The Gap Utah Prairie Dog Habitat Restoration
Project ID: 6581
Status: Current
Fiscal Year: 2025
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Derek Christensen
PM Agency: Bureau of Land Management
PM Office: Cedar City
Lead: Bureau of Land Management
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
The BLM in coordination with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Implementation Team (RIT), and the Southwest Desert Adaptive Resource Management local working group (SWARM) proposes to treat 75 acres of unoccupied UPD mapped habitat and 375 acres of potential UPD habitat (450 acres includes both UPD and GRSG habitat) within the The Gap Management Unit in the UPD West Desert Recovery Unit.
Location:
Parowan Gap area within the the Utah prairie dog The Gap Management Unit, Utah Prairie Dog West Desert Recovery Unit in Iron County, Utah within the BLM Cedar City Field Office.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The Gap project area (450 acres) has mapped UPD habitat within GRSG habitat and has been infested with annual invasive grasses and forbs, reducing habitat quality for UPD and GRSG within The Gap Management Unit (MU) and Bald Hills PHMA. The are provides little ecosystem functioning and poor rangeland health. UPD Colonies 0132c and 0132j, within the project area, were historically occupied by UPD, but are currently unoccupied. The nearest occupied mapped habitat is colony 0132e, located about 0.8 mi east of the project area in the Parowan Gap recreation area. The nearest greater sage-grouse lek is the Parowan Gap lek which is located 0.75 miles from the proposed project boundary. The project area is also surrounded by a sagebrush steppe ecosystem important to pygmy rabbits.
Objectives:
The Gap area project implementation would include herbicide treatment of Plateau the first year in the fall and then drill seeding of proper UPD habitat seed mix the following year in 450 acres to establish desired perennial grasses and fords and to compete against invasive annuals. The objective is to establish perennial grasses and forbs and to decrease the invasive annual grass and forb cover to restore ecosystem functioning, improve rangeland health, and result in UPD habitat restoration and improve GRSG brood-rearing habitat. Successful completion of this project would benefit other wildlife species, including sensitive species and other species of consveration concern. The creation of new and restoring current mapped prairie dog habitat in these areas would increase the habitat quality and UPD population as well as increase genetic exchange and connectivity. Restoring UPD habitat in The Gap area would also increase habitat quality for GRSG habitat including breeding, brood-rearing, summer, and winter habitats.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Implementation of the project has risks and threats associated with the lowland sagebrush and desert grassland habitats comprising these project sites including annual precipitation fluctuations, invasive and noxious weed establishment, altered fire regimes, monotypic brush age-class stands and historic improper grazing. However, mitigation measures have been identified that will limit these threats and risks to the project sites. The elevation within the project area is about 5,500 feet. The area is comprised of mostly annual invasive forbs and grasses, but according to the ecological site description, the area should be comprised of perennial grasses (Great Basin Wildrye) and perennial forbs. Adjacent to the project area is surrounded by mostly lowland sagebrush (LANDFIRE v2010). Typically, rangelands at this elevation receive adequate precipitation to promote vegetative growth and viability in the short-term and long-term. An appropriate seed mix has been developed for the project based on precipitation and adequate habitat for other wildlife. Stand diversification and native plant promotion have been identified as management action strategies to improve the condition of these habitat types (Utah Wildlife Action Plan, 2015). As discussed, the project is within The Gap MU boundary. The MU was developed to ensure habitat and population connectivity throughout the UPD range, particularly on public lands. Collinge (2005) described a positive correlation with UPD populations and increased plant diversity with a strong correlation being observed with greater than 10 plant species being present within/near UPD colonies. Additionally, Collinge determined that shrub canopy cover comprising less than 10% of the vegetative canopy was positively correlated with UPD persistence and population growth. A high diversity seed mix for the proposed project area would be beneficial to UPD's, supporting healthy populations allowing for increased connectivity within colonies of The Gap Management Unit. The reduction of annual grasses and forbs may also help to reduce fine fuel accumulation and make these project areas more resistant to stand replacing fires, which typically experience an infestation of undesirable plant species. Unpublished data obtained by the UPRIT's on-going Population Viability Assessment being conducting in coordination with BYU, has demonstrated an increased persistence rate as well as colony growth rate when more than 15 UPD's comprise a colony. Expanding UPD habitat while increasing forage opportunity should increase individual health and lead to colony growth and resilience against plague outbreaks. Currently, there are no active UPD colonies within the project area; however, there is an occupied colony in close proximity to the project site. The creation of habitat with characteristics more suitable to UPD's may lend way to colonization during dispersal events from surrounding colonies. Furthermore, coordination between the BLM and UDWR has taken place and identified these areas as potential UPD translocation sites. Following future translocations into the area, the UPD benefit within the project site will be evaluated based on annual spring counts and habitat monitoring efforts. The project is located within the Bald Hills PHMA for greater sage-grouse -- particularly in brood-rearing habitat. Top threats/risks to sage-grouse include altered fire regimes, invasive species, drought and habitat loss. Forb presence and diversity has been determined to be a limiting factor for sage-grouse brood rearing success. Sage-grouse recruitment may benefit from increasing plant diversity and increasing forbs in this treatment area. Restoring native vegetation and increasing plant diversity should lead to a more resilient landscape against fire, noxious vegetation, etc., and benefit any animal utilizing these areas. Sage-grouse telemetry data has been collected in the past and it is hopeful that additional telemetry data will be collected in the future. This information will be utilized to identify future treatments and determine if and how sage-grouse are utilizing ongoing treatment areas. All of the information that has been collected will serve as a baseline to determine the benefits of the project to sage-grouse and other wildlife within the project area on a short-term and long-term basis. Other wildlife species that may occur in the project sites and have associated risks/threats include mule deer, mourning dove, golden eagle, pronghorn, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, desert cottontail, pygmy rabbit, and black-tailed jackrabbit. As with the UPD and GRSG, the diversification and restoration of more native vegetation in these project areas would benefit these species by promoting a more fire resilient landscape, increasing plant diversity, and increasing forage/prey. The surrounding sagebrush habitat it is important for the pygmy rabbit. By restoring these loamy bottoms with perennial grasses and forbs, there would be a reduction in fire risk to the surrounding sagebrush habitat, protecting important pygmy rabbit habitat that is also important to other sagebrush obligates such as the sagebrush sparrow, sage thrasher, and greater sage-grouse. The project would also increase important native bunchgrass cover for pygmy rabbit to forage on in the spring and summer. The restoration of perennial forbs and grasses in these loamy bottoms would help increase rodent population providing more prey for raptors such as golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and burrowing owl. There are several known raptor nests located near the project area in the rocky hills and cliffs of the Parowan Gap. These known nests include golden eagle, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, and ferruginous hawk. Burrowing owl nests have been observed in burrows near the area as well. Long-billed curlews have been observed in the area and likely nest nearby. Pronghorn in the area would benefit by restoring desirable forbs and grasses that are important for their diet along with protecting browse species from irregular fire frequency and intensity. Mourning doves would benefit from the project by improving nesting cover and foraging habitat from increasing perennial grass and forb cover that will produce more seeds that are important to the mourning dove's diet.
Relation To Management Plan:
The Gap MU has been identified as a priority MU to promote recovery of the species. (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Utah Prairie Dog Revised Recovery Plan 2012).
Fire / Fuels:
The vegetation enhancement project would reduce the risk of wildfire within or adjacent to important wildlife habitat for Utah prairie dog, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, burrowing owl, long-billed curlew, and pronghorn by restoring native vegetation and the natural fire regime.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The project site is located at approximately 5,500 feet above sea level; therefore, it is expected that the feasibility of restoring the vegetative component to the composition and frequency appropriate to the area is high. The project is expected to improve herbaceous understory, which will reduce water runoff and decrease soil erosion while increasing infiltration. The project site contains some localized, ephemeral washes and drainages that may allow for more mesic soil conditions and more beneficial vegetation types. Although no perennial streams or waterbodies will be impacted by this project, localized benefits may be experienced by increasing water availability to desirable vegetation, thus giving way to more beneficial plants for the focal species that have been identified.
Compliance:
NEPA (Environmental Assessment and Biological Assessment) have both been completed from the Chipman Peak EA. Cultural surveys would be required for this project.
Methods:
In The Gap MU, herbicide application would occur in the fall of 2024 and and then drill seeding of UPD habitat seed mix would occur in the fall of 2025 on 450 acres. 5,280 feet of fence would be constructed to divide the allotment and provide for 2 years of rest for the project area.
Monitoring:
Monitoring of the site has been ongoing and primarily consisted of nested frequency, line intercept and utilization. Prior to the treatment general wildlife use surveys, raptor nest surveys and noxious weed monitoring will occur. Pre and post monitoring will help determine the success of the treatment. Spring UPD counts will occur in The Gap MU.
Partners:
UPDOG and UPDRIT, which is comprised of partners from USFWS, DWR, local County governments, etc..., the local SWARM group, livestock permittees (livestock management)
Future Management:
Coordination has taken place between Iron County, UWDR, USFWS and the BLM with regards to creating translocation sites within the project area. The Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan contains specific guidelines for maintaining habitat characteristics in Management Units. Vegetation is routinely monitored in these project sites, and those efforts will continue.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
The treatment area will be maintained as a perennial grassland, which is expected to provide valuable forage for wildlife and livestock. The project is expected to maintain/improve health, composition, and diversity of grasses and forbs in accordance with Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines and the Ecological Site Description. Furthermore, the project will be proactive in improving vegetative communities and removing fine fuels within the area, which will minimize the potential for a wildfire within the area. Utilization within the allotment has not been an issue. The amount of forage throughout the allotments will help ensure that the area is not over utilized by livestock. The scale of forage availability will be largely dependent upon yearly precipitation amounts; however, it is expected that adequate amounts will be available due to the elevation of the project area. The project is expected to promote short-term and long-term recreational big game hunting and viewing opportunities throughout the area. Mule deer are prevalent adjacent to the project area. A large number of hunters frequent this area prior to and during the hunting season. As discussed in the livestock grazing portion of the sustainable uses of natural resources section, the treatment will maintain/improve health, composition and diversity of grasses and forbs in accordance with Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines and the Ecological Site Description.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$89,000.00 $42,785.00 $131,785.00 $68,425.00 $200,210.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services 1 mile of fence on BLM lands to facilitate rest within the project area. $0.00 $36,960.00 $0.00 2025
Seed (GBRC) UPD Seed Mix $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2025
Contractual Services Drill seeding and seed - $150/acre $14,000 to rent equipment $53,500 for time and labor of BLM employees running drill. $14,000.00 $0.00 $53,500.00 2026
Contractual Services Aerial herbicide application for 450 acres at $35/acre $0.00 $5,825.00 $9,925.00 2025
Personal Services (permanent employee) survey/design/contract administration, etc $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2025
Archaeological Clearance cultural surveys $60/acre $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2025
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$89,000.00 $42,785.00 $131,785.00 $68,425.00 $200,210.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
BLM IRA $0.00 $0.00 $53,500.00 2025
BLM (T&E) $18,870 was put in under the WRI tab but unsure of where this funding is. I changed the number to zero so I could save this but it needs to be looked into. Notes:$6,524 - RF $12,346 - Mod 11 FY24 funding from BLM T&E 1170 funding was $9,925.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,925.00 2025
BLM IRA Base funding ASAP 2 $49,000.00 Mod 3 ASAP 436 - $40,000.00 $89,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2025
BLM IRA BLM Permanent Employee, project planning and NEPA $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2025
BLM IRA Fence construction through BLM contracting. $0.00 $36,960.00 $0.00 2024
BLM IRA Aerial herbicide contract. $0.00 $5,825.00 $0.00 2024
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Burrowing Owl N4
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Burrowing Owl N4
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Ferruginous Hawk N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Ferruginous Hawk N4
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Low
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Mourning Dove R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mourning Dove R2
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Pygmy Rabbit N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Pygmy Rabbit N4
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Utah Prairie Dog N1
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Utah Prairie Dog N1
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration High
Utah Prairie Dog N1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Desert Grassland
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Desert Grassland
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Desert Grassland
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments Medium
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Very High
Project Comments
Comment 01/20/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Nicki Frey
This project was discussed with the southwest desert grouse local working group. This project is for prairie dog habitat restoration. The project increase grasses and forbs, which will indirectly effect sage-grouse in the area of the Gap.
Comment 01/30/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Derek, unsure if SITLA was contacted/involved in this project as it pertained to the chaining aspect of the project? Cross boundary involvement? Also are you waiting a year before you chain to see how the spike treatment worked?
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Kendall, I have emailed Scott Chamberlain of SITLA to see if SITLA is interested in being involved with this project in the Horse Hollow area. I will update you once I hear from Scott. Also, yes, we would wait a year before we chained to see how the spike treatment worked.
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Kendall, Scott Chamberlain responded to my email and he said that SITLA will pass on the offer to be involved in this project.
Comment 01/31/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Clare Poulsen
Good project, but I don't see the need to seed sand dropseed at 1.5#/ac when it is >5,000,000 seeds /#. When I have used it, I usually go with 0.1 -0.2 #/ac.
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Clare, thank you for noticing the high #/acre on sand dropseed. I have updated the sand dropseed to 0.2#/acre as you recommended.
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Judi Brawer
Is there a risk that chaining will exacerbate the annual invasives/noxious weeds in the project area? In the ecological threshold section, you state that improper grazing is a risk/threat, but in the sustainable uses section you state that utilization has not been an issue. Is the area currently meeting FRH standards? How will grazing be modified (other than resting for 2 years post treatment) so that FRH standards are met/exceeded and the area does not degrade again over time. What are the native grass and forb species for the area and how does the seed mix compare? Would be helpful if you would provide the ESD(s) for the project area. Would love to see the seed mix focus more on native grass and for species, and get rid of non-natives such as crested and Siberian wheatgrass.
Comment 02/07/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Judi, The project occurs in the Parowan Gap and Perry Well Allotments. The chaining or harrow treatment method would only occur in the Horse Hollow area (Perry Well Allotment). This is primarily to eliminate shrubs skeletons in this area following the Tebuthiron treatment to eliminate visual obstructions for UPDs. UPD habitat requirements require less than 8% shrub ground cover and less than 10% shrub canopy cover. The Gap area (Parowan Gap) would be drill seeded. This area is dominated by invasive annual grasses and forbs. Historic grazing (early 1900s) likely negatively impacted the vegetative community in the Gap area; specifically, in the areas that have been identified for treatment. Grazing management systems were identified in both allotments where the project would occur. The majority of livestock use in the two allotments occurs during the dormant season. The grazing management systems ensure that areas that are utilized during the critical growing period are not utilized repeatedly during this timeframe. Livestock utilization within both areas is well within acceptable parameters. Nested frequency data that has been collected within both areas and reveals the trend is static. BLM and partners, including the UDWR and USFWS, have worked together for many years to identify a Utah prairie dog seed mix. The seed mix includes both native and non-native species to help promote the recovery of the Utah prairie dog while allowing for competition with annual invasives. In addition, the project areas have been identified as important areas that would help facilitate the recovery of the Utah prairie dogs in the West Desert Recovery Area in the short-term and long-term.
Comment 02/01/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Judi, Just letting you know the chaining portion in Horse Hollow of the project has been excluded to this year's proposal. The proposal is just to treat the loamy bottoms next to the Parowan Gap with herbicide and then to drill seed and then fence it off to allow the vegetation to take.
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Barbara Sugarman
I think this project has a strong potential to positively impact Utah prairie dogs. There were a few small things I noted from the project details that may need slight adjustments or clarification. First, in the description for the project it states that the project will treat 450 acres of UPD habitat, I think this may be better stated as potential future UPD habitat. Currently, there are only 47 acres of a mapped Utah prairie dog colony within the project area, although there is immediately adjacent occupied habitat to the Horse Hollow area. Second, I saw two different elevations for the project area listed, one at 5,500 feet in the threats and risks section, and one at 6,500 feet in the water quality section, which could use clarification. In the methods section, I think it could be helpful to mention that the treatment in the Horse Hollow are could allow for expansion of a translocation site with recently released UPDs that is currently occupied. In the monitoring section, it could be helpful to mention that the Utah prairie dog spring count will occur for the Gap project area, and can be added when counting the Horse Hollow project area. Finally, the seed mix looks decent and I think that the sand dropseed, cicer milkvetch, indian ricegrass, created wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass, and Siberian wheatgrass may benefit UPDs. It may be worthwhile to think about adding a globemallow species if appropriate for the other objectives for the area. Thanks for all your work on this project Derek!
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Barbara, Thank you for your comment. I went in and edited/added what you recommended. Also, I added small-leaf globemallow to seed mix list. I only put a small amount (#/acre) due to how expensive it is.
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Barbara Sugarman
Hi Derek, I think a small amount is perfect. I think it would be great to target small patches that could be considered suitable for a future translocation site, or is optimal UPD habitat. Thank you!
Comment 02/16/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Mike Worthen
Iron County is supportive of this project as the more UPD habitat that can be created in the west desert, the closer we can be to delisting the species as a threatened species. This project is in concert with the federal agency guidance to provide habitat to sensitive species. While these two projects are small, they provide connectivity to other UPD colonies in the area. Iron County is a willing participant to UPD recovery encourages support for the identified projects.
Comment 01/24/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Mark Bigelow
I noticed in the species section pronghorn, mourning dove, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, golden eagle, and band-tailed pigeon are listed but I didn't see an explanation in the project description talking about how the project will improve habitat for each one specifically. Could you elaborate a little bit more on those species?
Comment 02/01/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Mark, Thank you for your comment. I have updated the species list and elaborated more on how the project can benefit each species under the project details.
Comment 02/01/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Benson
Parowan Gap, I know this area very well. Its is of high value to many different interests. I would like to make a couple suggestion's. Buffering the project on the south end a little further from the land owners. Its obvious they are farming in that area & I would anticipate relocation of prairie dogs that will give them an open pipeline to the cultivated ground. Which as you know will complicate things later on. Also I would like to suggest Dry Land Alfalfa into your seed mix. As it is already known prairie dogs flourish with alfalfa in their habitat area. As for the grazing section I observe the livestock in that area in my travels. The permittee is a very responsible permittee and does a great job. Good work at keeping the livestock producer involved during the process. Thanks
Comment 02/01/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Jacob, Thank you for your comment. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is in the proposed seed mix. This is the only option for alfalfa that I could seed in the WRI seed mix builder template other than Yellow Alfalfa. Also, I would still plan on restoring the land even if it is close to private, but the BLM and DWR would follow buffer guidelines and protocols for UPD translocations. I know the DWR doesn't want to translocate UPD close to private land.
Comment 02/06/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Judi Brawer
Based on the ecological site description, would western wheatgrass be more appropriate than crested and Siberian?
Comment 02/12/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Judi, I added Western Wheatgrass to the seed mix. This site is heavily invaded by cheatgrass and other annual invasive species. In planning for a successful seeding, we have chosen to include Siberian and crested wheatgrass as options that we believe will be able to compete with the present seedbank of invasive species in order to promote successful habitat improvement in this area.
Comment 01/10/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
This project was submitted as an FY23 proposal. Did you mean to propose it for this coming fall, which is FY24? If so please update the Title page and finance page with the correct fiscal year and let me know asap. Thanks.
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Alison, Dan Fletcher updated the FY to FY24. Thank you for noticing that.
Comment 01/17/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Please update the affected area on your map page with the actual terrestrial treatments you will be completing in that area during this phase. Thanks.
Comment 01/18/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Alison, the affected area has been updated on the map page with the actual terrestrial treatments.
Comment 01/08/2025 Type: 2 Commenter: Daniel Eddington
Under the Budget Arch line item, there is $40,000 from BLM. The budget comment seems misleading as it says "cultural surveys $60/acre through the BLM internal procurement process." Since this funding is coming through WRI, how is it going through the BLM Internal procurement process as well. Please update statement to clarify who is doing the arch survey, BLM or DWR. Thanks
Comment 02/01/2023 Type: 3 Commenter: Arie Leeflang
Hey Derek - you may have thought more deeply about this than my cursory review, but I would suggest bumping up the per-acre price on the cultural budget. This area is likely to have an above average site density. You, Shawn, and Roy might have a better grip on the arch-prices than me, but I would suggest at least $60/acre for this project. Maybe more. My two cents - no pressure of course.
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 3 Commenter: Derek Christensen
Arie, I talked with Dan Fletcher on your recommendation and we agree that $60/acre for cultural clearance is more accurate. I have updated that in the financial section. Thank you for noticing that.
Comment 06/18/2024 Type: 3 Commenter: Melanie Oberhelman
BLM is contracting fence and aerial pre-emergent spraying through the BLM's in house procurement process. Originally $27,000 requested from UWRI-NEPA for the cultural portion of project and now BLM IRA is contributing to this portion through inhouse procurement process. $35,000 originally requested from WRI but BLM IRA contributing. $14,000 was originally requested from WRI for renting equipment for drilling but BLM IRA is now contributing.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
13660 Terrestrial Treatment Area Herbicide application Aerial (fixed-wing)
13660 Terrestrial Treatment Area Seeding (primary) Drill (rangeland)
Project Map
Project Map