BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS

Transcription

1 Wildlife Heritage Account Project Proposal Form APPLICANT INFORMATION Person/Organization/Agency: Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) Date: 8 January 2017 Name: Moira Kolada Title: Habitat Biologist Address: 1218 N. Alpha St. City: Ely State: NV Zip Phone: ext. 29 Cell: Fax: ext mkolada@ndow.org Other: PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Kern Mountain Habitat Restoration State Fiscal Year(s) Wildlife Heritage Account Funds are Needed: 2019 Project Location: Kern Mountain Range, Management Area 11, Hunt Unit 113 Approximately 55 miles northeast of Ely, NV Is a Project Map Attached? (a map must include the project title, map scale, date map was created, and a north arrow) Yes No Purpose of the Project: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ely District, in coordination with the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) has 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 will consist of complete removal of pinyon and juniper within the treatment area. Islands and stringers would be designed to benefit big game, upland game, and nongame species. 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/leave. WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 10/28/15 Page 1

2 Detailed Description of Project: The need for this project is to respond to the high departure from natural conditions in the area due to a combination of drought, fire suppression efforts, and historic livestock overgrazing. The level of departure from natural conditions was determined using the Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) methodology. FRCC is an interagency, standardized tool based on scientific and peer reviewed literature for determining the degree of departure from reference condition vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes. Assessing FRCC can help guide management objectives and set priorities for treatments. The classification is based on a relative measure describing the degree of departure from the historical natural disturbance regime. This departure is described as changes to one or more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g. insects and disease mortality, grazing and drought). The three FRCC classes are based on low (0-33% departure; FRCC 1), moderate (34-66% departure; FRCC 2), and high (67-100% departure; FRCC 3) departure from central tendency of natural (historical) regime. Low departure is considered to be within the natural (historical) range of variability, while moderate and high departures are considered to be outside the range of variability. The majority of the areas proposed to be treated are within FRCC Condition Class 2 and 3, indicating that fire regimes have been moderately to highly altered from their historic ranges. Fire frequencies are departed from their historical frequencies by multiple return intervals. Vegetation attributes have been highly altered from their historical range and now include uncharacteristically high densities of trees, and below normal perennial grass and forb composition. Risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. However, these areas have not crossed an ecological threshold are likely to recover and return to FRCC 1 condition following treatment. This proposal would target Rock Springs Wash and the Moffit Chaining in the Kern Mountains. If funds allow additional areas within greater Kern Mountains would be include The Kern Mountains provide year-round habitat for mule deer and elk, the lower elevations provide year-round pronghorn antelope habitat, and a multitude of other species inhabit the Kern Mountains. Sage grouse occupy and transition through the treatment areas. In 2017 a sage grouse lek was discovered on the lower part of Moffit Flat, directly adjacent to the Moffit Chaining, which could provide nesting and early brood rearing habitat. However, pinyon-juniper trees have begun to invade the site. The removal of these trees at this stage is a cost effective way to maintain and enhance the chainings that originally created these sagebrush and mountain brush communities. At this point in the time shrub, forb, and grass species are still present, having not yet been outcompeted by the encroaching trees. How Does this Project Meet the Objectives of the Wildlife Heritage Program? (See NRS ) This project specifically meets the objectives in subsection 1(a) of NRS , the protection, propagation, restoration, transplantation, introduction, and management of any game fish or mammal, game WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 10/28/15 Page 2

3 bird or fur-bearing mammal in this state. The treatments funded by the Wildlife Heritage Fund would greatly improve a critical transition zone for mule deer, better foraging opportunities for elk, and increased habitat for the greater sage grouse. 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): T21N R70E Sections 10, 11, 15, 16, and 22 T22N R70E Sections 24, 25, 26, and 36 T21N R69E Section 30 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 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. Much of the emphasis in the coming years from both Federal and State entities has and will be placed on sage grouse and projects to enhance or rehabilitate habitat for the species. Many of the habitat related projects that may have previously been focused on a broad spectrum of wildlife species will see reduced funding as agencies concentrate on sage grouse and their specific habitat needs. That being said, it is important to continue work for mule deer, a species that is also in decline. In this effort the partnership with the Wildlife Heritage Program is and will be very important. Project Duration: one year two years three years more Estimated Start Date: 7/1/2018 Estimated End Date: 6/30/2019 WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 10/28/15 Page 3

4 PROJECT FUNDING 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 ). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. 1. Wildlife Heritage Account Cash Amount Requested 2. Other Cash Funding Sources for this Project a. BLM Funding b. (Additional funding from the Habitat Conservation Fee Account may be pursued) e. Total Other Cash Funding Sources (lines a d) 3. Donations or In-kind Services for this Project a. Volunteer Time b. Equipment Materials Acquistion BLM e. f. g. h. Total Donations/In-kind Services (lines a g) 4. Total Project Funding $ 90, $ 30, $ 60, $ 60, $ - WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 10/28/15 Page 4

5 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 ). Double click on the table to activate the embedded spreadsheet. 1. Land Acquisition 2. Personnel (NDOW employee costs can't be included) 3. Travel (NDOW travel costs can't be included) a. Per diem b. Mileage Heritage Costs All Other Costs Total Travel Costs (lines a & b) $ - $ - 4. Equipment Items a. b. 5. Materials e. Total Equipment Costs (line a d) $ - $ - a. Fencing Material acquisition BLM b. $ - e. Total Material Costs (lines a d) $ - $ - 6. Miscellaneous Costs a. Contract Labor for PJ Removal $ 30, $ 60, b. e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (lines a d) $ 30, $ 60, Total Heritage Costs Only $ 30, (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 8. Total All Other Costs (add lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 9. Total Project Costs $ 90, (add lines 7 & 8) $ 60, (Note: total project funding from previous table mus t match total project cos ts) WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 10/28/15 Page 5

6 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.): It is likely that we will seek additional Heritage Funding in subsequent years for this project given the large area that is in need of habitat restoration. This request is for specific treatment work associated with FY19. 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. Authorizing Signature: Review Date: WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 10/28/15 Page 6

7 WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM Rev 10/28/15 Page 7