BLM-MT Development and Coordination of Wild Turkey and Upland Game Habitat and Public Land Access Coordination | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the BLM-MT Development and Coordination of Wild Turkey and Upland Game Habitat and Public Land Access Coordination opportunity?

It was a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) discretionary cooperative agreement opportunity (Funding Opportunity Number L16AS00170) under the U.S. Department of the Interior. The focus was on practical, on-the-ground cooperation between BLM and outside partners to plan, coordinate, and carry out conservation and stewardship work related to upland game habitat and public land access.

Which agency offered this funding opportunity?

The opportunity was offered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), within the U.S. Department of the Interior.

What was the main purpose of the cooperative agreement?

The main purpose was to build effective, field-based collaboration between BLM and partners to improve and sustain wild turkey and other upland game habitat and to maintain and expand reliable legal public access to BLM-managed lands (and other public lands, and in some cases adjacent private lands where cross-boundary coordination is needed).

Why was this program needed?

The program was driven by increasing public demand across Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota for healthy upland bird populations and quality wildlife habitat, along with growing interest in wildlife viewing and hunting. It also reflected the reality that habitat outcomes and recreation opportunities depend not only on habitat condition, but also on dependable public access.

What geographic area did the opportunity target?

The need and public demand cited in the opportunity covered Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Specific expected work included developing a list of potential habitat and/or access projects within South Dakota.

What kinds of lands could be included in funded work?

The work was intended for BLM-managed public lands and other public lands, and it could also involve adjacent private lands when landscape-scale habitat outcomes depend on cross-boundary coordination.

What species and habitat types were emphasized?

The agreement prioritized applied, field-relevant habitat improvements supporting wild turkey and other upland game species. It also included broader ecosystem stewardship work such as riparian improvements and forest and fuels-related work on forested BLM lands.

What were the key habitat-related tasks under the agreement?

Key habitat tasks included helping BLM identify and implement riparian improvement projects, identifying upland bird habitat improvement projects and supporting implementation, and supporting fuels reduction and forest health work on forested BLM lands.

What were the key public access-related tasks under the agreement?

Access-related tasks included helping BLM identify where legal public access to BLM lands was lacking, developing an acquisition or access strategy, compiling relevant contact information to move access strategies forward, and coordinating with BLM staff responsible for access procurement and maintenance to maintain and increase public access opportunities.

How did the opportunity connect habitat work to recreation and hunting?

The opportunity explicitly linked wildlife conservation to recreation participation. It noted that loss of access to public lands is frequently cited as a reason people stop hunting, and it emphasized that improving habitat and improving access should reinforce each other: habitat improvements help sustain wildlife populations, and access improvements help ensure the public can benefit through lawful recreation and hunting.

What was meant by coordination at landscape and watershed scales?

The grant recognized that upland habitat management and restoration rarely succeeds in isolation. It emphasized coordination across broader geographic scales (landscape and watershed), where effective outcomes often require ongoing collaboration with private landowners, conservation organizations, and other agencies.

What kinds of activities were allowed or anticipated under the cooperative agreement?

The scope allowed a range of project types, including (but not limited to) project design and implementation, resource inventory and monitoring, habitat restoration actions, studies, research efforts, and public access coordination. The intent was to support both science-based work and practical field implementation.

What planning and reporting responsibilities were included?

The recipient was expected to develop an annual program of work, facilitate completion of that work during the year, and provide annual reporting to BLM that summarized accomplishments against the prior year’s work plan.

Was the recipient expected to build partnerships and bring in additional funding?

Yes. The expected work included developing a list of potential habitat and/or access projects (within South Dakota) and actively identifying and pursuing partners and funding sources to help carry out those projects.

What role was the recipient expected to play in implementation?

The recipient was expected to provide leadership on a project-by-project basis (as mutually agreed with BLM) for planning, development, implementation, and monitoring of proposals, projects, or research efforts that emerge under the agreement.

What were the basic award details (ceiling and number of awards)?

The announcement listed an award ceiling of $15,000 and anticipated making two awards.

When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?

It was posted on June 20, 2016, with an original closing date of August 20, 2016.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was described as unrestricted (open to any type of entity), subject to any additional eligibility clarifications in the full announcement.

What was the funding activity category and CFDA number?

The funding activity category was Natural Resources, and the CFDA number listed was 15.231.

What public benefits were stated for this opportunity?

The stated public benefits were to strengthen partnerships that improve public land management, deliver direct public value through better access to public lands, and deliver indirect benefits through habitat improvements that increase or sustain wildlife populations for the enjoyment of recreationists and hunters.

How did the opportunity define success in practical terms?

Based on the stated expectations, success would include a coordinated annual program of work, documented annual accomplishments, progress on identifying and implementing habitat projects (including riparian and forest/fuels work), and measurable progress toward maintaining existing access and securing new public access points or entry locations that reduce barriers to lawful public use.