wildlife heritage trust account project proposal form · 2015-04-15 · # 16-12 board of wildlife...

# 16-12

BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM

APPLICANT INFORMATION

PERSON/ORGANIZATION/AGENCY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO

NAME SHERMAN SWANSON, TITLE RIPARIAN SCIENTIST

ADDRESS 1 1664 N. VIRGINIA CITY RENO

STATE NV ZIP 89557 PHONE 784-4057

CELL 233-6221 FAX 775-784-4583

EMAIL [email protected]

OTHER

PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT TITLE: SAGE-GROUSE LATE BROOD REARING HABITATS AS AFFECTED BY WILD HORSE AND CATTLE MANAGEMENT

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SEE ATTACHED

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

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

# 16-12


PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT LOCATION SEE ATTACHED

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) SEE ATTACHED

A PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE NA

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

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

THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLEMENT AN ONGOING EXISTING PROJECT WITH ADDITIONAL FOCUS ON SAGE GROUSE LATE BROOD

REARING HABITAT SEE ATTACHED

PROJECT DURATION ONE YEAR TWO YEARS THREE YEARS MORE

ESTIMATED START DATE JULY 2015 ESTIMATED END DATE JUNE 2017


# 16-12


PROJECT FUNDING (BREAKDOWN SHOULD BE FOR ONE YEAR ONLY)

1. HERITAGE TRUST FUND CASH AMOUNT REQUESTED $ 35,982_________2. OTHER CASH FUNDING SOURCES FOR THIS PROJECT

a. NEVADA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION $ 32,770 __________

b. $

c. $

d. $

e. TOTAL OTHER CASH FUNDING SOURCES (LINES a-d) $

3. DONATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT

a. VOLUNTEER TIME $

b. EQUIPMENT $

c. MATERIALS $

d. $

e. $

f. $

g. $

h. TOTAL DONATIONS (LINES a-g) $ 0_____ _____

4. TOTAL HERITAGE TRUST FUND PROJECT FUNDING $ 68,752________(ADD LINES 1, 2e, 3h)


# 16-12


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

1. LAND ACQUISITION $ 0 $

2. PERSONNEL (NDOW EMPLOYEE SALARIES NOT INCLUDED) $ 27,088______ $ 23,960___ ____ 3. TRAVEL (NDOW EMPLOYEE COSTS NOT INCLUDED)

a. PER DIEM $ 1,000______ $ 700 _________

b. MILEAGE $ 800______________ $ 560 _________

c. TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS (LINES a, b) $ 1,800_____________ $ 1,260___________

4. EQUIPMENT ITEMS

a. _______________________________ $___________________ $

b. ______________________________ $ __________________ $

c. $ $

d. $ $

e. TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS (LINES a -d) $________ $ 5. MATERIALS

a. RESEARCH AND CAMPING SUPPLIES____ $ 2,150____ $ 7,550___

b. FIELD VEHICLE RENTAL ____ _ $ 2,700___ $

c. _____________ ___________ $ __________ $

d. ___________ $_________ $

e. TOTAL MATERIAL COSTS (LINES a- d) $ 4,850____ $

6. MISCELLANEOUS COSTS

a. TUITION ____________________ $ 2,244 __________ $

b. __________ $__________ $

c. $ $

d. $ $

e. TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS (LINES a- d) $ 2,244_____ $

7. TOTAL HERITAGE COSTS ONLY $ 35,982______

(ADD LINES 1, 2, 3C, 4e, 5E, 6e)

8. TOTAL ALL OTHER COSTS $32,770___ (ADD LINES 1, 2, 3C, 4e, 5E, 6e)

9. TOTAL HERITAGE TRUST FUND PROJECT COSTS $68,752

(ADD LINES 7,8)


Wildlife Heritage Program Proposal # 16-12 Sage-grouse Late Brood Rearing Habitats as Affected by Wild Horse and Cattle Management

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Detailed Description of Project: Successful riparian grazing management can take many forms. Yet, small riparian areas in large

pastures are too attractive to reduce over-use without management emphasizing periods for recovery after grazing. Recovery periods have not been applied for wild horse use. Horse general effects on sage-grouse late brood rearing habitat is not known. In late summer of most years without summer rainfall, sage-grouse in the Great Basin must go to riparian areas, especially meadows, to find lush green protein-rich forbs for chicks. Riparian functions allow green forb conditions to persist. Some grazing, when well-timed and managed, can keep forbs green. Persistent and prolonged over-use periods keep riparian stabilizers, such as rhizomatous sedges, from growing the roots needed to bind soil and prevent erosion. This study will monitor sage-grouse late brood rearing riparian meadows in wild horse herd management areas and grazing allotments. To determine the timing and relative amount of use by horses and cattle, trail cameras will capture grazing, loafing, fighting, watering and other behaviors. To measure short-term and long-term effects, multiple indicator monitoring (MIM) tools will be adapted to address key attributes of riparian function. Repeated vegetation measurements will focus on sage-grouse habitat characteristics, including forb availability, leaf age, and height.

Horse populations above carrying capacity can over-use favored parts of their home range at will. The over use of riparian areas by cattle has long been recognized as a problem in need of solutions. Some people point to an obvious problem of wild horses and overuse of springs and riparian systems (Jeffress and Crouse 2010). However this potential problem has been under studied and there is poor documentation (especially quantitative data) about wild horse use of riparian areas and positive or adverse impacts. BLM procedures for setting appropriate management levels of wild horse herd areas for a thriving natural ecological balance did not include a focus on riparian areas until 2010 (USDI BLM 2010). Most if not all riparian areas within the High Rock HMA complex that recently were evaluated for a possible horse gather by the Surprise Field Office have had Proper Stream Function (PFC) assessments conducted; 65% of these riparian areas were functioning at risk. Discussions about whether riparian and other grazing problems are caused by cattle or horses (e.g. figure 2) often end inconclusively. This management challenge was addressed in the second edition of the Nevada Range Monitoring Handbook (Swanson et al. 2006). However, it did not discuss the use of trail cameras or photography to sort use among grazing species.

McIlroy et. al. (2011) found the use of digital cameras to monitor cattle use of montane meadows to be time consuming and they suggested utilization measurements. However, this approach will not work when forage use and streambank trampling is potentially caused by either cattle or horses, or both at the same or different times, and when the information needed to manage riparian meadow systems may require different practices for different target ungulates. Many others have found remote cameras to be quite useful for monitoring a diverse array of wildlife. Larrucea et al. (2007a;b) censused bobcats and coyotes and Heilbrun et al. (2003) identified individual bobcats. Larrucea and Brussard (2007) detected pygmy rabbits (2008), while Varma et al. (2006) studied the population dynamics of elephants. Crooks et al. (2010) used cameras and tracks to identify white-nosed coatis, large and western spotted skunks, ringtails, domestic dogs, coyotes, cougars, bobcats, black bear, cattle, deer and a variety of rodents, birds, lizards, and lagomorphs. Kays et. al. (2009) and Brown and Gehrt (2009) provide useful information to help design networks and choose cameras and camera settings. Using remote cameras to quantify horse and cattle use in meadows to develop relationships with important management criteria and attributes will test hypotheses important to making land management decisions. Furthermore, our research should improve society’s knowledge about how wild horses and cattle affect meadows and sage grouse use of meadows, in a manner that is potentially meaningful to many different audiences and affected interests.

1


_____________________________________________________________________________________ Riparian areas are a well-known problem for cattle grazing management and Wyman et al.

(2006) and Swanson et al. (in press) synthesize much information to explain many management tools to address this problem. Yet the most effective of these tools, control of the timing and duration of grazing use, are not applied for wild horse management. Past and perhaps current mismanagement of riparian areas leads to incision and loss of water during dry summer months (Prichard et al. 1998 and Dickard et al. in press). Preventing this loss of functions is critically important to all wildlife that depend on riparian habitats, especially sage grouse, which use wet meadows for late brood-rearing habitat. Wet meadows provide critical protein-rich forbs for chicks that do not yet forage on sagebrush (Oakleaf 1971; Drut et al. 1994; Beck and Mitchell 2000; Crawford et al, 2004). While Neel (1980) and Evans (1986) documented methods for optimizing cattle grazing in sage grouse meadows, the control of timing and perhaps the control of riparian utilization level is not commonly applied to wild horses and burros. Due to the prevailing summer-dry climate within the Great Basin, late brood rearing habitats are often considered a limited habitat within this region. For example, Atamian et al. (2010) found that late brood rearing habitat on which broods were successfully reared represented only 2.8% of the total study area and that sage-grouse selected for particular land-cover types (e. g., higher elevation, moist sites with riparian shrubs or montane sagebrush) during this period. Aldridge and Boyce (2007) noted that sage-Grouse may risk predation by seeking forage in open mesic habitats. The use of meadows and related riparian habitats is currently being documented with radio and GPS “backpacks” on sage grouse studied by Peter Coates and his research team and collaborators in at least eight Nevada locations.

Study hypotheses include: 1. Cattle grazing use periods will correspond to the periods of use called for in allotment

management plans, or equivalent documents and annual operating plans (or not). Thismanagement will predictably provide (or not provide) significant portions of the growing seasonwithout cattle grazing, allowing grazed plants to recover unless grazed by horses.

2. In allotments with wild horses, wild horse and cattle use of the same meadows will overlap 100percent when both types of ungulates are in the allotment, and wild horses will continue to usethe meadows after cattle are moved to other locations.

3. Riparian conditions (PFC assessments, MIM, and vegetation transect; short-term and long-termdata) will be better (e.g. more greenline stabilizers, more ground cover, or more hydric species)in those meadows with restricted periods of use by ungulates, than in meadows with season-long periods of use.

4. Meadows dehydrated by channel incision are used less than intact meadows by sage-grouseduring July and August because green leaf biomass from forbs is available from less of thepotential meadow.

5. Meadows with greater abundance of early phenology or succulent common dandelion(Taraxicum officinale), yarrow (Achillea lanulosa), and western aster (Aster occidentalis) havegreater use by sage grouse chicks in late July and August, and greater adult and juvenile survival.

Methodology Although management of grazing intensity can be effective, it is both more important and more

difficult or expensive in large pastures with small riparian areas. Application of successful cattle management in allotments with wild horses is often frustrated by an inability to determine which kind of animal is responsible for the bulk of the forage consumption, how seasonal use may differ by species, and how grazing from each species affects the vegetation. This research will compare the timing, duration and intensity of grazing in late brood rearing core habitat (Coates et al. 2014) used by cattle in allotments and by horses in herd management areas or territories.

2


_____________________________________________________________________________________

This work will include the following tasks: 1. Each student will write a study plan using the generic outline and instructions provided by the PI to hisadvisees and write a thesis or dissertation prepared in journal article format. Preparation of the study plan will include working with UNR, BLM, FS, US Geological Service (USGS), and Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) personnel and data to select study allotments and meadows.

2. Conduct field investigations including:a. Field verification of the suitability of study meadows, and where in doubt, sage grouse use.

Selected areas must have at least presence or potential for obligate or facultative wetlandvegetation and have evidence of use by sage grouse, horses or burros, and cattle.

b. Install trail cameras or miniature cameras located to sample the entire study site, or if the site istoo large or oddly shaped for complete coverage, cameras will be located to sample arepresentative subset of the more at-risk parts of the area. Each trail camera will be secured to ametal post in a protective box and equipped with a “property of the University” sign, extrabatteries, and a large capacity SD memory card. One card can hold well over 1,000 high qualityphotos. At the beginning of the study and each subsequent visit we will remove all recent anddistinct horse and cattle manure from a selected plot in each camera’s field of view.

c. Visit the study sites periodically to make observations of horse or cattle use, harvest cameradata, and conduct field measurements of manure, stubble height, vegetation cover andphenology, and water availability. Site visits will occur in May or June, July, August, and in thefall before winter snows. Site visits will occur more often in July and August to monitor short-term use indicators. At each visit the number of cow pats, and piles of horse manure will becounted and removed. At each visit of each meadow the stubble height of herbaceousvegetation on the greenline and in the observation plot will be systematically measured. Thelocation of any available surface water will be documented. While in the field students will useSPOT technology to check in daily and to ensure safety.

d. The Multiple Indicators Monitoring (MIM) protocol (Burton et al. 2011) will be used to collectdata on long-term indicators of bank stability, greenline vegetation composition, greenline-to-greenline width, and woody vegetation height. Channel and incision (if any) depth and widthmeasurements will be taken at multiple locations or reaches (georeferenced with GPS)depending on the presence of headcuts or variation in channel or gully width or depth. Thelocation the nearest trees with limbs suitable for a raptor perch (>2.5 cm diameter at a height >2 meters) will be recorded on aerial photos or satellite imagery (e.g. Google Earth) orgeoreferenced with GPS. Short-term indicators of streambank alteration (trampling), stubbleheight, and any woody utilization will also be recorded (CES, FS, NRCS, and BLM. 1999). Inmeadows without a channel for flowing water, analogous greenline data will be collected alonga transect in the wettest areas. In meadows with or without a channel, cross valley transects ofquadrats will be added for species composition, woody species height class, and riparian areawidth in relation to potential width as indicated by soils and landform. Forbs will be included inquadrat cover data even if they are not dominant. Forb cover and phenology data will becollected each year in July and August. Cross valley transect data will be collected from the plotarea photographed with trail cams to determine species composition, bare ground, stubbleheight, and especially, the abundance and phenology of forbs sought by sage grouse (especiallydandelion, yarrow, and western aster). Digital photos of quadrats will be captured for later usein data interpretation, including relative greenness and plant phenology and structure.

3


_____________________________________________________________________________________ e. At each approach to a meadow, observers will use a predetermined distant and secluded

observation point to count and observe any horse and cattle use for one quarter hour, focusing upon the area that would presumably be captured by the camera. These observation periods will be scheduled at random times throughout daylight hours (early dawn to dusk). Additional visits will occur during darkness using night vision scope binoculars to document nocturnal grazing. However, Crane et al. (1997) documented that horse herds were generally located at daylight near where they had been at darkness the previous evening. These observations will be used to estimate the level of efficiency of cameras in capturing horse and cattle use.

f. When a camera site is visited, the photographs will be uploaded to a computer, data cardsswitched, and camera batteries changed to ensure data backup and continued operation of the camera. At the conclusion of the study, cameras and their support equipment will be removed.

g. Collaborate with and obtain data from other researchers using GPS or radio telemetered grouseto determine their specific use areas in meadows and monthly survival rates.

h. Request that agencies share herd management area and wild horse territory population dataand information about any adjustments to planned cattle grazing seasons of use.

3. Analyze data to test hypotheses related to each part of each objective and write results into theses ordissertations and into suitable publications to benefit land managers and the science of land management. Specific hypotheses will be analyzed in relation to various alternative hypotheses. Statistical analysis for hypothesis tests will include both simple and multiple regression to understand correlations among continuous variables and analysis of variance to detect differences among classes. Multivariate analyses will be used to identify groups of meadows that are similar in characteristics or response. Multivariate analysis of variance will be used to identify relationships driven by both continuous and categorical data.

4. Conduct workshops with local managers to use study results in project planning for wild horse andriparian management. Results of this project will inform managers of opportunities for sage grouse habitat mitigation in some of the most rare and vulnerable portions of their habitat. University Extension faculty (Brad Schultz, Kent McAdoo, and Sherman Swanson) involved with local sage grouse planning groups in Nevada and the Science Work Group or Monitoring Committee of the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team will present the results of this project to planning and other groups and, if appropriate, participate in updating local or State plans to reflect the results of this research. A written summary of the results and their applicability will be presented in trade journal articles for the livestock industry (e.g., Nevada Rancher and Progressive Rancher), and in peer reviewed Extension publications. Publications will be provided to staff with the land management agencies (and other interested parties) to be used to support any changes in land management that occur as a result of this project.

Project Products: Anticipated technically refereed journal articles and parallel Extension publications include: • Factors determining residual stubble height and forb abundance in riparian meadows used by

sage-grouse, horses, and cattle. • Season, duration, rotation of use, and rest of riparian meadows in relation to sage grouse late

brood rearing habitat. • Is riparian proper functioning condition an appropriate foundation for assessing sage grouse late

brood rearing habitat quality? • Automated camera use for targeting management strategies with dual or multi-species grazing.

4


_____________________________________________________________________________________ Anticipated technically refereed journal articles and parallel Extension publications to be produced

in the follow-on years enabled by this project and the existing Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station (NAES) funding include:

• Comparative effects of riparian management strategies used for cattle and wild horses inriparian meadow sage grouse habitats of Nevada.

• Locations within meadows where cattle and horses graze, rest, and interact socially.• Streambank stability and meadow water availability in relation to cattle and wild horse use and

behavior.

Additional anticipated Extension publications or presentations include: • Tools for management of wild horse impacts to riparian habitats.• Recommendations for managing grazing in sage grouse late brood rearing habitat.• Opportunities for targeted and strategic grazing for sage grouse late brood rearing habitat.• Protocols for lentic multiple indicator monitoring.• Lentic multiple indicator monitoring and sage grouse late brood rearing habitat.• Effectiveness of riparian horse fence types.

Communication & Engagement: As discussed above meadows for study will be selected with examination of remote sensing

images and data layers in the BLM, FS, or NDOW, USGS, and UNR GISs so that focus is maintained on management decisions important to sage grouse habitat managers and locations where ongoing geospatial sage-grouse data can be correlated to meadow condition and to horse and cattle use data. The “additional Extension publications and/ or presentations” will be based on collaboration with agency personnel. The principal investigator is currently part of a group that is developing a standardized quantitative lentic monitoring protocol organized by the BLM-National Operations Center. He expects this research to field test this protocol.

How does this project meet the objectives of the Wildlife Heritage program? The project goal is to measure effects of wild horse and livestock management on riparian sage-

grouse habitat. Data and results of this study will bolster society’s understanding and conservation efforts in protecting Nevada’s sage grouse population, restoring Nevada’s riparian areas, and to benefit Nevada’s land managers and the science of land management.

The greater sage grouse may be listed as a threatened species under the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Much of the emphasis for sage grouse has focused on sagebrush habitats; however, in the western Great Basin sage grouse, especially chicks, rely largely on wet meadows to provide protein rich green forbs in mid to late summer (Evans 1986; Beck and Mitchell 2000; Crawford et al 2004). One potentially serious threat to sage-grouse may be mismanagement of wild horses under the 1971 Wild and Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act. Current implementation of this Act seems to use population control (i.e., removal by gathers) as the sole management tool of grazing related issues in Herd Management Areas (HMA) (BLM) or Wild Horse Territories (WHT) (FS). Worse still, the politics of the wild horse management issue have never allowed gathers to keep areas used by wild horses at their designated appropriate management levels for any sustained period. Wild horse and burro numbers for Nevada in spring of 2014 were 24,000 to 26,500, 100% above the appropriate management level of 12,688 (Alan Shepherd NV BLM Wild Horse and Burro Nevada State Lead Presentation to the NV

5


_____________________________________________________________________________________ Sagebrush Ecosystem Council on 3/13/2014). Political and fiscal difficulty recently reduced targets for gathers and has now almost shut down BLM and FS horse gathering.

“Although specific studies quantifying direct effects of wild horse utilization to sage-grouse habitat are lacking, it is generally conceded that excessive horse utilization, especially when horse numbers are above the Appropriate Management Level, can degrade sage-grouse habitats” (Sage Grouse Conservation Team 2004). All local sage grouse conservation plans http://www.ndow.org/Nevada_Wildlife/Sage_Grouse/Conservation_Plans/ addressed the challenges of riparian, meadow, or late brood rearing habitat management given the combined challenges of wild horse and cattle grazing management. Jeffress and Roush (2010) and Beever and Brussard (2000) explain that horse damage is most pronounced around perennial riparian systems and is particularly harmful to sage grouse. Cole et al. (2004) linked pack-horse utilization of mountain meadows to decreased productivity and vegetation cover. Olson Rutz et al. (1996) found a preference for grasses and increasing use of forbs as horses’ time on meadows increased. Ganskopp and Vavra (1986) found that horses rapidly vacated the watering areas after drinking and the animals in each herd used the most prevalent plant communities on the landscape. Unfortunately, they did not include riparian or meadow communities in their study. In contrast, Crane et al. (1997) found in Wyoming that bog/meadow habitats accounted for 1% of the study area, but 21% of the use by feral horses. Horse numbers in some areas are worrisome because wildlife have been observed to avoid watering sites when horses are present (Ostermann-Kelm 2008).

This research is designed to not only determine the extent of the problem, but to test alternative methods for quantifying impacts and managing for recovery. Once the degree of wild horse use or the combination of wild horse and cattle use of riparian meadows becomes clear (i.e., seasons, duration and intensity of use), managers can develop the appropriate techniques (if warranted) to improve meadow and riparian area management for wild horses, cattle, wildlife and other resources. For example, management could involve riparian pastures that are horse and cattle exclosures except when grazing would enhance forb phenology and sage-grouse habitat (Evans 1986) or to manage with an approach needed to maintain riparian functions and values (Wyman et al. 2006 and Swanson et al. in press). Williams (2006) discussed the increasing concern of wildlife enthusiasts about wild horse management and emphasizes the need for fish and wildlife advocates to understand this issue. Without adequate documentation of the relative impacts of managed cattle and free-roaming horses to riparian areas and to sage grouse, the status quo persists with discussion, but not action. Important resource management decisions will be made by court decisions that rely on limited data, and not definitive research-based knowledge.

Project Locations This research will identify riparian late brood rearing habitat within thirty cattle grazing

allotments in herd management areas or territories that overlap with core sage-grouse habitat, (Figure 1). From these allotments a set of 30 study sites will be drawn. Six FS allotments will be randomly selected. All allotments with good likelihood of future Greater sage grouse geospatial data over the next four years will be selected. And remaining allotments will be selected at random. Any allotment will be rejected and replaced if suitable riparian late brood rearing habitat cannot be found in aerial photography and on site verification. Random selection of field study locations will first identify all suitable locations in each allotment and then randomly select from among them. Absence of suitable riparian late brood rearing habitat causes rejection and random replacement of the study location and/or allotment. Where high priority meadow habitats are so large that camera resources will not allow complete sampling, a PFC assessment will be used to identify specific areas in the meadows where at-risk conditions will focus the research.

6

http://www.ndow.org/Nevada_Wildlife/Sage_Grouse/Conservation_Plans/


_____________________________________________________________________________________ Within study allotments, riparian meadow habitats used by sage grouse for late brood rearing

will be studied along with any exclosures in these allotments, or in the geographic area, used by the instrumented sage grouse in study allotments. Their condition will be assessed by an interdisciplinary team of University and agency personnel (Prichard et al. 1998 or Dickard et al. in press). Trend toward or away from riparian stability (Burton et al. 2011 as adapted or new lentic riparian monitoring protocol being developed by BLM) and species composition and cover characteristic favoring sage grouse will be measured using tools in Stiver et al. (in press) and compared from the beginning to end of the four years of field study. Burton et al. (2011) will be adapted by locating the “greenline” through the wettest part of a meadow where there is no open stream channel. It may also be adapted or augmented with line point intercept vegetation data collection and in other ways, as recommended by the lentic quantitative monitoring protocol development team, led by Dickard, Manning, and others in ongoing communication. Melissa Dickard is the Riparian Program Lead at the BLM National Operations Center, Denver, CO; Mary Manning is FS R-1 Riparian Program Lead. Cross valley transects of quadrats will be added for species composition, woody species height class, and riparian area width, in relation to potential width, as indicated by soils and landform. Forbs will be included in quadrat cover data, even if they are not dominant. Forb cover and phenology data will be collected each year in July and August.

Automated Reconyx PC900 HyperFire Professional High Output Covert IR trail cameras will be installed for capturing images of horses and cattle using meadows. Cameras in very large meadows, or in non-growing season periods, may be set to trigger periodically. Key areas, smaller meadows, and springs will be set to trigger upon animal movement.

Please describe in detail the reason why you need Heritage Trust Funding to fund this project: Funds requested in this proposal will complement a larger project which is currently supported

by Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station. Additional support has been provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and Nevada Agricultural Foundation.

The graduate student funded with this proposal has been recruited and will work closely with the student funded by the existing project. She will write her study plan to focus on the sage-grouse components of this research while the student funded by NAES will focus on the grazing connection to riparian hydrology. This additional funding is sought because the project described is very large and encompassing with tremendous opportunity for greater focus and data analysis with a second student in the early phases of the project. Study plans will be provided for collaborator review before field season or as soon as possible.

Heritage Trust Funding will financially support the graduate student with living expenses, travel expenses, tuition, and provide for associated costs during research period and writing results. The topics set forth in this study are directly related to management of game bird and conservation of riparian habitat benefiting all wildlife in Nevada.

7


_____________________________________________________________________________________ Budget Personnel Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Graduate Student (50% FTE) 21,000.00 21,000.00 42,000.00 Undergraduate Student ($12./hour) 2,880.00 4,800.00 7,680.00

Fringe Graduate Student (15% Fringe) 3,150.00 3,150.00 6,300.00

Undergraduate Student (2% Fringe) 57.60 96.00 153.60 Total Personnel 27,087.60 29,046.00 56,133.60

Travel 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,300.00 3,300.00 Mileage 800 800 1,600 Other Costs Field Research and Camping Supplies 2,150.00 2,150.00 4,300

Field Vehicle Rental 2,700.00 2,700.00 5,400.00 Publication Costs 2,000.00 2,000.00

Tuition 2,244.48 2,400.00 4644.48 Total Other Costs 7,894.48 8,050.00 3,300.00 17,944

Total Direct Costs 35,982.08 38,096.00 3,300.00 77,378.08 Modified Total Direct Costs 33,737.60 35,696.00 3,300.00 72,733.60 F&A (0%) Totals 35,982.08 38,096.00 3,300.00 77,378.08

Budget Justification

Sponsor requested funds of $35,982 represents the first year of this compliment to an existing five-year NAES project. The amounts $38, 096 for FY 2017, and $3,300 for FY 2018 are anticipated requests for future years.

Personnel Funds are requested for the master’s student for two years. The master’s student will conduct

the field data collection after developing a detailed study plan. She or he will also analyze the data and write the final report in the form of a thesis. Requested salary is $1,750 per months plus fringe calculated at 15% of salary.

Funds are requested to support part-time undergraduate(s) 640 hours of labor to take place over years 2 and 3 at a rate of $12 per hour, plus fringe at 2%. Undergraduate technicians will support the field and data analysis portions of this research, and will be supervised by the PI and graduate students.

Travel Funds of $3,300 are requested for the PI and/or students (transportation, lodging and per diem)

to travel as needed to meet with agency collaborators, conduct fieldwork or to present results at national meetings. And, 1600 is requested for mileage (gas for a rented vehicle.

Materials and supplies

8


_____________________________________________________________________________________ Funds of $4,300 are requested for field camera supplies camp food and supplies for project

personnel in years one and two. Funds of $5,400 are requested to lease a field vehicle for four months and $1,100 are requested to provide.

Publication costs of $2,000 are requested for the third year.

Tuition Tuition is calculated for 6 credits per student per semester at $187.04 per credit in year one with

an estimated increase to $200 per credit in year two.

How will you give credit to the Heritage trust fund account and other funding sources? We wish to express our deepest gratitude in advance for reviewing our proposal. This project

will continue to provide beneficial research regarding wild horses, livestock grazing and riparian sage grouse habitat because of its sponsors. Each funding source will be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section of published papers. We will also verbally communicate the participation of our sponsors at live workshops and other in-person presentations.

9


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1. BLM and FS allotments in Nevada clipped to herd management areas or wild horse and burro territories and clipped to core greater sage-grouse habitat (Coates et al. 2014). These overlay greater sage-grouse geospatial data points from the Nevada Department of Wildlife and polygons of study areas from the USGS.

10


_____________________________________________________________________________________ Literature Cited:

Atamian, M. T. , J. S. Sedinger, J. S. Heaton, and E. J. Blomberg. 2010. Landscape level assessment of brood rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse in Nevada. J. Wildlife Management 74:1533-1543

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.

Beck, J. L., & Mitchell, D. L. (2000). Influences of livestock grazing on sage- grouse habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 993-1002.

Beever, E. A., and P. Brussard. 2000. Examining Ecological Consequences of Feral Horse Grazing Using Exclosures. W. N. Am. Naturalist, 60(3):236-254.

Brown, J. and S. D. Gehrt. 2009. The basics of Using Remote Cameras to Monitor Wildlife. Ohio Stat Univ. Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Fact Sheet W-21-09, 8 p.

Burton, T. A., S. J. Smith, and E. R. Cowley. 2011. Multiple Indicator monitoring (MIM) of Stream Channels and Streamside Vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23. BLM/OC/ST-10/003+1737. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 155 pp.

CES, FS, NRCS, and BLM. 1999. Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements- Interagency Technical Reference. Bureau of Land management National Applied Resource Sciences Center BLM/RS/ST-96/004+1730 165 pp.

Coates, P. S., et al. 2014. Spatially Explicit Modeling of Greater Sage-grouse Habitat in Nevada and Northeastern California; A Decision Support Tool for Management. Open File, U.S. Geological Survey, 2014.

Cole, D. N., J. W. Van Wagtendonk, M. P. Mcclaran, P. E. Moore, and N. K. Mcdougald. 2004. Response of mountain meadows to grazing by recreational pack stock. J. Range Management 57(2):153-160.

Crane, K., M. Smith, and D. Reynolds. 1997. Habitat Selection Patterns of Feral Horses in Southcentral Wyoming. J Range Manage. 50(4):374-380.

Crawford, J. A., Olson, R. A., West, N. E., Mosley, J. C., Schroeder, M. A., Whitson, T. D., Miller, R. F., Gregg, M. A., & Boyd, C. S. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 57(1), 2-19.

Crooks, K. R., M. Grigione, A. Scoville, and G. Scoville. 2008. Exploratory Use of Track and Camera Surveys of mammalian Carnivores in the Peloncillo and Chiricahua Mountains of Southeastern Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 53(4):510-517.

Dickard, M., Gonzales, M., Elmore, W., Leonard, S., Smith, D., Smith, S., Staats, J., Summers, P., Weixelman, D., & Wyman, S. In press. Riparian area management - proper functioning condition assessment for lotic areas (Technical Report No. 1737â€�15 v.2). Denver, CO: USDI, Bureau of Land Management.

Drut, M. S., J. A. Crawford, M. A. Gregg, 1994. Brood habitat use by sage-grouse in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 54(2):170-176.

Evans, C. The Relationship of Cattle Grazing to Sage-grouse Use of Meadow Habitat on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. University of Nevada, Reno. 199pp.

Ganskopp, D. and M. Vavra. 1986. Habitat Use by Feral Horses in the Northern Sagebrush Steppe. J. Range Manage. 39(3):207-212.

Heilbrun, R. D. N. J. Silvy, M. E. Tewes, and M. J. Peterson. 2003. Using automatically triggered cameras to individually identify bobcats. Wildlife Society Bull. 31(3):748-755.

Jeffress, J. and P. Roush. 2010. Lethal Hoof Beats – the Rising Toll of Feral Horses and Burros. The Wildlife Professional, Winter:50-55.

11


_____________________________________________________________________________________ Kays, R., B. Kranstauber, P. Jansen, C. Carbone, M. Rowcliffe, T. Fountain, and S. Tilak. 2009. Camera

traps as sensor networks for monitoring animal communities. p. 811-818. In: Local Computer Networks, IEEE 34th Conference on Local Computer Networks. Zurich.

Larrucea, E. S. and P. F. Brussard. 2008. Efficiency of various methods used to detect presence of Pygmy Rabbits in Summer. Western North American Naturalist.70(3):303-310.

Larrucea, E. S., G. Serra, M. M. Jaeger, and R. H. Barrett. 2007a. Censusing Bobcats Using Remote Cameras. W. N. Am. Naturalist, 67(4):538-548.

Larrucea, E. S., P. F. Brussard, and M. M. Jaeger, Michael M.; et al. 2007b. Cameras, coyotes, and the assumption of equal detectability. J. Wildlife Management 71(5):1682-1689.

McIlroy, S., B. H. Allen-Diaz, and A. C. Berg. 2011. Using Digital Photography to Examine Grazing in Montane Meadows. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 64(2):187-195.

Neel, L. A. 1980. Sage-grouse Response to Grazing Management in Nevada. M.S. Thesis. University of Nevada, Reno. 47pp.

Oakleaf, R. J. 1971. Relationship of Sage-grouse to upland meadows in Nevada. M.S. Thesis. University of Nevada, Reno. 73pp.

Ostermann-Kelm, S. E. R. Atwill, E. S. Rubin, M. C. Jorgensen, and W. M. Boyce. 2008. Interactions Between Feral Horses and Desert Bighorn Sheep at Water. J Mammalogy, 89(2):459-466.

Prichard, D., J. C. Anderson, C. Corell, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, B. Mitchell, J. Staats. 1998. Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condtion and Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Denver, CO, USA: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service, Technical Reference 1737-15. 136 p.

Sage-Grouse Conservation Team. 2004. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California, First Edition, June 30. Nevada Department of Wildlife.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinks, and D. E. Naugle. In Press. Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Swanson, Sherman (Editor in Chief), Ben Bruce, Rex Cleary, Bill Dragt, Gary Brackley, Gene Fults, James Linebaugh, Gary McCuin, Valerie Metscher, Barry Perryman, Paul Tueller, Diane Weaver, and Duane Wilson. 2006. Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook Second Edition. University of Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension Educational Bulletin-06-03 81 pp. http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/ag/2006/eb0603.pdf

Swanson, S., S. Wyman, and C. Evans. In press. Practical Grazing Management to Maintain or Restore Riparian Functions and Values. Journal of Rangeland Applications.

USDA BLM. 2010. Wild Horse and Burros Management Handbook (Public). BLM Handbook H-4700-1 80 pp.

Varma, S., A. Pittet, and H. S. Jamadagni. 2006. Experimenting usage of camera-traps for population dynamics study of the Asian elephant Elaphas maximus in southern India. Current Science, 91(3):324-331.

Williams, Ted. 2006. Horse Sense. Audubon. September-October. http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0609.html

Wyman, S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S. Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B. Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S. Swanson, L. Van Riper, T. Westfall, R. Wiley, and A. Winward. 2006. Riparian area management: Grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. 105 pp. http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/files/Final%20TR%201737-20.pdf

12

http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/files/Final%20TR%201737-20.pdf


_____________________________________________________________________________________

A-133 Single Audit Reporting Statement

The University of Nevada, Reno is required to submit an annual A-133 Single Audit Report. UNR’s fiscal year runs July – June. The 2013 Fiscal Year audit report is available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse Single Audit Database website (http://harvester.census.gov/sac/) and can also be viewed on the institution’s website here: http://www.unr.edu/Documents/research/OSP/reports/a133/FY13_A133_AuditReport.pdf

13

http://harvester.census.gov/sac/

http://www.unr.edu/Documents/research/OSP/reports/a133/FY13_A133_AuditReport.pdf