IIJA/IRA Bureau of Land Management Alaska Good Neighbor Authority | L25AS00118

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): IIJA/IRA BLM Alaska Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) Funding (NOFO L25AS00118)

1) What is this funding opportunity?

This is a discretionary Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funding opportunity for Alaska under the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) framework. It will award cooperative agreements to support on-the-ground restoration and resilience work on BLM-managed lands in Alaska, particularly where coordinated, cross-boundary work across multiple land ownerships will produce better outcomes than a single landowner or agency could achieve alone.

2) What is the main purpose of using the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) framework?

The core purpose is to partner with a qualified cooperating entity so planning and implementation can be aligned across boundaries, additional resources can be leveraged, and landscape-scale results can be delivered more effectively. The notice emphasizes that cross-boundary coordination is a central theme and a strong fit for proposals.

3) What lands are the focus of this opportunity?

The work supported by this opportunity is focused on BLM-managed lands in Alaska, with an emphasis on projects that are coordinated with actions on adjacent or nearby lands under other ownerships when that coordination improves results.

4) What are the program's strategic goals?

The program is organized around four strategic goals:

• Restoring landscape connectivity and function
• Conserving and restoring lands to combat climate change
• Improving water resources
• Restoring legacy disturbances

5) What kinds of problems or impacts is BLM trying to address through this NOFO?

The NOFO highlights rebuilding ecological health and resilience after impacts such as wildfire, invasive species spread, erosion, flooding, past land uses, and long-standing disturbances that continue to degrade habitat, watersheds, or rangelands.

6) What types of projects are particularly emphasized?

The NOFO highlights a wide set of Alaska-relevant project types. Major emphasis areas include invasive plant and noxious weed treatments coordinated across boundaries, fuels management, habitat connectivity and wildlife movement improvements, water and riparian restoration, rangeland and native plant restoration, and targeted grazing as a vegetation management tool.

7) Are invasive plant and noxious weed projects eligible?

Yes. Invasive plant and noxious weed treatments are a major emphasis. The NOFO describes coordinated treatments across ownership boundaries using herbicide, mechanical removal, and/or biological controls.

8) What kinds of fuels management activities are included?

Fuels management is a key category. The NOFO includes examples such as thinning, piling, mastication, mowing, chemical or biological applications, and prescribed fire. These activities are framed as supporting wildfire resiliency, protecting at-risk communities, and enabling safe and effective wildfire response.

9) Does the NOFO support community assistance projects?

Yes. Community assistance projects are encouraged when there is mutual benefit across boundaries and the ability to leverage funds. The NOFO gives examples such as thinning around a community at risk or juniper removal to improve broader landscape resiliency.

10) Is forest management eligible under this opportunity?

Yes. Forest management actions are included where they enhance resilience to wildfire, insects, disease, and drought. The NOFO references density management and related treatments as examples.

11) What rangeland restoration activities are described as eligible?

For rangelands, the NOFO notes plant restoration needs following wildfire, drought, or invasive species impacts. Eligible work may include plant material development, seed collection, site preparation, and seeding or planting.

12) Does the NOFO support native plant restoration?

Yes. The notice specifically notes that native plant restoration is frequently a cross-boundary need. It also states that GNA can be used to carry out complementary activities on BLM lands when a cooperating entity is already conducting similar work nearby.

13) Are wildlife movement and habitat connectivity projects eligible?

Yes. Wildlife movement, migration, and habitat connectivity are called out as a major use case for GNA in Alaska. The NOFO describes cross-boundary habitat restoration and structural improvements to reduce barriers and mortality and to support unimpeded wildlife movement.

14) What are examples of wildlife connectivity actions mentioned in the NOFO?

Examples include fence removals or upgrades, invasive species control and re-vegetation along migration corridors and stopover areas, and improving water availability in key movement areas.

15) What water-related activities are mentioned?

The NOFO provides several water-related examples, including development and protection of natural springs, removing invasive riparian vegetation to increase water availability, constructing guzzlers or other artificial water sources, and restoring wet meadows.

16) Is riparian restoration a priority?

Yes. Riparian restoration is identified as a priority area, especially after floods, washouts, or channel changes that affect riparian form and function important to wildlife and livestock.

17) What riparian restoration actions are listed as examples?

The NOFO lists activities such as installing headcut and erosion control structures, repairing or removing check dams, addressing leaking ditches, re-contouring, and re-vegetation to stabilize streambanks and improve riparian condition.

18) Does the NOFO mention coordinating riparian work across landowners?

Yes. The notice states riparian work is often most effective when implemented across an entire stream reach with multiple partners, which aligns with the cross-boundary GNA approach.

19) Can applicants include NEPA-related work?

The NOFO mentions NEPA support. It states BLM cannot delegate final NEPA decision-making to a cooperating entity, but a partner may assist with NEPA-related work when it is part of the overall effort to implement authorized restoration services.

20) Is targeted grazing an eligible vegetation management approach?

Yes. Targeted grazing (also described as prescribed grazing or managed herbivory) is included as a vegetation management tool where livestock are used in a carefully controlled way to meet objectives such as weed control or wildfire fuels reduction.

21) What activities are associated with targeted grazing that may be eligible?

The NOFO lists associated eligible activities including installing fences, building or maintaining range improvements and enclosures, and conducting livestock and range monitoring.

22) Who is eligible to apply under this NOFO?

Eligibility is limited to:

• State governments
• County governments
• Federally recognized tribal governments

All other applicant types are not eligible under this NOFO.

23) Are Youth Conservation Corps or Public Lands Corps intern/crew proposals supported here?

No. The NOFO states it does not support entities hiring interns or crews under the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993. It directs eligible Youth Conservation Corps applicants to pursue that type of work under a separate BLM funding opportunity: NOFO 15.243, BLM Youth Conservation Opportunities on Public Lands.

24) What type of award will BLM make?

Awards are expected to be made as cooperative agreements. This generally indicates BLM anticipates substantial involvement in the project beyond what is typical for a standard grant.

25) What is the CFDA number associated with this opportunity?

The opportunity is listed under CFDA 15.015.

26) What is the maximum award amount (award ceiling)?

The award ceiling is $400,000.

27) What is the application deadline listed in the provided information?

The posting indicates an original closing date of March 17, 2025.

28) How many awards will BLM make?

The provided text does not specify the number of expected awards.

29) How should applicants think about project scale and budget?

Based on the information provided, applicants should plan around the $400,000 ceiling and propose a scoped, implementable package of work that fits within that range, or clearly explain leveraged contributions and partner roles if describing a broader coordinated effort.

30) What is the role of cross-boundary coordination in proposal fit?

The NOFO repeatedly emphasizes that projects are especially valuable when work is coordinated across multiple land ownerships. Proposals that clearly link field actions to the four strategic goals and explain how cross-boundary coordination improves outcomes are described as a strong thematic fit for the GNA approach.

31) What does the NOFO say about CESU partners and indirect costs?

The NOFO addresses Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESUs). If a cooperative agreement is awarded to a CESU partner under a formally negotiated Master CESU agreement consistent with CESU purposes (research, monitoring, assessments, technical assistance, and education), the indirect cost rate is capped at 17.5 percent of the applicable indirect cost base as recognized in the partner's federally approved NICRA.

32) If an applicant is a CESU partner, what should they include in the proposal?

Applicants are encouraged to state whether their proposal furthers CESU purposes and, if so, which CESU Network should be considered as the host.

33) What kinds of activities align with CESU purposes as described in the notice?

The NOFO describes CESU purposes as including research, monitoring, assessments, technical assistance, and education, in the context of a cooperative agreement under a Master CESU agreement.

34) What does "restoring legacy disturbances" mean in the context provided?

In the context of the provided text, legacy disturbances refer to long-standing disturbances and past land uses that continue to degrade habitat, watersheds, or rangelands, and that may require restoration actions to rebuild ecological health and resilience.