzzlers.

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: FY22

Project Location: Multiple mountain ranges in Clark, Nye, and Lincoln County

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $41,000

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

Helicopter flights to land at remote guzzler sites. Survey status of project, record water storage, and make minor repairs as necessary. Major repairs will be noted and completed at another time.

2-144

#22-19

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

Land a helicopter at each existing guzzler location listed on the proposed inspection flight schedule to check water levels and over all status of the project. Minor repairs will be completed, and necessary major repairs will be documented so that a returning crew can complete these. Landings in wilderness will be recorded and let known by specific land managing agency. Flights on the National Testing and Training Range will be in coordination with the Desert National Wildlife refuge.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

The status of these guzzlers is imperative to the existence of numerous Bighorn Sheep and Mule Deer herds throughout Southern Nevada, as well as many non-game species. Guzzlers are the only source of water in many of these mountain ranges and the reason many of these animals can persist in these habitats.

2-145

#22-19

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

See attached coordinates on Water Development Inspection Flight Sheets.

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☐ No ☒

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

The Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn is a non-profit organization which has no paid staff. Members volunteer their time to visit these sites and provide volunteer hours to maintain and/or construct the guzzler water developments. The Fraternity organizes fund raisers to help pay for construction supplies.

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: February, 2022 Estimated End Date: March, 2022

2-146

#22-19

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $41,000

2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a.

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ -

3. In-kind Services for this Project

a. Volunteer Time

b. Equipment $ -

c. Materials $ -

d. Mileage $ 250.00

e.

f.

g.

h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ 250.00

4. Total Project Funding $ 41,250.00

2-147

#22-19

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition $0 $0

2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included in the Heritage column) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem

b. Mileage $ 250.00

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ 250.00

4. Equipment Items a. Sundance Helicopter $38,450 b. Sundance Fuel Truck $2,550

c.

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ 41,000.00 $ -

5. Materials

a.

b.

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a.

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 41,000.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 250.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 41,250.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-148

#22-19

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☒

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

No.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

The Wildlife Heritage Account and Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn are mentioned throughout the annual completion report that is written upon the completion of the maintenance flights. This document is used by multiple Biologists and agencies in the conservation of wildlife.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date

2-149

#22-19

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2022 Day 1 Nevada Department of Wildlife

2022 Day 2 Nevada Department of Wildlife

2-150

#22-19

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2022 Day 3 Nevada Department of Wildlife

2-151

#22-19

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2022 Day 4 Nevada Department of Wildlife

2-152

#22-19

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

2-153 d #22-20

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: Professor Gail Patricelli

Organization/Agency: University of California, Davis Date:

March 1, 2021

Address: 1 Shields Ave, 2320 Storer Hall City: Davis

State: California Zip Code: 95616

Cell: 530-902-8983 Phone: 530-754-8310

Email: [email protected] Fax: 530-752-1449

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: The interaction between restoration, foraging ecology, and mating behavior in Greater Sage-Grouse (year 2)

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: 2021-2022Project

Location: Winnemucca District, Nevada (Santa Rosa Mountains) Amount of Funds

Requested from Heritage Account: $69,520.93

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project:

The increasing frequency and severity of wildfires in the sagebrush ecosystem is a primary threat to sagebrush species, such as Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage-grouse). Restoration efforts have focused on regrowth of native plant communities, but we still know too little about the effectiveness of these efforts in protecting species of concern. Studies have addressed sage-grouse population trends and large-scale habitat selection in response to restoration. However, no studies to date have linked wildfire impacts and restoration treatments to foraging behavior (time spent foraging, diet choice in restored areas, and diet quality) and breeding behaviors (display behavior, lek visitations, and mating rate), though these microhabitat-scale processes are critical drivers of population health and habitat use. We propose to continue coordinating with ongoing restoration efforts by NDOW and the BLM, and ongoing large-scale monitoring and habitat-selection mapping by the USGS, to investigate how fire 2-154 d #22-20

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

and restoration practices alter sage-grouse microhabitat selection processes.

2-155 d #22-20

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

We will conduct this work in the Santa Rosa Mountains (Humboldt County, NV), which burned in the 2018 Martin fire, and is in the early stages of restoration. Our 3-year project has 3 objectives. Objective 1 is to use non-invasive biomarkers from fecal samples to assay health and diet quality (systemic stress and nutritional stress) of sage-grouse across a mosaic of unburned and recently burned areas, with different types of ongoing restoration (post-fire seeding, herbicide treatment, drill-seeding). Sage-grouse are considered an indicator species of the sagebrush ecosystem due to the expansive range needed to sustain their population numbers (Coates et al. 2020, Hanser & Knick 2011). Therefore, understanding how their systemic and nutritional stress levels are affected by habitat changes due to wildfire and restoration can give us insight into how best to protect sage-grouse and other sagebrush- obligate species (Coates et al. 2020). Objective 2 is to follow GPS PTT satellite- and VHF-tagged hens to foraging sites to examine how nutritional quality of sagebrush differs with different burn/restoration status, and to examine sage-grouse diet preference at the large-scale (patch choice) and microhabitat scale (plant choice). This will help us to understand how foraging sage-grouse use different habitat types (unburned areas, remnant patches of sagebrush within burn areas, and areas undergoing different types of restoration), as well as the dietary consequences of these choices. We can use this information to help focus future habitat restoration and improvement efforts on more effective treatments. Objective 3 is to assess movement of GPS PTT satellite- and VHF-tagged hens among leks and foraging sites relative to burn/restoration status, and whether the habitat quality of lek sites affects male and female lek behaviors and the browsing on sagebrush or forbs/grasses on the lek area. This component of the project will help to understand how reproductive behaviors—critical for population growth and health—differ after wildfire and with habitat restoration and how they change over the course of the study. Our preliminary field season in 2020 (funded by UC Davis) was cut short due to COVID-19. However, we were able to lay the groundwork for our 2021 and 2022 field seasons by finding accessible leks, working out field logistics, and collecting baseline lek counts and sagebrush sampling for the project. Our 2021 spring field season is currently underway, with UC Davis approved COVID-19 precautions. This spring, we will execute the field work described in our 2020-2021 Wildlife Heritage Trust Account grant. We are currently requesting funds to support our 2022 field season, which will continue data collection toward the objectives described below. The objectives below are the same as those in our previous proposal, with some changes to the methods—mainly a switch from VHF tags to GPS PTT tags for tracking birds—and some updates on current progress. By adding a 2022 field season, we will more than double our sample size of PTT tagged birds, allowing for more robust statistical analyses. In addition, we will be able to examine changes in measures of stress, lek attendance/behavior and sagebrush quality over 3 years of post-fire recovery and restoration—we collected lek counts, fecal samples, and sagebrush diet samples on six of these lek sites in 2020, we will sample these leks (and others) in 2021, and we are proposing here to do so again in 2022. The proposed 2022 field season will allow us to leverage and expand upon ongoing efforts for restoration and monitoring, helping to understand the mechanisms that drive large-scale patterns of habitat selection, informing future restoration efforts in the Santa Rosa Mountains and across the range of the species.

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

Throughout the western United States, warmer temperatures have intensified droughts and wildfires (Crockett and Westerling 2018). Fires have increased in size, frequency, and severity since the mid-1980’s (Clifford et al. 2018), burning two million hectares per year in the Great Basin since 2014 (Knutson et al. 2014); the effects of fire result in increased fuel load for subsequent fires through the rapid spread of invasive annual grasses, such as cheatgrass. Combined with other ecological stressors, fires have increased fragmentation, reduced biodiversity, and caused changes in ecosystem structure and function (Knutson et al. 2014). To protect sagebrush obligates of critical conservation concern, such as greater sage-grouse, there

2-156 d #22-20

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

has been an increase in active restoration of sagebrush habitat, such as herbicide treatments, post-fire

2-157

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

seeding, and drill seeding. These efforts are especially important considering wildfire is a primary threat to sage-grouse populations in much of their range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015, Foster et al. 2019). Researchers and resource managers are working together to monitor the effects of landscape change on sage-grouse, but the effects of fire and restoration efforts at the microhabitat scale remain poorly understood. Current research efforts at the microhabitat scale, for example, have focused on nest survival and adult female survival as it relates to post-fire habitat condition and cover, how fire regimes are disrupting sagebrush recovery, and modeling of how to restore current landscape characteristics to increase sage-grouse survival (Foster 2019, Coates et al. 2016, Coates et al. 2017). However, few studies have focused on post-fire diet quality and its relationship to on-lek behavior, even though foraging patterns and courtship dynamics can help us understand the effects of landscape changes on reproductive success. We propose to coordinate with ongoing restoration efforts by NDOW and the BLM, and ongoing large-scale monitoring and habitat-selection mapping by the USGS, to investigate how fire and restoration practices alter foraging and breeding behaviors of sage-grouse across a mosaic of unburned and recently burned areas undergoing different types of restoration. Microhabitat scale effects can take on different forms. A micro-scale effect can be observed at the lek scale (e.g., which leks sage-grouse visit for mating and nesting), at the habitat patch scale (e.g., how sage-grouse interact with remaining sagebrush patches after fires), or even at the individual plant scale (e.g., which specific plants sage-grouse are eating based on sagebrush toxicity and nutrient quality). Previous research has shown that micro-scale effects can alter survival, mating, and breeding mechanisms critical for sage-grouse survival. Recent work in Idaho by our collaborator, Dr. Jennifer Forbey, used radio-telemetry to locate groups of foraging sage-grouse, then looked for distinctive bite marks on sagebrush leaves to determine which plants were consumed (Frye et al. 2013, Fremgen 2015). These studies provide strong evidence that the dietary quality of sagebrush is more important than cover in explaining foraging-site selection by sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits, with animals choosing patches with more palatable species of sagebrush, and within a patch, preferentially browsing on plants with higher crude protein and lower toxin content (Ulappa 2011, Frye et al. 2013, Fremgen 2015, Nobler 2016). These findings have important implications for management—for example, they showed that “dwarf” species of sagebrush (including black and low sagebrush) are preferred to Wyoming big sagebrush, which was the opposite of some management and restoration recommendations at that time (Frye et al. 2013). Poor diet quality can compromise body mass and reproductive fitness of both mammalian and avian herbivores (Brittas 1988, Guglielmo et al. 1996; Sorensen et al. 2005, DeGabriel et al. 2009), so in addition to driving larger patterns of habitat selection, these foraging choices of individual animals can affect regional population trends. These studies by the Forbey Lab and others have shown how microhabitat preferences and diet choice can link small-scare movements to patterns of occupancy and abundance at the population scale (Blickley et al 2012a; Forbey et al. 2017). We know little about how and whether microhabitat selection and diet choice change after wildfires and post habitat improvement efforts. One reason to expect these processes to change is that burning and post-fire restoration may cause changes in toxicity and nutritional quality of newly emerging sagebrush seedlings and of mature sagebrush surviving in islands and along the fire periphery. We do not yet know whether these changes will be positive or negative. The reduction in competition from other plants and the release of nutrients and compounds through burning (Rau et al. 2008) may cause faster growth and lower toxicity. Alternatively, higher toxicity may be expected if increased browsing pressure by herbivores on remaining sagebrush plants induces defensive chemicals (Karban et al 2003). Toxicity may also increase if high-temperature burns slow regrowth by destroying hydrophobic materials and organic matter in soils, especially when soil is overtaken by clay cementation (Glenn & Finley 2010). Resulting changes in toxicity could shift diet preferences and habitat use, especially when travel time is increased to unburned or high-quality patches. Understanding these dynamics will help us to predict how sage-grouse will use habitat restoration treatments relative to remaining habitat after fire. It is particularly important to understand how diet quality changes, how surviving birds use unburned islands and peripheral habitats in the 3-5 years following a fire, and whether early restoration can help populations persist through this critical time. Changes in diet quality across the post-fire landscape may also drive patterns of lek attendance in and around burned areas. Lek attendance patterns have long been used to monitor population trends, so understanding how birds move among leks can help to interpret attendance numbers after a disturbance 2-158

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

(Walsh et al, 2004). Studies to date have shown that leks often persist years after a major fire, likely driven by philopatry of adults (Harju et al. 2010; Foster 2019), but these leks decline without recruitment of younger birds. We still have a great deal to learn about how microhabitat selection by sage-grouse relates to persistence of leks. For example, we know little about how the habitat characteristics of burned lek sites (restoration type, degree of sagebrush and forb/grass regrowth, and proximity to unburned islands of sagebrush or fire perimeter) relate to lek attendance and display behaviors by males and lek visitation and nesting location of females. The strut display of males on leks is energetically costly (Vehrencamp et al. 1989), and males often forage on or near the lek when they are not courting females or fighting rivals. Females also typically forage for much of the time spent on leks (Hartzler 1974, Perry 2019). Thus, leks with closer access to food, or regrowth of forage plants, may be better able to sustain lek activity and may show improved recruitment of younger birds. Females often visit multiple leks when searching for a mate, and typically nest within 5 km of the lek on which they breed, though some nest up to 20 km from the lek (Sika 2006). Examining the relationships between lek visitation patterns, mate choice, on- and off-lek foraging patterns, and patterns of nest-site selection and success will help to understand how different patches of the landscape are linked and may suggest options for targeted restoration to sustain lek activity. Here we propose to investigate the mechanisms that drive habitat selection by sage-grouse at multiple scales post-wildfire and restoration. By understanding how sage-grouse are using restoration areas, we will understand which efforts are improving the habitat most effectively for sage-grouse. We will do so by collaborating with the USGS on ongoing large-scale monitoring and habitat-selection studies. Dr. Peter Coates and colleagues at the USGS have conducted a large-scale, multi-year study addressing habitat selection and population trends for sage-grouse populations with different types of disturbance, including wildfire, across the range of the species. This study has used VHF and satellite GPS PTT tracking of hens (and an occasional male), to monitor habitat use on a large scale, and to assess nest location, microhabitat characteristics, and fledging success at a small scale (Dudko, Coates, & Delehanty 2019). We will expand upon this extensive USGS effort, which provides access to a population with tagged hens, to address microhabitat selection throughout the breeding season. We will combine measures of plant chemistry and foraging behavior with detailed observation of behaviors on leks, helping to elucidate the mechanisms that underlie microhabitat selection and the consequences of those decisions on reproduction in unburned and burned areas recently restored. This work will be conducted in the Santa Rosa Mountains in the Winnemucca district (Humboldt County, Nevada), which burned in the devastating 440,000-acre Martin Fire in 2018. This region is critical sage-grouse habitat and the Martin Fire burned 23 active lek sites; therefore, effective restoration of this habitat is critical for maintaining short- and long-term population health in this area and the surrounding region. In the study site we propose to use (See Map 1), there is a mosaic unburned and burned habitat types (hereafter burn/restoration status), including unburned areas, which can be in intact areas or islands surrounded by burn, and burned areas, which are undergoing different types of restoration—post- fire seeding, herbicide treatment, drill-seeding, or no active restoration. This diversity of habitat types allows us to examine how diet quality and habitat characteristics vary in this complex post-fire landscape, how they are affected by restoration methods. This project will apply established methods for behavioral monitoring on leks (e.g., Forbey et al. 2017, Patricelli and Krakauer 2010, Blickley et al. 2012a, Koch et al. 2015, Krakauer et al. 2016) to the study of wildfire-impacted landscapes. The work will continue our collaboration with Dr. Jennifer Forbey (Boise State University), where we have combined Patricelli Lab methods for collecting behavioral and fitness measures on leks, with Forbey lab methods for measuring diet choice, plant chemistry, and biomarkers of diet and health at multiple field sites in Idaho, Wyoming, and California. The project will also continue our collaboration with Dr. Peter Coates from the USGS, with whom the Patricelli and Forbey Labs collaborated in 2017-2019 to study foraging behaviors, diet quality, and lek behaviors of sage-grouse in a California Bi-State population. Our proposed Santa Rosa Mountain study has three major objectives. Objective 1 is to use biomarkers from fecal samples to non-invasively measure sage-grouse health and habitat quality across the mosaic of sites with different burn/restoration status. Objective 2 is to follow telemetry-tagged hens to foraging sites to examine how nutritional quality of sagebrush differs with burn/restoration status, and to examine sage-grouse diet preference at the large scale (patch choice) and microhabitat scale (plant 2-159

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

choice). Objective 3 is to assess movement of telemetry-tagged hens among leks relative to burn/restoration status, and whether the habitat quality of lek sites affects male and female lek behaviors and browsing on sagebrush, forbs, and grasses on the lek area.

2020-2021 Progress: In 2020, our project was granted $65,855 from the Wildlife Heritage Trust Account. These funds are helping to support our 2021 field season, which is currently underway. We are now setting up our two trailers in the Paradise Valley RV park for the arrival of the field technicians on March 1. Much of the equipment we are using this season was previously purchased and thus owned by the Patricelli Lab and UC Davis. This includes the two RV trailers, three ATVs+trailer, spotting scopes, tripods, video cameras, laptops, GPS devices, and field gear (e.g. spotlights and nets for capture, observation blinds, etc). This is allowing us to direct more of our Heritage Account funds toward data collection efforts. With the travel funds in the 2020-2021 Heritage Grant, we have hired three field technicians who will be joining us on March 1, 2021. By offering housing, food, and travel reimbursement, we were able to hire technicians that have at least one previous field season of experience. This is particularly important at this Santa Rosa field site, which spans more than 64 mi2 and often requires hiking or riding ATVs to leks in the dark and in harsh weather conditions. With 2020-2021 Heritage funds, we have purchased nine 12-gram GPS PTT tags from GeoTrak to track hens. As described below, are currently preparing to deploy these tags near project leks in areas with different burn/restoration status. With approval from Heritage grant coordinators and NDOW, we changed our tracking methods to PTT tags from VHF tags and data loggers. This change was made in response to experience we gained in our 2020 preliminary field season, where we saw that the scale of the site and the difficult access to many leks limited the utility of VHF tracking. We will make use of USGS-deployed VHF tags when possible, but by focusing our efforts on hens with PTT tags, we can find foraging sites across a larger area and in more difficult to reach locations. PTT tags also allow us to visit foraging sites the day after they were used by tagged hens, which minimizes disturbance of natural behaviors. Because PTT tags transmit locations year round, we will also be able to see how hens use the landscape outside of the spring breeding season, into summer, fall and winter.

Objective 1: Using non-invasive biomarkers to assess sage-grouse health and diet quality We propose to use two non-invasive biomarkers to assay the health of sage-grouse and the dietary quality of sage-grouse habitat. From fecal samples, we will measure metabolites of a stress-related hormone (corticosterone) and metabolites reflecting toxin load from diet (glucuronic acid, GA). These biomarkers are explained in detail below; together they provide information about the systemic stress and nutritional stress of sage-grouse foraging, breeding, and nesting in areas across the Santa Rosa study site. We will compare biomarkers of systemic and nutritional stress from sage-grouse fecal samples collected across the mosaic of sites with different burn/restoration status; this will allow us to assess the impacts of fire and restoration on sage-grouse physiology and diet. Corticosterone: Stress responses play a critical role in the ecology and fitness of animals (Barber et al. 2010). Glucocorticoid hormones, including corticosterone, play a role in the stress response of vertebrates; elevated reactive corticosterone levels in the blood are associated with increased stress, and metabolites of corticosterone can be found in fecal samples. The analysis of fecal corticosterone metabolites (FCMs) has proved to be an informative, noninvasive biomarker for monitoring stress in wild animals (Wasser et al. 2000, Millspaugh and Washburn 2004, Thiel et al. 2011). FCMs have been shown to reflect blood levels of corticosterone in greater sage-grouse (Jankowski et al. 2009). In our previous work in Wyoming we found that FCMs were elevated on leks exposed to experimental playback of noise from natural gas development compared to control leks (Blickley et al. 2012c). However, we do not yet know how stress response in sage-grouse relates to habitat use, diet quality and nesting success. Nor do we know how these factors and stress response differ between burned and unburned areas, and between sites with different restoration treatments. Glucuronic acid (GA): GA is a major pathway for metabolism of toxins in vertebrates that is related to the amount of toxin consumed, absorbed, and metabolized. The Forbey lab and others have shown that GA is spatially and temporally variable and is dynamically linked to nutritional condition of free ranging ungulates (Parikh et al. 2016). The likely explanation for that linkage is that the production 2-160

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

of GA is energetically expensive (Guglielmo et al. 1996, Sorensen et al. 2005). GA can therefore be used as a biomarker in herbivores, which is predictive of diet quality and nutritional stress (Guglielmo et al. 1996, Servello and Schneider 2000, Sorensen et al. 2005, Parikh et al. 2016). The Forbey lab recently developed methods to measure GA from fecal pellets in sage-grouse (Parikh et al. 2016). We have collected pellets for GA analysis from sites in WY, CA, and ID, but we have not yet examined the impacts of wildfire on GA levels. One of the likely impacts of fire on sage-grouse is the loss of sagebrush for food, and as previously discussed, the dietary quality of available sagebrush may change as a result of fire. GA may therefore provide important insights into the nutritional impacts of fire on sage-grouse. Methods and analysis: We will collect fecal samples from captured hens (when they choose to donate upon capture), from feeding and roosting sites located with telemetry tags (Objective 2), and from males and females attending leks (Objective 3). On-lek samples will be collected on mornings with behavioral observations (every third day; see below) after all birds leave the lek (e.g. Blickley et al. 2012c). Samples will be frozen until they can be analyzed in the Forbey Lab using established methods; each pellet can be analyzed for both FCMs and GA. We will examine the relationship between patch-level averages of fecal biomarkers and dietary quality of sampled plants (Objective 2) and compare patch-level averages of biomarkers among sites with different burn/restoration status categories. From fecal samples collected from known individuals (during capture for tagging), we will also link these biomarkers to movement (among foraging, roosting, and lek sites), quality of foraging sites, and nesting success. In addition, we will be able to examine changes in these measures of systemic and dietary stress over 3 years of post-fire recovery and restoration—we collected fecal samples on six of these lek sites in 2020, we will sample these leks (and others) in 2021, and we are proposing here to do so again in 2022.

Objective 2: Linking large-scale and microhabitat use, diet quality and diet preference Understanding microhabitat preferences and diet choice can help to link small-scare movements to patterns of occupancy and abundance at the population scale (Blickley et al 2012a; Forbey et al. 2017). However, we know little about how microhabitat selection and diet choice changes after wildfires. During the breeding season (March to late May), we propose to track telemetry-tagged hens to foraging sites in the afternoon, where we will collect plant samples and measures to determine local diet quality, diet preference, and habitat preference. Field methods: We will deploy 10 PTT tags on hens, tracking them from the start of the 2022 mating season until the brood rearing stage. We will continue tracking any 2021 PTT-tagged hens who are still transmitting data, and we will attempt to recover and refurbish any tags from mortality events. USGS plans to track 40 VHF-tagged hens and approximately 4 PPT tagged birds in spring 2021 and 2022 (contingent on funding). The USGS will collect tracking data through brood rearing and potentially into the winter months. To determine where birds are eating and the quality of their diet, we will track telemetry- tagged hens to foraging sites. Likely foraging sites will be identified in ARGOS data from PTT-tagged birds as clustered locations on the previous afternoon. Foraging locations of VHF tagged birds will be located using USGS protocols, by triangulation using handheld receivers or by flushing hens from foraging sites. For both satellite and VHF tagged birds, foraging at these sites will be confirmed by looking for fresh fecal samples and bite marks from browsing on sagebrush (Frye et al. 2013; Forbey et al. 2017). We will use PTT-tagged hens to provide increased spatial and temporal resolution in our habitat/diet choice analyses, because we can visit multiple foraging sites for each hen through the season without disturbance; we will target each VHF-tagged hen only 1-2 times per season to increase the sample size of hens while minimizing disturbance of foraging activities. At each site, we will collect samples of sagebrush that were browsed and unbrowsed by sage-grouse for nutritional analysis of crude protein and toxins (monoterpenes, phenolics and coumarins; Frye et al. 2013). We will also measure the morphometrics of browsed and unbrowsed sagebrush and note the species/subspecies. Further, we will collect standard site-level data on cover, height and abundance of sagebrush, forbs, and grasses. For each foraging site, similar data will be collected at a random site (excluding burned areas with no vegetation). At all sites, we will collect fresh fecal samples for biomarker analysis (Objective 1). Data analysis: Data collected at foraging sites can tell us a great deal about how fire and restoration methods affect habitat quality at the chemical level, and how sage-grouse choose which patches to visit for foraging, and within each patch, which plants to eat. To address these questions, we will compare nutritional quality (protein and toxins) and habitat structure among samples collected at 2-161

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

foraging sites with different burn/restoration status—in unburned areas (on the fire periphery and in intact areas), islands of remaining sagebrush in burned areas, or burned areas undergoing restoration. In addition, by comparing the nutritional chemistry of browsed and unbrowsed plants at each site, we can assess which factors are driving plant-level diet choice in these different habitat types. By comparing average nutritional chemistry and habitat structure of foraging sites versus random sites, we can assess which factors are driving patch-level diet and habitat choice. We can also use measures of the difference between unbrowsed and browsed plants as a measure of diet selectivity within each site, to address whether selectivity changes with food availability (i.e. comparing selectivity in intact habitat patches, in islands of unburned sagebrush, or in restored areas with only seedlings). By adding a 2022 field season and 10 additional PTT tags, we will more than double our sample size of tagged birds, allowing for more robust statistical analyses of foraging movements and dietary choices.

Objective 3: Linking habitat structure, restoration methods and breeding behaviors on leks We propose to collect data on reproductive effort and success for satellite-tagged females by tracking female lek visitation patterns among 6 focal leks, and 3 additional leks, throughout the lekking season. We will focus on leks with different burn/restoration status, targeting 3-4 leks inside the fire perimeter and the rest outside the perimeter. Field methods: We will download ARGOS data points from the satellite-tagged hens and superimpose these locations with lek locations to determine which leks hens are visiting most often. Based on hen visitations and lek access, we will select 6 focal leks on which to perform lek observations 4-5 times per week (we identified 6 likely focal leks in spring 2020 based on the presence of sage-grouse, accessibility, and visibility for observation; we will adjust the choice of leks as needed based on movements of PTT tagged hens). We will also conduct behavioral observations on an additional 3 leks approximately once a week, during which we will scan for the presence of VHF-tagged hens periodically using handheld receivers. From behavioral-observation blinds near the edge of each lek, we will use spotting scopes and video cameras to observe female and male behaviors (see Patricelli and Krakauer 2010, Krakauer et al. 2016). For any tagged hens, we will follow on-lek movement and mating behavior, noting the male with whom each tagged female copulates, and any foraging behaviors while on the lek. For territorial males (individually-identifiable by plumage; Patricelli and Krakauer 2010), we will track attendance (arrival and departure times each day), display behaviors, and mating success. Data analysis: These data collected at leks can tell us a great deal about how fire and restoration methods affect lek attendance, behaviors, and visitation patterns of both sexes, helping to elucidate the factors influencing lek persistence. We will examine lek visitation patterns of females— whether and how they move between leks—and how this relates to foraging, roosting and nesting locations; we will also examine how these movement patterns relate to burn/restoration status of the habitat they utilize and the habitat they move through. We will see how birds are using different parts of the Santa Rosa Mountains site, which can be compared to USGS tracking data before the fire. Further, we will examine how female mate-searching effort (number and distance between lek visitations, time spent on leks) and mate choice (copulation date and attractiveness/success of chosen mate) relate to each other, to habitat burn/restoration status, and to female dietary intake through foraging (Objective 2). For males and females, we will quantify observable foraging on or near the lek, and how this relates to local food availability in different burn/restoration areas. Finally, we will examine how male attendance patterns (days on lek, arrival/departure time) differ for individuals on leks with different burn/restoration status. We will also examine male display effort and mating success among leks with different local habitat quality and female visitation. By adding a 2022 field season and 10 more PTT tags, we will more than double our sample size of PTT tagged birds, allowing for more robust statistical analyses of lek visitation and behaviors. In addition, we will be able to examine changes lek attendance/behavior and lek sagebrush quality over 3 years of post-fire recovery and restoration—we collected lek counts, measures of habitat structure, and samples of browsed and unbrowsed sagebrush on six lek sites in 2020, we will sample these leks (and others) in 2021, and we are proposing here to do so again in 2022.

Qualifications of the team: Gail Patricelli is a Professor in the Department of Evolution and Ecology at UC Davis and Chair of the Animal Behavior Graduate Group. Dr. Patricelli will oversee and assist in all aspects of the project. 2-162

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Fieldwork for this project will be led by Maria Ospina, who is currently a Ph.D. student in Ecology at UC Davis and a trained USGS volunteer. Ms. Ospina will take the lead in analysis and writing of the results from this project for her Ph.D. dissertation in Ecology, and for publication in peer review journals. The Patricelli Lab has been working on greater sage-grouse behavior and conservation for 16 years. We have successfully used the methods proposed here at sites in Wyoming (near Lander, Fremont County) and California (Bi-State population, near Lee Vining, Mono County). As described below, we conducted a successful pilot field season at the Santa Rosa site in spring 2020. We have published extensively on the breeding behaviors of sage-grouse, using the methods for observation proposed here (Patricelli and Krakauer, 2010; Koch et al. 2015; Krakauer et al. 2016; Perry et al. 2019). We have a strong record of working with resource managers to find solutions to conservation concerns—we conducted experimental studies demonstrating the impacts of noise from energy development on the abundance and behavior of sage-grouse on leks (Blickley et al. 2012a, 2012b, and 2012c); we translated these results into recommendations for improving conservation planning for this species (Blickley & Patricelli 2010; Patricelli et al. 2013) and consulted with resource managers to help implement these recommendations into management practice. Using methods developed by our collaborator, Dr. Jennifer Forbey from Boise State U., we have used VHF and GPS satellite tags to track birds to foraging locations at both our Wyoming (2014-2017) and California Bi-State (2017-2019) field sites and at the Forbey Lab sites in Idaho (2013- 2019), where we have collected and analyzed sagebrush samples using the protocols proposed here (Frye et al. 2013; Forbey et al. 2017). This work in the Bi-State population was done in collaboration with Dr. Peter Coates of the USGS. Just as we propose to do in the Santa Rosa Mountains, we coordinated with the USGS local crews to help capture and tag sage-grouse, then we followed these birds to foraging and lek sites to measure diet choice and behavior. We were thus able to add a new angle and new depth to this ongoing USGS study. One of the Forbey Lab’s Idaho study sites in the Owyhee Mountains was burned in the 2015 Soda Fire, allowing us to begin studying the impacts of fire on sage-grouse foraging and on-lek behaviors. However, that study focused on one lek and four tagged male sage-grouse, so while it provides proof-of-concept and will be an important comparison, the study proposed here is at a much larger scale with a sufficient sample size to draw more robust conclusions about fire impacts on sage-grouse. We are confident in our ability to conduct the proposed research at the Santa Rosa field site because of our past experience, the success of our preliminary season in 2020, and our collaboration with the USGS, who has worked at this site successfully for 3 years (2016-2018, and part of 2020). We (Dr. Patricelli and Ms. Ospina) lived in Paradise Valley for over a month in spring of 2020, where we learned the site and worked with the USGS crew to trap, tag, and track sage-grouse. We chose 6 focal leks across a burn severity gradient (additional leks will be added for the 2021 and 2022 field seasons). At each lek, we collected lek attendance numbers, fecal samples, and where possible, behavioral observations and videos. We also conducted lek-scale vegetation transects, including sagebrush sampling around each lek to use as a baseline for sagebrush chemistry, patch and plant selection. The 2020 field season was cut short by the pandemic, but we managed to gather enough preliminary data to facilitate the 2021 and 2022 field seasons. Our work is covered under existing USGS research permits and USGS Western Ecological Research Center Animal Care and Use Protocol #WERC-2015-02. Our UC Davis Animal Care and Use permit (IACUC# 21721) for this work is valid through April 2023.

2-163

# BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

This study will support goals of improving the scientific foundations for sage-grouse management on public lands, both locally and across the range of the species. This project will contribute to understanding critical population drivers at the microhabitat scale during the first few years following fire, a time period when sage-grouse survival and persistence of leks is known to decrease. Our results will inform restoration efforts in multiple ways. First, this project will use non-invasive biomarkers of systemic stress and nutritional stress in sage-grouse to improve our understanding of the links between habitat quality and the health of birds, and important tool that may be applied to other areas recovering from fire. Second, by improving our understanding of habitat use, diet quality and on-lek behavior, results of this study will inform range-wide management efforts as well as local management of the recovering Santa Rosa population. Third, our data will be shared with BLM, NDOW and USGS to support ongoing efforts to inventory sagebrush habitat in the region. USGS is currently creating detailed maps using high- resolution aerial imaging; our data can be used to link these aerial images to more detailed on-the-ground data from vegetation measurements. Thus our study supports one of the key conservation goals identified by the Heritage Fund: to maintain, restore, enhance, and propagate sage-grouse habitats in order to maintain and increase sage-grouse populations, using biological data and information to identify needs for each of the habitat types. We will share the outcomes of our proposed work with conservation management agencies and the public through publication in peer-reviewed journals, as well as through presentations at conferences, to stake-holders, and to the community.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

The Santa Rosa field site, where this project will take place, is located in portions of Townships 42-44 North, Range 39 East; Townships 42-44 North, Range 40 East; Townships 42-45 North, Range 41 East; Townships 42-46 North, Range 42 East; Townships 43-45 North, Range 43 East (See Map 1). From Paradise Valley to leks and bird-directed foraging locations, we will be taking Martin Creek Rd and Hinkey Summit Rd primarily; access to leks will also require smaller gravel and two-track roads on public land. The Santa Rosa field site is mainly on public lands, managed by the BLM; the western edge of the site includes US Forest Service System lands (see Map 2; acquired from the USGS). There are patches of privately-owned land in some remote parts of the site, but researchers have not had problems with access to these areas in the past.

2-164

# BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Map 1: This map shows the approximate area encompassing our study leks (large black polygon in the center of map). We will look for 9 leks total located in the portion of the area burned by the Martin fire shown (purple) and around the perimeter of the fire for comparison. This map also shows township and range and Paradise Valley. From Paradise Valley, where the field crew will live for the project’s duration, we will travel to leks and tagged bird locations by taking Martin Creek Rd and Hinkey Summit Rd primarily. Access to leks will also require smaller gravel and two-track roads on public land.

2-165

W ILDLIFE

HERITAGE

ACCOUNT

PROJECT Map 2: This map shows the entire Santa Rosa Mountains region, which is primarily public land. The majority of the Santa Rosa field site is managed by the BLM (olive and yellow areas),

PROPOSAL overlapping US Forest Service System lands in the west (green).

FORM Rev

3/7/2019

Page

11

2-166

# BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☒ No ☐

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project:

Our objectives center around understanding how fire and post-fire restoration efforts are affecting population health and habitat use in a culturally important game bird, the greater sage-grouse. Without examining how fire and restoration efforts affect sage-grouse diet quality, we would be missing one of the most important drivers of habitat use at large and small scales. We are requesting Wildlife Heritage Account Funding because our objectives dovetail with the goals and purpose of the funds: “for the protection, propagation, […] restoration” of wildlife. We will seek additional funding to expand this work (i.e., to deploy more satellite-tags) and continue it beyond 2022. The Wildlife Heritage Account funding would allow us to begin the project, while we are still able to piggyback on the USGS project at this site; once we have established the project, we can leverage the Heritage fund and our research progress for additional funds.

Project Duration: one year ☐ two years ☐ three years ☒ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: July 1, 2020 Estimated End Date: June 30, 2023

2-167

# BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

NOTES: While we are only listing as “All Other Costs” those funds from UC Davis that can technically be considered matching funds, there are additional resources and complementary contributions from UC Davis and USGS to the project, which will allow us to leverage Wildlife Heritage funds to the fullest.

UC Davis: ● Maria Ospina, the UC Davis Ph.D. student who will run the project, is funded by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. She will work full time on this project, but her stipend and benefits will be paid by this fellowship. ● We have three ATVs and a trailer for ATV transport that will be used for the project. We also have a 34’ travel trailer and a 17’ camper trailer that will be used for housing. ● We have 5 Sony HD camcorders that will be used to film behavior on the lek, field laptops, and computers and servers on the UC Davis campus, where videos will be analyzed. We have spotting scopes, tripods and hunting blinds for lek counts and observations. We also have the needed equipment and supplies for measuring habitat characteristics and sampling sagebrush. ● UC Davis will provide ‘overhead’—e.g. office space, library access, and support personnel.

US Geological Survey: ● Dr. Peter Coates of the USGS has an ongoing project monitoring sage-grouse populations at multiple sites that have suffered wildfires, including the Santa Rosa Mountains. The USGS plans to deploy 3 field technicians for trapping and banding birds in the Santa Rosa Mountains in 2021 and beyond. The USGS is providing trucks and other vehicles for these technicians and covering their living expenses. Our collaboration with the USGS adds value to both the USGS and UC Davis projects. ● This project will make use of sage-grouse VHF and PTT tags placed on birds in the Santa Rosa Mountains by USGS technicians, with our assistance. The tags are not for this project alone, but they are a component of the project described here, therefore they are listed below, but their cost is not included in our budget totals. USGS plans to deploy the following tags on hens this spring ($27,2800 total): o VHF Radio tags (Necklace style ATS model #A4060, $182/tag, 40 tags) = $7,2800 o GPS Satellite tags (GeoTrak PTT backpack style at $4000 each 4 tags) = $16,000 o ARGOS download costs per GeoTrak tag ($1000/tag, 4 tags) = $4,000

2-168

# BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $69,520.93 2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project $66,018 a. b. c. d. e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ - 3. In-kind Services for this Project a. Volunteer Time b. Equipment c. Materials d. e. f. g. h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ - 4. Total Project Funding $135,538.93

2-169

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate. Heritage Costs All Other Costs 1. Land Acquisition $ - $ - 2. Personnel a. 2 months of effort for PI Patricelli (including benefits at federally approved FY20 UC rates) $ 66,018.00 c. Total Personnel costs $ 66,018.00

3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem $22/day (includes RV park charges for trailers, food, and misc household expenses) $6,615 b. Two 3/4 ton 4x4 trucks from UC Davis fleet services, rental and mileage (Truck cost = $704/month for 3 months,

$0.44/mile, 400 miles of travel from/to Davis, CA to

Paradise Valley, NV and 105 miles a day for 90 days of travel from Paradise Valley to leks) $6,974 d. Travel expense reimbursement field techs ($2,000 x 3) $6,000 e. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $19,589 $ -

4. Equipment Items c. GPS Satellite tags (10 tags at $3,354.39/tag bulk rate) $ 33,543.93 $ - d. ARGOS downloads (9 tags x $63/tag/month, from August- February [6months]. 19 tags x $63/tag/month for 5 months) $ 9,387.00 e. Total Equipment Costs (line a – e) $ 42,930.93 $ - 5. Materials a. b. c. d. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ - 6. Miscellaneous Costs b. Invoice Boise State University $5000 for analysis of 150 samples of sagebrush and 150 fecal samples $ 5,001.00 b. ATV fuel and maintanence $ 1,000.00 c. M isc expenses $ 1,000.00 d. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ 7,001.00 $ - 7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 69,520.93 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e) 8. Total All Other Costs $ 66,018.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 9. Total Project Costs $ 135,538.93 (add lines 7 & 8) (Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-170

# BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☒ No ☐

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☒ No ☐

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

Here we are requesting funds for the second year of a three-year project. We anticipate that two seasons of spring fieldwork will be needed for a sufficient number of tracked sage-grouse and vegetation samples to draw robust conclusions—spring 2021 (funded by our 2020-2021 Heritage grant), and spring 2022 (funds requested here). By having two field seasons of data collection, we will be able to look for changes between years, as fire impacts accumulate and restoration proceeds. The third year of the project will be focused on chemical analysis of plant and fecal samples, as well as statistical analysis and writing of peer- reviewed publications. The 2020-2021 proposal and the current proposal included $5,000 for chemical analyses. This will allow Forbey lab technicians to conduct analyses on 150 plant and 150 fecal samples per field season; however, we anticipate that more samples will be collected and can be processed to increase our statistical power. In addition, there are new analyses that will be available by late 2022 in the Forbey lab (or in commercial labs), including the analysis of volatiles in fecal samples to determine the toxin load of consumed foods, and analysis of DNA in fecal samples with BLAST methods, that will help to identify the complete diet of the sage-grouse, including sagebrush species, forbs, grasses and insects. This will help to determine whether current seed mixtures used in restoration are appropriate. The third year will also include costs for publication of the results in peer-reviewed journals. We estimate this cost to be $38,000 ($80/sample for 300 fecal samples for BLAST analysis, $5,000 for Forbey Lab technician time, $5000 travel expenses to work in Boise lab, $2000 for materials, and $2000 for publication charges). To fund this third year of the project, we plan to apply to the BLM and USGS, as well as smaller organizations (the American Ornithologists’ Society, the Animal Behavior Society, and the Ecological Society of America), in addition to the Wildlife Heritage Fund.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

All presentations and scientific articles published from this study will thank the Wildlife Heritage Account in the acknowledgements for funding of this project. We will thank the Wildlife Heritage Account publicly when speaking about this project.

Authorizing Signature: see Supplementary Documents for signature

Review Date

2-171

# BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Literature Cited:

Aldridge, C. L., and M. S. Boyce. 2007. Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: Habitat-based approach for endangered Greater Sage-Grouse. Ecological Applications 17:508–526.

Arkle, R. S., D. S. Pilliod, S. E. Hanser, M. L. Brooks, J. C. Chambers, J. B. Grace, K. C. Knutson, D. A. Pyke, J. L. Welty, and T. A. Wirth. 2014. Quantifying restoration effectiveness using multi-scale habitat models: implications for sage-grouse in the Great Basin. Ecosphere 5:art31.

Aspbury, A. S., and R. M. Gibson. 2004. Long-range visibility of greater sage grouse leks: a GIS-based analysis. Animal Behaviour 67:1127–1132.

Barber, J. R., K. R. Crooks, and K. M. Fristrup. 2010. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in ecology & evolution 25:180–189.

Baker, W. L. (2006). Fire and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(1), 177-185.

Beck, J. L., D. Terrance Booth, and C. L. Kennedy. 2014. Assessing Greater Sage-Grouse Breeding Habitat With Aerial and Ground Imagery. Rangeland Ecology & Management 67:328–332.

Blickley, J. L., D. Blackwood, and G. L. Patricelli. 2012a. Experimental Evidence for the Effects of Chronic Anthropogenic Noise on Abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse at Leks 26:461–471.

Blickley, Jessica L. and Gail L. Patricelli. 2012b. Potential acoustic masking of greater sage-grouse display components by chronic industrial noise. Ornithological Monographs. 74: 23-25

Blickley, Jessica L., Karen S. Word, Alan H. Krakauer, Jennifer L. Phillips, Sarah N. Sells, John C. Wingfield, Gail L. Patricelli. 2012c. Experimental chronic noise exposure is related to elevated fecal corticosteroid metabolites in lekking male greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). PLoS ONE. 7 (11): e50462. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050462

Bokony, V., Lendvai, A. Z., Liker, A., Angelier, F., Wingfield, J. C., & Chastel, O. (2009). Stress response and the value of reproduction: are birds prudent parents?. The American Naturalist, 173(5), 589-598.

Booth, D. T., and S. E. Cox. 2013. Curlew Valley sagebrush inventroy and habitat assessment Agricultural Research Service.

Boyd, C. S., J. L. Beck, and J. A. Tanaka. 2014. Livestock Grazing and Sage-Grouse Habitat : Impacts and Opportunities 1:58–77.

Bradbury, J. W., and R. M. Gibson. 1983. Leks and mate choice. Page (C. U. Press, Ed.). Cambridge.

Bradbury, J. W., R. M. Gibson, C. E. McCarthy, and S. L. Vehrencamp. 1989. Dispersion of Displaying Male Sage Grouse: II. The Role of Female Dispersion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24:15–24.

2-172

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Brittas, R. 1988. Nutrition and reproduction of the willow grouse Lagopus lagopus in Central Sweden. Ornis scandinavica:49–57.

CARPENTER, J., C. ALDRIDGE, and M. S. BOYCE. 2010. Sage-Grouse Habitat Selection During Winter in Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1806–1814.

Clark, M. L., and D. A. Roberts. 2012. Species-Level Differences in Hyperspectral Metrics among Tropical Rainforest Trees as Determined by a Tree-Based Classifier. Remote Sensing 4:1820–1855.

Clifford, M., V. Etyemezian, L. Chen, and G. Nikolich. (2018). Synthesis of Post-fire Monitoring Activities in the Great Basin Desert, Mojave Desert, and Transition Zones (No. 45282; DOE/NV/0003590-11). Desert Research Institute, Nevada University, Reno, NV (United States).

Coates, P. S., Prochazka, B. G., Ricca, M. A., Gustafson, K. B., Ziegler, P., & Casazza, M. L. 2017. Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of greater sage-grouse. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 70(1), 25-38.

Coates, P.S., Ricca, M.A., Prochazcka, B.G., Brooks, M.L., Doherty, K., Kroger, T., Blomberg, E.J., Hagen, C.A., Casazza, M.L. (2016). Wildfire, climate, and invasive grass interactions negatively impact an indicator species by reshaping sagebrush ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, E7869.

Coates, P.S., Ricca, M.A., Prochazka, B.G., Doherty, K.E., Brooks, M.L., and Casazza, M.L., 2015, Long-term effects of wildfire on greater sage-grouse—Integrating population and ecosystem concepts for management in the Great Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1165, 42 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151165.

Crockett, J.L., and A.L. Westerling. 2018. Greater temperature and precipitation extremes intensify Western U.S. droughts, wildfire severity, and Sierra Nevada tree. Jour. of Clima. 31:431-354.

Connelly, J. W., and C. E. Braun. 1997. Long-term changes in sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus populations in western North America. Wildlife Biology 3:229–234.

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Cheyenne, WY.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000a. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, C. E. Braun, J. Connelly, M. A. Schroeder, A. Sands, and C. E. Bralln. 2000b. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985.

Crawford, J. A., R. A. Olson, N. E. West, J. C. Mosley, M. A. Schroeder, T. O. M. D. Whitson, R. F. Miller, M. A. Gregg, C. S. Boyd, J. A. Crawford, R. A. Olson, N. E. West, J. C. Mosley, M. A. Schroeder, T. O. M. D. Whitson, R. F. Miller, M. A. Gregg, and C. S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and management of sage- grouse and sage-grouse habitat Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat 57:2–19.

D'Antonio, C. M., & Vitousek, P. M. (1992). Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the

2-173

grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 23(1), 63-87.

2-174

# BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

DeGabriel, J. L., B. D. Moore, W. J. Foley, and C. N. Johnson. 2009. The effects of plant defensive chemistry on nutrient availability predict reproductive success in a mammal. Ecology 90:711–719.

Dinkins, J. B., M. R. Conover, C. P. Kirol, J. L. Beck, and S. N. Frey. 2014. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) select habitat based on avian predators, landscape composition, and anthropogenic features. Condor 116:629–642.

Dinkins, J. B., K. T. Smith, J. L. Beck, C. P. Kirol, C. Pratt, and M. R. Conover. 2016. Microhabitat Conditions in Wyoming ’ s Sage- Grouse Core Areas : Effects on Nest Site Selection and Success:1–17.

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, J. D. Tack, B. L. Walker, J. M. Graham, J. L. Beck, K. E. Doherty, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Tack, B. L. Walker, J. M. Graham, and J. L. Beck. 2014. Linking conservation actions to demography: grass height explains variation in greater sage-grouse nest survival. 20:320–325.

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, and B. L. Walker. 2010. Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat: The Importance of Managing at Multiple Scales. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1544–1553.

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham. 2008. Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:187–195.

Dudko, J. E., Coates, P. S., & Delehanty, D. J. (2019). Movements of female Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus during incubation recess. Ibis, 161(1), 222-229.

Dzialak, M. R., C. V Olson, S. L. Webb, S. M. Harju, and J. B. Winstead. 2015a. Incorporating within- and between-patch resource selection in identification of critical habitat for brood-rearing greater sage- grouse.

Dzialak, M. R., C. V Olson, S. L. Webb, S. M. Harju, and J. B. Winstead. 2015b. Incorporating within- and between-patch resource selection in identification of critical habitat for brood-rearing greater sage- grouse. Ecological Processes 4:1–15.

Forbey, J. S., G. L. Patricelli, D. M. Delparte, A. H. Krakauer, P. J. Olsoy, M. R. Fremgen, J. D. Nobler, L. P. Spaete, L. A. Shipley, J. L. Rachlow, A. K. Dirksen, A. Perry, B. A. Richardson, and N. F. Glenn. (2017). Emerging Technology to Measure Habitat Quality and Behavior of Grouse: examples from studies of Greater Sage-grouse. Wildlife Biology.

Fremgen, M. R. 2015. Plant Toxins Influence Diet Selection and Intestinal Parasites in a Specialist Herbivore. Boise State University.

Frye, G. G. 2012. Phytochemical ecology of an avian herbivore, the greater sage-grouse: Implications for behavior, physiology, and conservation. Boise State University, Boise.

Frye, G. G., J. W. Connelly, D. D. Musil, and J. S. Forbey. 2013. Phytochemistry predicts habitat selection by an avian herbivore at multiple spatial scales. Ecology 94:308–314.

Gibson, R. M. 1996. Female choice in sage grouse: the roles of attraction and active comparison. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 39:55–59.

2-175

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Gibson, R. M., and J. W. Bradbury. 1986. Male and female mating strategies on sage grouse leks. Pages 379–398in D. Rubenstein and R. Wrangham, editors.Ecological aspects of social evolution: birds and mammals. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.

Glenn, N. F., & Finley, C. D. (2010). Fire and vegetation type effects on soil hydrophobicity and infiltration in the sagebrush-steppe: I. Field analysis. Journal of Arid Environments, 74(6), 653-659.

Guglielmo, C. G., W. H. Karasov, and W. J. Jakubas. 1996. Nutritional Costs of a Plant Secondary Metabolite Explain Selective Foraging by Ruffed Grouse. Ecology 77:1103–1115.

Harju, S.M., Dzialak, M.R., Taylor, R.C., Hayden-Wing, L.D., Winstead, J.B. (2010). Thresholds and time lags in effects of energy development on Greater sage-grouse populations. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73, 437-448.

Holloran, M. J., and S. H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater age-grouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. The Condor:742–752.

Holloran, M. J., W. W. Consultants, and E. M. Street. 2015. Winter Habitat Use of Greater Sage-Grouse Relative to Activity Levels at Natural Gas Well Pads 79:630–640.

Homer, C. G., T. C. Edwards, R. D. Ramsey, and P. Kevin. 1993. Use of Remote Sensing Methods in Modelling Sage Grouse Winter Habitat. The Journal of Wildlife Management 57:78–84.

IPCC. 2007. Summary for policymakers. 2007. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, and M. Marquis, eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 1–18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Jankowski, M. D., D. J. Wittwer, D. M. Heisey, J. C. Franson, and E. K. Hofmeister. 2009. The adrenocortical response of Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) to capture, ACTH injection, and confinement, as measured in fecal samples. Physiological and biochemical zoology: PBZ 82:190.

Johnson, D. H. 1980. The Comparison of Usage and Availability Measurements for Evaluating Resource Preference. Ecology 61:65–71.

Karban, R., Maron, J., Felton, G.W., Ervin, G., Eichenseer, H. (2003). Herbivore damage to sagebrush induces resistance in wild tobacco: evidence for eavesdropping between plants.

Knick, S. T., Holmes, A. L., & Miller, R. F. (2005). The role of fire in structuring sagebrush habitats and bird communities. Studies in Avian Biology, 30, 63.

Oikos, 100, 325-332.Kays, R., M. C. Crofoot, W. Jetz, and M. Wikeski. 2015. Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet. Science 348.

Knutson, K. C., D. A. Pyke, T. A. Wirth, R. S. Arkle, D. S. Pilliod, M. L. Brooks, J. C. Chambers, and J. B. Grace. (2014). “Long-Term Effects of Seeding after Wildfire on Vegetation in Great Basin Shrubland Ecosystems.” Edited by Marc Cadotte. Journal of Applied Ecology 51, no. 5: 1414–24.

2-176

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Koch, R. E., A. H. Krakauer, and G. L. Patricelli. 2015. Investigating female mate choice for mechanical sounds in the male Greater Sage-Grouse. The Auk 132:349–358.

Kokko, H. 1997. The Lekking Game : Can Female Choice Explain Aggregated Male Displays? Journal of theoretical biology 17:57–64.

Krakauer, A. H., M. A. Blundell, T. N. Scanlan, M. S. Wechsler, E. A. McCloskey, J. H. Yu, and G. L. Patricelli. 2016. Successfully mating male sage-grouse show greater laterality in courtship and aggressive interactions. Animal Behaviour 111:261–267.

Lockwood, J. L., M. F. Hoopes, and M. P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion Ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

McAdoo, J., Boyd, C., & Sheley, R. (2013). Site, Competition, and Plant Stock Influence Transplant Success of Wyoming Big Sagebrush. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 66(3), 305-312.

Meddens, Arjan J H, Crystal A Kolden, James A Lutz, Alistair M S Smith, C Alina Cansler, John T Abatzoglou, Garrett W Meigs, William M Downing, and Meg A Krawchuk. “Fire Refugia: What Are They, and Why Do They Matter for Global Change?” BioScience, October 3, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy103.

Miller, R. F., S. T. Knick, D. A. Pyke, C. W. Meinke, S. E. Hanser, M. J. Wisdom, A. L. Hild. (2011). Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and limitations to long-term conservation. In: Knick ST, Connelly JW, Eds. Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press. p 145–84.

Miller, R. F., & Tausch, R. J. (2000, November). The role of fire in pinyon and juniper woodlands: a descriptive analysis. In Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species. Fire conference (Vol. 27, pp. 15-30).

Millspaugh, J. J., and B. E. Washburn. 2004. Use of fecal glucocorticoid metabolite measures in conservation biology research : considerations for application and interpretation. General and Comparative Endocrinology 138:189–199.

Naugle, D. E., C. L. Aldridge, B. L. Walker, T. E. Cornish, B. J. Moynahan, M. J. Holloran, K. Brown, G. D. Johnson, E. T. Schmidtman, R. T. Mayer, C. Y. Kato, M. R. Matchett, T. J. Christiansen, W. E. Cook, T. Creekmore, R. D. Falise, E. T. Rinkes, and M. S. Boyce. 2004. West Nile virus: Pending crisis for Greater Sage-Grouse. Ecology Letters 7:704–713.

Nelson, Z. J., Weisberg, P. J., & Kitchen, S. G. (2014). Influence of climate and environment on post-fire recovery of mountain big sagebrush. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 23(1), 131- 142.

Nobler, J. D. 2016. Risky Business: Tradeoffs Between Nutrition, Toxicity, and Predation by a Specialist Mammalian Herbivore. Boise State University.

Olsoy, P. J., J. S. Forbey, J. L. Rachlow, J. D. Nobler, N. F. Glenn, and L. A. Shipley. 2015. Fearscapes : Mapping Functional Properties of Cover for Prey with Terrestrial LiDAR. BioScience 65:74–80.

2-177

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Olsoy, P. J., T. C. Griggs, A. C. Ulappa, K. Gehlken, L. A. Shipley, G. E. Shewmaker, and J. S. Forbey. 2016. Nutritional analysis of sagebrush by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Journal of Arid Environments 134:125–131.

Parikh, G. L., J. S. Forbey, B. Robb, R. O. Peterson, L. M. Vucetich, and J. A. Vucetich. 2016. The influence of plant defensive chemicals, diet composition, and winter severity on the nutritional condition of a free-ranging, generalist herbivore. Oikos 126:196–203.

Patricelli, G. L., and A. H. Krakauer. 2010. Tactical allocation of effort among multiple signals in sage grouse: an experiment with a robotic female. Behavioral Ecology 21:97–106.

Patricelli, G. L., A. H. Krakauer, and R. Mcelreath. 2011. Assets and tactics in a mating market : Economic models of negotiation offer insights into animal courtship dynamics on the lek 57:225–236.

Patricelli, Gail L., Jessica L. Blickley and Stacie L. Hooper. 2013. Recommended management strategies to limit anthropogenic noise impacts on greater sage-grouse in Wyoming. Journal of Human-Wildlife Interactions. 7(2): 230–249.

Rau, B. M., Chambers, J. C., Blank, R. R., & Johnson, D. W. (2008). Prescribed fire, soil, and plants: burn effects and interactions in the central Great Basin. Rangeland ecology & management, 61(2), 169- 181.

Rau, B. M., Johnson, D. W., Blank, R. R., Lucchesi, A., Caldwell, T. G., & Schupp, E. W. (2011). Transition from sagebrush steppe to annual grass (Bromus tectorum): influence on belowground carbon and nitrogen. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 64(2), 139-147.

Remington, T. E., and C. E. Braun. 1985. Sage grouse food selection in winter, North Park, Colorado. The Journal of wildlife management:1055–1061.

Rockweit, J. T., Franklin, A. B., & Carlson, P. C. (2017). Differential impacts of wildfire on the population dynamics of an old‐forest species. Ecology, 98(6), 1574–1582. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1805

Ryan, M. J., M. D. Tuttle, and L. K. Taft. 1981. The Costs and Benefits of Frog Chorusing Behavior. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 8:273–278.

Sapolsky, R. M., Romero, L. M., and Munck, A. U. (2000). How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions. Endocr. Rev. 21, 55–89. doi: 10.1210/er.21.1.55

Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W. Connelly, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G. D. Kobriger, S. M. McAdam, C. W. McCarthy, J. J. McCarthy, D. L. Mitchell, E. V. Rickerson, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in north america. The Condor 106:363–376.

Servello, F. A., and J. W. Schneider. 2000. Evaluation of urinary indices of nutritional status for white- tailed deer: Tests with winter browse diets. The Journal of Wildlife Management 64:137–145.

Sih, Andrew, Maud C. O. Ferrari, and David J. Harris. “Evolution and Behavioural Responses to Human- Induced Rapid Environmental Change.” Evolutionary Applications 4, no. 2 (2011): 367–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00166.x. 2-178

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Sorensen, J. S., J. D. McLister, and M. D. Dearing. 2005. Plant secondary metabolites compromise the energy budgets of specialist and generalist mammalian herbivores. Ecology 86:125–139.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, and D. E. Naugle. 2010. Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework. Page (U. S. B. of L. Management, Ed.) Unpublished Report. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho.

Stolter, C., R. Julkunen-Tiitto, and J. U. Ganzhorn. 2006. Application of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) to assess some properties of a sub-arctic ecosystem. Basic and Applied Ecology 7:167–187.

Thiel, D., S. Jenni-eiermann, R. Palme, and L. Jenni. 2011. Winter tourism increases stress hormone levels in the Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus. Ibis 153:122–133.

Ulappa, A. C. 2011. Nutritional and chemical factors shaping diet selection for two sagebrush specialists: pygmy rabbits and sage-grouse.

Ulappa, A. C., R. G. Kelsey, G. G. Frye, J. L. Rachlow, L. A. Shipley, L. Bond, X. Pu, and J. S. Forbey. 2014. Plant protein and secondary metabolites influence diet selection in a mammalian specialist herbivore. Journal of Mammalogy 95:834–842.

Uy, J. A. C., and J. A. Endler. 2004. Modification of the visual background increases the conspicuousness of golden-collared manakin displays. Behavioral Ecology 15:1003–1010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 80: 59857– 59942.

Vance, C. K., D. R. Tolleson, K. Kinoshita, J. Rodriguez, and J. W. Foley. 2016. Near infrared spectroscopy in wildlife and biodiversity. Journal of Nears Infrared Spectroscopy 24:1–25.

Vitousek, M. N., Taff, C. C., Hallinger, K. K., Zimmer, C., & Winkler, D. W. (2018). Hormones and fitness: evidence for trade-offs in glucocorticoid regulation across contexts. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 42.

Walsh, D.P., White, G.C., Remington, T.E., Bowden, D.C. (2004). Evaluation of the lek-count index for greater sage-grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32, 56-68.

Wann, Gregory T., Peter S. Coates, Brian G. Prochazka, John P. Severson, Adrian P. Monroe, and Cameron L. Aldridge. “Assessing Lek Attendance of Male Greater Sage-grouse Using Fine-resolution GPS Data: Implications for Population Monitoring of Lek Mating Grouse.” Population Ecology 61, no. 2 (April 2019): 183–97.

Wasser, S. K., K. E. Hunt, J. L. Brown, K. Cooper, C. M. Crockett, U. Bechert, J. J. Millspaugh, S. Larson, and S. L. Monfort. 2000. A Generalized Fecal Glucocorticoid Assay for Use in a Diverse Array of Nondomestic Mammalian and Avian Species. General and Comparative Endocrinology 275:260–275.

Welch, B. L., F. J. Wagstaff, and J. A. Roberson. 1991. Preference of wintering sage grouse for big sagebrush. Journal of Range Management:462–465.

Westover, M., J. Baxter, R. Baxter, C. Day, R. Jensen, S. Petersen, and R. Larsen. 2016. Assessing Greater Sage-Grouse Selection of Brood-Rearing Habitat Using Remotely-Sensed Imagery: Can Readily 2-179

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Available High-Resolution Imagery Be Used to Identify Brood-Rearing Habitat Across a Broad Landscape? PLoS ONE 11:e0156290.

Wilmers, C. C., B. Nickel, C. M. Bryce, J. A. Smith, R. E. Wheat, and V. Yovovich. 2015. The golden age of bio-logging: how animal-borne sensors are advancing the fronteirs of ecolog. Ecology 96:1741–1753.

2-180

# BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Supplementary Documents

Letter of Support for matching funds from UC Davis

Letter of approval from the UC Davis Office of Research

Final page of the proposal form with signature from UC Davis Office of Research

2-181

March 2, 2021

Nevada Department of Wildlife 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Reno, Nevada 89511

RE: Letter of Support – Matching Funds

This letter is to provide departmental support of Professor Gail Patricelli’s effort on the proposed project entitled “The interaction between restoration, foraging ecology, and mating behavior in Greater Sage-Grouse “ for the budgeted period July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. She has advised that she will devote 16% time to the project. We authorize the equivalent salary and associated costs to be used as matching funds in support of the proposal as listed in the budget document.

If further information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

John J. Stachowicz Professor and Chair Department of Evolution and Ecology

JJS:SH

2-182

OFFICE OF RESEARCH Telephone: 530.754.7700 Sponsored Programs Facsimile: 530.752.0333 1850 Research Park Drive, Ste. 300 E-Mail: [email protected] Davis, CA 95618-6153

March 4, 2021

NDOW Wildlife Staff Specialist Nevada Department of Wildlife 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Reno, Nevada 89511

Proposal entitled: ...... “The interaction between restoration, foraging ecology, and mating behavior in Greater Sage-Grouse” Principal Investigator: .... Gail Patricelli

Dear Mr. Davis,

On behalf of The Regents of the University of California, Davis Campus, it is our pleasure to forward the above-referenced project with our Institutional support and approval for the Nevada Department of Wildlife’s collaborative submission to the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners.

In the event this proposal results in an award to UC Davis, we would expect to enter into good faith negotiations to agree upon conditions that are mutually acceptable to both parties.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. We request that correspondence pertaining to this proposal be sent via email to [email protected] or mailed to the Office of Research Sponsored Programs Office, 1850 Research Park Drive, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618-6153.

We look forward to working with you on this important project.

Sincerely,

Daniel Cordes Contracts and Grants Analyst

*Please refer to Proposal No 21-3318 on all future correspondence.

Send Award Notice to: Send Checks (Payable to The Regents of the University of California) to: Office of Research, Sponsored Programs Cashier’s Office 1850 Research Park Drive, Suite 300 University of California Davis University of California PO BOX 989062 Davis, California 95618 West Sacramento, California 95798‐9062 [email protected]

#

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☒ No ☐

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☒ No ☐

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

Here we are requesting funds for the second year of a three-year project. We anticipate that two seasons of spring fieldwork will be needed for a sufficient number of tracked sage-grouse and vegetation samples to draw robust conclusions—spring 2021 (funded by our 2020-2021 Heritage grant), and spring 2022 (funds requested here). By having two field seasons of data collection, we will be able to look for changes between years, as fire impacts accumulate and restoration proceeds. The third year of the project will be focused on chemical analysis of plant and fecal samples, as well as statistical analysis and writing of peer- reviewed publications. The 2020-2021 proposal and the current proposal included $5,000 for chemical analyses. This will allow Forbey lab technicians to conduct analyses on 150 plant and 150 fecal samples per field season; however, we anticipate that more samples will be collected and can be processed to increase our statistical power. In addition, there are new analyses that will be available by late 2022 in the Forbey lab (or in commercial labs), including the analysis of volatiles in fecal samples to determine the toxin load of consumed foods, and analysis of DNA in fecal samples with BLAST methods, that will help to identify the complete diet of the sage-grouse, including sagebrush species, forbs, grasses and insects. This will help to determine whether current seed mixtures used in restoration are appropriate. The third year will also include costs for publication of the results in peer-reviewed journals. We estimate this cost to be $38,000 ($80/sample for 300 fecal samples for BLAST analysis, $5,000 for Forbey Lab technician time, $5000 travel expenses to work in Boise lab, $2000 for materials, and $2000 for publication charges). To fund this third year of the project, we plan to apply to the BLM and USGS, as well as smaller organizations (the American Ornithologists’ Society, the Animal Behavior Society, and the Ecological Society of America), in addition to the Wildlife Heritage Fund.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

All presentations and scientific articles published from this study will thank the Wildlife Heritage Account in the acknowledgements for funding of this project. We will thank the Wildlife Heritage Account publicly when speaking about this project.

Authorizing Signature:

03/04/2021 Review Date

2-184 #22-21

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Person Submitting Proposal/Project Manager: ___Dr. Steven L. Petersen, Mikiah McGinn______

Organization/Agency: __Brigham Young University/ Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences_____

Date: ___March 1, 2021______

Address: _4105 LSB, Dept. of Plant and City: Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University ___Provo______

State: ____Utah______Zip Code: ____84602______

Cell: __541-609-0131______Phone: _____(801) 422-4885______

Email: [email protected]_____ Fax: ______

NDOW Monitor (if the project would be managed by someone other than a NDOW employee):

______

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Quantifying the influence of feral horses on greater sage-grouse populations in Nevada: a case study using lek count and HMA data

State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: $5,900

Project Location: Nevada (state-wide where sage-grouse leks occur)

Amount of Funds Requested from Heritage Account: $5,900

Is a Project Map Attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow)

Purpose of the Project: To 1) assess the response of sage-grouse populations to wild horse habitat use at lek sites and late brood rearing habitat in Nevada and 2) conduct a resource selection function (RSF) of lekking habitat using lek location data. The funding being requested with this proposal will be used to assist in completing this research project, which started in Fall 2019. Specifically, this funding will be used to complete the data analysis, statistical summary, and writing of a MS thesis and 3 peer-reviewed journal articles that will be submitted in 2021. This funding request fits into a larger project that has been supported with matching funds (see “Project Funding” table below).

2-185 #22-21

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Detailed Description of Project (include any development plans such as vegetation removal, planting, seeding, or installation of structures; also include the schedule for obtaining any necessary permits, completing NEPA compliance, etc.):

Introduction

Feral horses occur throughout much of Nevada where they impact resource availability and compete with other wildlife species for food and space. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter referred to as sage-grouse) is a species that has experienced steady population declines over the past 60 years. Research suggests that feral horses can potentially impact sage-grouse populations and their habitat where shared. Our objective is to use sage-grouse lekking and brood rearing data along with horse use information provided by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to quantify potential impacts of horses to sage-grouse populations throughout Nevada. Specifically, we have two primary objectives for assessing sage-grouse habitat and population response to feral horses. First, we will assess population patterns between leks found in horse use and non-use areas and second, we will quantify late-brood rearing habitat structure in areas with and without horse use. Additionally, we will use lek location data and environmental information to characterize optimal lek site selection by sage-grouse using resource selection modelling. The information provided from this research will provide insight that can aid in improving sage-grouse conservation strategies and feral horse management practices by NDOW wildlife biologists and BLM wild horse specialists statewide.

Research Objective 1: Sage-grouse Population Response to Shared Habitat Use with Feral Horses

The objective of this study is to determine the potential influence that feral horses, coupled with cattle grazing, have on sage-grouse abundance in the Great Basin. Specifically, we will evaluate whether the presence and abundance of horses and cattle influence the persistence of leks and the abundance of sage- grouse attending lek sites. We hypothesized that feral horses in association with cattle grazing, may negatively influence habitat suitability for sage-grouse more than leks that are grazed by cattle alone. Based on this hypothesis, we predict that lek sites with high density of ungulates (i.e. horses and cows that exhibit high grazing and trampling), will have lower lek attendance than those sites with reduced horse densities. This is justifiably a reflection of degraded sage-grouse habitat and lower grouse populations compared to similar sites without high horse densities. From these data, we can infer the possible contribution that horses and cows together have on the instability of sage-grouse populations throughout the West.

Data Collection

For this chapter, we have been provided with Nevada’s historical lek count dataset through a cooperative agreement with NDOW. With the use of the lek count and location data, we paired similar lek sites using Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS). For the pairing, one half of the sites were located within a Herd Management Area (HMA) boundary and the other outside of HMAs (Figure 1). The leks within HMA boundary lines were assumed to have at least some level of horse presence while the leks outside HMA boundary lines were assumed to be free of feral horse presence. To verify this, we visited 20 of these lek locations (10 total pairs) and conducted a dung count analysis to quantify ungulate use and identify if we had viable pairs (horse/non-horse) for comparison. At each location, we randomly located 5 points within 1 km of the actual lek site. We sampled using the wagon wheel transect method (3 transects extending out from a given point 120 degrees from each other). We sampled at the lek site (1 point) and 4 other random locations around the lek. At each of the 5 points, a predetermined bearing gave us one of 3 directions for the first transect (the other two were based off the first +/- 120 degrees). At every 10

2-186 #22-21

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

meters (of a 100 meter transect) the observer would stop and conduct a visual dung count for the surrounding visible 5 meters. Any dung piles within the five meters were categorized and counted. Observers made note of horse, cattle, other ungulate (deer, elk, pronghorn, etc.), and sage-grouse dung piles. Because of the special interest in horse and cattle influence on the landscape, horse and cattle dung were counted and given an age classification based on freshness: (1: fresh, 2: moderate- some weathering up to one year old, and 3: old- much weathered). Overall, the horse and non-horse use sites were relatively accurate with a few exceptions. 3/10 non-horse sites had notable horse presence, but based on their proximity to several HMA boundaries, it made sense horses would venture into these areas. We noticed that cattle use was consistent over each of the 20 sites. For this part of the project, we obtained historical lek count data, HMA population estimates and dung counts for several locations within the dataset.

Figure 1. Study site location for comparing lek count in relation to horse use and non-use areas.

Date Created: 2/27/21

2-187 #22-21

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Summary of Results Completed to Date

From the analysis we have completed so far, we found that sage-grouse lek attendance is not different between horse use and non-use areas. When summarizing lek count densities, sage-grouse counts between 1980 and 2010 had an average of 17 sage-grouse per lek considering all years within HMAs which can be compared to an average of 13 sage-grouse per lek during that same time period outside HMAs. This result was contrary to our initial hypothesis, that higher lek counts would be expected in non-horse use areas. There are multiple confounding factors that could influence these results. For example, high variability in horse habitat use throughout an HMA may not necessarily impact sage-grouse lekking behavior. Also, the interaction between large ungulates and sage-grouse may not necessarily impair sage-grouse breeding behavior during the lekking period.

Proposed Research and Completion Timeline

With additional analysis, we will complete this assessment of sage-grouse lek counts to horse use providing specific data associated with count variability and trend. We will complete the analysis during spring and summer 2021. This information will be included in a MS thesis that will be completed by the end of summer 2021. We will also complete the writing and review of a research article that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal by the end of summer 2021.

Research Objective 2: Comparing Late Brood-Rearing Habitat in Areas With and Without Horses

The purpose of this study is to determine the potential influence of herbivory by large ungulate herbivores (equines and cattle) on late brood-rearing habitat. We hypothesize that feral horse utilization in conjunction with cattle grazing in these habitats will decrease the structure and suitability of habitat for sage-grouse during late brood-rearing and therefore impact local population stability. Based on this hypothesis, we predict areas with heavier grazing and trampling will have reduced density of sage-grouse, likely due to lower chick survival and recruitment rates. We have focused this assessment on areas dominated by big and black sagebrush plant communities. During this study, we have emphasized the quantification of habitat quality and its subsequent probable relationship to sage-grouse fitness and population trends. These data will make it possible to identify if ungulate herbivory (specifically of horses) correlates to greater sage-grouse populations through reduction of vegetation and invertebrates in late brood-rearing habitat.

Data Collection

For this chapter, we focused on 8 locations (4 pairs) throughout the Great Basin (UT and NV). During the field season, we sampled vegetation structure, surface (bare ground, rock, litter) characteristics, and soil compaction at each of the paired (horse use and horse non-use) sites, with a special focus on late brood rearing habitat. We were able to work with researchers from Utah State and NDOW to identify specific late brood rearing GPS locations in our UT and NV sites. This allowed us confidence that we were sampling in strict late-brood rearing habitat in all locations for comparison. Within the late brood-rearing habitat, we established 5 predetermined random points within late brood rearing habitat. At each point center we extended a 100 meter long transect from which variables representing ecological structure important for sage-grouse late brood rearing were sampled (vegetation height, biomass, species frequency, cover, and dung counts). The transect bearing was determined using a random number generator, selecting an integer between 0-359. Dung counts were conducted at each site to identify ungulate use at each location. Cattle use was consistent over all the paired sites, and horse use was only present in the HMA locations. This allowed for a clean comparison of horse use on an area when compared to a control (non- horse) that had identical plant composition and was located close in proximity to suppress confounding factors that could play into major environmental differences. It was imperative for us to make sure all of the paired sites were composed of similar vegetation communities. If a pair was selected that didn't have the same dominant plant species as the other pairs, it was thrown out and a new one was selected.

2-188 #22-21

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Summary of Results Completed to Date

From our analysis completed so far, we have identified primary differences between horse and non-horse sites. To account for issues with multiple comparisons that are often associated with ANOVA, we lowered the alpha value from 0.05 to 0.02 to detect differences that are statically suitable and biologically meaningful. We found annual grass frequency, dung frequency, percent cover of perennial and annual grass, total and vegetative height and horse and cattle dung to be statistically significant. Annual grass in this study consisted of Bromus tectorum (Cheatgrass) and had a much greater presence in horse sites than in the non-horse sites. There were more perennial grasses present at non-horse sites. Dung frequency was higher at horse locations. Total plant height and total vegetative plant height were both higher in non- horse locations than in horse present locations. Furthermore, there was more cattle dung at non-horse sites than at horse sites. There are notable differences between horse and non-horse sites.

Proposed Research and Completion Timeline

During spring and summer 2021, we will complete the analysis and summary of these comparisons between horse use and non-use areas. We will produce a MS thesis chapter that will be completed by the end of summer 2021. We will also complete the writing and editing of a research article that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal by the end of summer 2021.

Research Objective 3: Predicting Lek Site Locations throughout Nevada using Resource Selection Function modelling

The objective of this study is to utilize lek location data provided by NDOW to predict potential lek locations throughout the state using resource selection function (RSF) modeling. We will develop GIS based datasets that represent environmental variables potentially influential in sage-grouse lek site selection. From this analysis we will be able to build selection models that identify those factors (environmental variables) that are most influential in sage-grouse site selection. Determining probable lek sites can be useful in gaining more accurate yearly population counts and in guiding management decisions to protect important sage-grouse habitat.

Data Collection We plan on utilizing the dataset we obtained from the NDOW with known lek sites throughout the state. We will collect GIS data layers that depict habitat conditions at each of these sites to delineate common characteristics to further predict unknown/or potential sites for translocated birds.

Analysis Plan

We will run a resource selection function model in RStudio to determine probable sites based off of randomly generated points. This will give us a heat map of likely locations throughout Nevada for lek sites based on our data.

Proposed Research and Completion Timeline

We are currently conducting the resource selection function modeling using data provided by NDOW. We will complete the process of identifying and developing GIS layers of habitat structure, topographic variability, and human influences needed for the modeling procedure. We will use program-R to develop candidate model sets that will be evaluated using AIC selection processes. We will complete this analysis by spring 2021, and then finish writing the chapter for a MS thesis by the end of summer 2021. We will

2-189 #22-21

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

prepare a manuscript of this work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This paper will be submitted by summer 2021.

How Would this Project Help with “the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction and management of any game fish, game mammal, game bird or fur-bearing mammal in this State; or the management and control of predatory wildlife in this State”? (See NRS 501.3575)

This project will help with the protection of the greater sage-grouse populations throughout Nevada as it assesses the potential influence of feral horses on their productivity. Specifically, this study provides a large-scale analysis of horse and sage-grouse population trends over the span of about 40 years. Recent literature shows that horse presence has a notable effect on native and sagebrush obligate species fitness throughout the arid and semi-arid western US. A more clear understanding of the influence of horses on habitat and other wildlife species can help land managers make ecologically effective decisions.

Legal Description of the Property on Which the Proposed Project is to be Located (must include the property address, access roads, township, range and section):

We have obtained lek information from the Nevada Department of Wildlife. We are using these data to conduct research on the potential influence of horses on sage-grouse lek attendance and for implementing a resource selection function on lek location to characterize optimal habitat for lek locations. We have also received sage-grouse collar data to identify sites representing late brood-rearing. Furthermore, most of this analysis is done remotely with GIS and statistical software, therefore we will not be trespassing on any private property.

Does this Project Have Additional Funding Sources Other than Your Wildlife Heritage Account Request? Yes ☒ No ☐

We have received funds from the Utah Bureau of Land Management to assist with data collection of late brood-rearing habitat.

Does this Project Involve Habitat Restoration and Improvement of a Long-term or Permanent Nature? Yes ☐ No ☒

Please Describe in Detail the Reason Why You Need Wildlife Heritage Account Funding to Fund this Project: We have been partially funded by the Utah Bureau of Land Management and Brigham Young University to conduct this research. However, funds are needed to complete the analysis, writing, and publication of this research. We are seeking these funds to support graduate student work that is supported by faculty and specialists at BYU.

The work we are doing involves statistical analysis and modeling. This work requires time to conduct. We also need support summarizing the results and writing 3 manuscripts. The requested funds will support the graduate research effort to complete this work (thesis, manuscripts).

Project Duration: one year ☒ two years ☐ three years ☐ more ☐

Estimated Start Date: May 2021 Estimated End Date: August 2021

2-190 #22-21

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING

The funding breakdown below should cover the total funding needs of the project. While projects may be extended beyond the fiscal year for which money was awarded, such an extension must be due to unusual circumstances and be approved by the Wildlife Commission (see NAC 501.340). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet.

1. Amount of Heritage Account Funds Being Requested $ 5,900.00 2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project

a. Bureau of Land Management (Salt Lake Field Office) $ 21,000.00

b. Brigham Young University (Stipend support) $ 17,400.00

c. Brigham Young University - Field technicians (3) $ 3,500.00

d.

e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a – d) $ 41,900.00 3. In-kind Services for this Project a. BYU Faculty Contribution (Petersen at 8 % of time + $ 24,710.00 benefits ) for 2 years b. BYU vehicle rental (not funded by BLM) $ 2,000.00

c. BYU Lab, software and computer resources $ 3,500.00

d. BYU Field equipment (clippers, quadrats, measuring tapes) $ 300.00

e. BYU Faculty contribution by Larsen and McMillan $ 3,000.00

f.

g. h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a – g) $ 33,510.00 4. Total Project Funding $ 81,310.00

2-191 #22-21

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS The cost breakdown below should cover the total costs of the project you are seeking funding for. NOTE: THE HERITAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE USED TO PAY INDIRECT COSTS. Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included in the Heritage column) a. Per diem

b. Mileage $ 3,300.00

c. Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ 3,300.00

4. Equipment Items

a. BYU Vehicle Rental $ 2,000.00

b. Lab Software and computer resources $ 3,500.00

c. Field Equipment $ 300.00

d. Total Equipment Costs (line a – c) $ - $ 5,800.00

5. Materials

a.

b.

c.

d. $ -

e. Total Material Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

6. Miscellaneous Costs

a.

b.

c.

d.

e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a – d) $ - $ -

7. Total Heritage Costs Only $ 5,900.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4d, 5e, 6e)

8. Total All Other Costs $ 75,410.00 (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e)

9. Total Project Costs $ 81,310.00 (add lines 7 & 8)

(Note: total project funding from previous table must match total project costs)

2-192 #22-21

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Are There Going to be Any Ongoing Costs for This Project? Yes ☐ No ☒

If There are Ongoing Costs Associated with This Project, is There an Anticipated Funding Source for These Costs? Yes ☐ No ☐

Do You Anticipate Needing Additional Wildlife Heritage Account Funds Beyond the Upcoming Fiscal Year? If So, Please Describe What You Think Your Funding Requirements will be and for What Purposes (As noted above, extensions beyond the first fiscal year must be due to unusual circumstances and approved by the Wildlife Commission.):

No, these funds will be all that is required to complete this research.

How Will You Give Credit to the Wildlife Heritage Account and Other Funding Sources?

In each publications generated from the research (3) we will include a reference to the Wildlife Heritage Account in the acknowledgements section. Additionally, we will reference this account in the thesis which will be completed by August 2021.

Authorizing Signature:

Review Date 3/28/2021

2-193