Board of Wildlife Commissioners

# 16-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM

APPLICANT INFORMATION

PERSON/ORGANIZATION/AGENCY NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE

NAME CODY MCKEE TITLE DATA COORDINATOR, GAME DIVISION

ADDRESS 1 _1100 VALLEY RD_ CITY RENO

STATE NV ZIP 89512 PHONE (775) 688-1525 ______

CELL (541) 910-5639 FAX (775) 688-1595

EMAIL [email protected]

OTHER PAT CUMMINGS, GAME BIOLOGIST, 702-486-5127, [email protected]

PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT TITLE

An evaluation of the need for wildlife safety crossings along State Route 160 in the Spring Mountains

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

The role of highways and traffic densities on fragmentation of wildlife habitat and gene flow has been well documented over the last decade. Nonetheless, site-specific effects of highway projects must still be evaluated to identify appropriate mitigation strategies to protect wildlife. The Nevada Department of Wildlife has been opportunistically monitoring wildlife use of the State Route 160 (hereafter, SR160) corridor near Mountain Springs in Clark County, Nevada, for over 30 years. Incomplete roadkill information for desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and elk (Cervus elaphus), as well as GPS collar data from desert bighorn sheep (n=2), suggest SR160, in its current state, is a formidable barrier to movement of those 3 species occurring in the Mountain Springs area of southern Nevada (see attachment). These populations provide a valuable resource to wildlife enthusiasts in the Las Vegas Valley and surrounding areas.

The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) plans to widen and straighten SR160 in response to traffic congestion and public safety issues occurring along the highway corridor (FHWA-NV-EA 13.01). Strategies proposed by NDOT to mitigate for the negative impacts of corridor improvements on wildlife include the construction of smooth- wire fencing along the right-of-way of SR160 and the inclusion of flashing hazard signs. Neither of these strategies will likely have the desired outcome of increased permeability to wildlife and reduction in risk of vehicle/wildlife collisions. Following consultation with NDOW, the finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the SR160 corridor improvements indicates that further evaluation of potential impacts of the project to wildlife would occur, including the investigation of alternatives to smooth –wire fencing as a method to improve wildlife connectivity.

NDOW proposes to conduct a combination of passive and active monitoring of wildlife movements to adequately quantify the frequency and location of wildlife crossings near Mountain Springs. Passive monitoring will include the

WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 12/1/10 Page 1 # 16-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

deployment of trail cameras at areas likely to be used as crossings due to natural linkages in topography (e.g., connected washes), roadkill surveys, and ground observations. Active monitoring will involve the capture and radiocollaring of bighorn sheep, mule deer, and elk (n = 15/species) occurring near the SR160 corridor. Each radiocollar will be equipped with GPS tracking technologies to provide real-time and high-resolution movement data of the 3 abovementioned species occurring in the Spring Mountains. Data will be compiled, analyzed, and summarized to provide informed recommendations to NDOT on the future design of SR160, which will be due in the spring of 2017.

HOW DOES THIS PROJECT MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF THE WILDLIFE HERITAGE PROGRAM (NRS 501.3575)

This project exemplifies the purpose of the Wildlife Heritage Program in several ways. First, SR160 already appears to be a barrier to movement and genetic connectivity to bighorn sheep, mule deer, and elk. This project would help to validate this hypothesis and provide the basis to help restore their movement corridors in the south Spring Mountains by identifying suitable locations for wildlife safety crossings that would be incorporated into the final design of the SR160 widening project. Second, the restoration of these corridors may result in the colonization of previously under-utilized habitats occurring on either side of the highway and may result in healthier herds of big game. Finally, this project will provide valuable insight into the dynamics of a multi-ungulate system, which is a rarity in the Mojave Desert, and will help NDOW biologists to make better management decisions.

PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT LOCATION Spring Mountains (GMU 262), Clark County, Nevada

IS A PROJECT MAP ATTACHED? YES NO (A MAP MUST INCLUDE THE PROJECT TITLE, MAP SCALE, DATE MAP WAS CREATED, AND A NORTH ARROW)

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)

This project will not occur on a specific property but the general boundary will occur on public lands administered by the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and includes the portion of GMU 262 occurring north of SR161 near Goodsprings, NV and south of SR 157 along La Madre Ridge in Clark County, Nevada.

A PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE

NDOT has expressed support for the inclusion of wildlife crossing structures into the final design of SR160 near Mountain Springs Summit if NDOW is able to provide supporting evidence for their need. This project will result in a thorough inventory of movement patterns, highway crossings, and vehicle-wildlife collisions that will support the inclusion of those structures in the SR160 widening project. A maximum of 2 locations along SR160 may then identified as important crossing areas for wildlife and be developed into safety crossing structures.

DOES THIS PROJECT HAVE ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF MONIES FOR FUNDING OTHER THAN YOUR HERITAGE TRUST FUND REQUEST? YES NO

DOES THIS PROJECT INVOLVE HABITAT RESTORATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF A LONG-TERM OR PERMANENT NATURE?

YES NO

WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 12/1/10 Page 2 # 16-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PLEASE DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE REASON WHY YOU NEED HERITAGE TRUST FUNDING TO FUND THIS PROJECT

The need for this project was not identified until the autumn of 2014 following interagency coordination between NDOT and NDOW. Given the recent notification of need, Federal Aid will not be immediately available at the initiation of the project. Heritage Funds will allow personnel to make purchases necessary to begin monitoring of wildlife movements in the summer of 2015. The Heritage Trust Fund will ultimately aid in the development of recommendations to NDOT for wildlife safety crossings along SR160, which would then be incorporated in the improvement designs. Funding from the Heritage Trust will also help NDOW to secure additional Federal Aid at a rate of 3:1.

PROJECT DURATION ONE YEAR TWO YEARS THREE YEARS MORE

ESTIMATED START DATE 7/1/2015 ESTIMATED END DATE 6/30/2016 (start date and end date reflect timeframe of requested funds, project will be ongoing to monitor before, during, and after impacts of SR160 corridor improvement on the monitored species)

WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 12/1/10 Page 3 # 16-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT FUNDING (BREAKDOWN SHOULD BE FOR ONE YEAR ONLY)

1. HERITAGE TRUST FUND CASH AMOUNT REQUESTED $40,000.00 2. OTHER CASH FUNDING SOURCES FOR THIS PROJECT a. Federal Aid/Pittman-Robertson Funds $124,320.00 b. $ c. $ d. $ e. TOTAL OTHER CASH FUNDING SOURCES (LINES a-d) $164,320.00 3. DONATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT

a. VOLUNTEER TIME $

b. EQUIPMENT $

c. MATERIALS $ d. $ e. $ f. $ g. $ h. TOTAL DONATIONS (LINES a-g) $

4. TOTAL HERITAGE TRUST FUND PROJECT FUNDING $164,320.00 (ADD LINES 1, 2e, 3h)

WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 12/1/10 Page 4 # 16-07

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

PROJECT COSTS (BREAKDOWN SHOULD BE FOR ONE YEAR ONLY) HERITAGE COSTS ONLY ALL OTHER COSTS

1. LAND ACQUISITION $ $ 2. PERSONNEL (NDOW EMPLOYEE SALARIES NOT INCLUDED) $ $ 3. TRAVEL (NDOW EMPLOYEE COSTS NOT INCLUDED)

a. PER DIEM $ $

b. MILEAGE $ $ c. TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS (LINES a, b) $ $ 4. EQUIPMENT ITEMS a. Reconyx Cellular Trail Cameras (x2) $2,200.00 $ b. Reconyx Standard Trail Cameras (x3) $1,650.00 $ c. Batteries, Memory Cards, Security $600.00 $

d. HANDHELD GPS, BINOCULARS, TELEMETRY $550.00 $ e. TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS (LINES a -d) $5,000.00 $ 5. MATERIALS a. GPS Collars (45 x $2,000) $35,000 .00 $55,000.00 b. $ $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. TOTAL MATERIAL COSTS (LINES a- d) $35,000.00 $55,000.00 6. MISCELLANEOUS COSTS a. Helicopter Capture Crew (Private Vendor) $ _____ $33,800.00

b. GPS Collar Data Services (45 X $500) $ $22,500.00 c. Pre-Capture Aerial Survey $ $11,700.00 d. Trail Camera Data Services (2x$660) $ $1,320.00 e. TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS (LINES a- d) $ $69,320.00 7. TOTAL HERITAGE COSTS ONLY $40,000.00 (ADD LINES 1, 2, 3C, 4e, 5E, 6e) 8. TOTAL ALL OTHER COSTS $124,320.00 (ADD LINES 1, 2, 3C, 4e, 5E, 6e) 9. TOTAL HERITAGE TRUST FUND PROJECT COSTS $164,320.00 (ADD LINES 7,8)

TOTAL HERITAGE TRUST FUND PROJECT FUNDING MUST MATCH TOTAL HERITAGE TRUST FUND PROJECT COSTS

a. TOTAL HERITAGE TRUST FUND PROJECT FUNDING $164,320.00 b. TOTAL HERITAGE TRUST FUND PROJECT COSTS $164,320.00 TOTAL FROM LINE #9

WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 12/1/10 Page 5

630000.000000 632000.000000 634000.000000 636000.000000 638000.000000 640000.000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 8 8 9 9 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 9 9 3 3 ª« ª« 23 ª« 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 24 0 0 0 . .

0 ª« 0

0 21 0 0 ª« 0 7 7

8 8 ª« 9 9 3 3

ª« 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 20 0 0 0 . .

0 ª« 0

0 16 0 0 0

6 ª« 6 8 8 9 9 3 3 ª« 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 19 0 0 0 . .

0 ª« 0 0 0 0 0

5 17 5 8 8

9 ª« 9 3 3

18 Figure 1. Home range of two desert bighorn sheep and proposed corridors for wildlife crossing structures. ª« 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0

0 Map Legend 0 0 This map is for reference only. 0 4 Home Range Classification 4 8 8 9 9

3 Bighorn Ram 11/13-06/14 No warranty is made by the Nevada Department 3 of Wildlife as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness Bighorn Ewe 11/13-07/14 90% 75% Core of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other F data. ª« NDOT Mile Post Proposed Wildlife Crossing 0 0 0 0

0 East: Bighorn Sheep 0

0 State Route 160 Miles 0

0 Prepared by: 0 0 0 . 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 .

0 Nevada Dept. of Wildlife 0

0 Private Property West: Mule Deer & Elk 0

0 7/18/2014 0