FY 2027 Multistate Conservation Grant Program (F27AS00009)

FY 2027 Multistate Conservation Grant Program (F27AS00009)

This page is a historical reference for the FY 2027 Multistate Conservation Grant Program (F27AS00009). The official opportunity listing says the proposal deadline was July 14, 2026, at 11:59 PM ET, and marks the opportunity closed. AFWA’s official program page still publishes the FY 2027 materials and timeline, but does not announce a FY 2028 notice of funding opportunity. Do not treat this page as an open application listing or submit a late proposal under this funding number.

The program is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in cooperation with the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). It supports projects that address regional or national needs of state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners when the work is beyond the scale, scope, or capability of one state. The FY 2027 notice covered traditional wildlife and sport-fish projects as well as recruitment, retention, and reactivation (R3) work. AFWA identified the annual strategic priorities, coordinated technical review, and sent a recommended priority list to FWS for award decisions.

Key details

The amount was divided into two program tracks in the NOFO. Traditional Multistate Conservation Grants had an estimated $6,000,000 available and a $625,000 per-application request ceiling. R3 Multistate Conservation Grants had an estimated $5,000,000 available and a $1,000,000 per-application request ceiling. The overall award ceiling in the listing is $1,000,000, but applicants needed to use the applicable track ceiling when preparing a request. Cost sharing was not required. Applicants could still identify voluntary cash or in-kind contributions and explain how those contributions supported the work.

What the program is actually funding

The FY 2027 NOFO defined this as a multistate conservation mechanism, not a laboratory-only or narrowly disciplinary research grant. Its core purpose was to fund efforts that respond to needs beyond the scale, scope, and capabilities of a single State.

Eligible traditional activities included research, surveys, restoration, conservation, management, habitat improvement, and public use or benefit related to wild birds, wild mammals, and sport fish. Fishing or boating R3 activities were eligible under the traditional track. Hunting and target-shooting R3 activities, including related communication and outreach, were eligible under the R3 track. The listed 2027 AFWA Strategic Priority groups were:

• Landscape Scale Habitat Connectivity;
• Management and Applied Research;
• Recruitment, Retention, Reactivation (R3); and
• AFWA Priorities Identified in AFWA Funding Principles, including the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Watching and national conservation coordination.

Projects also had to be multi-jurisdictional in both participation and impact. A proposal had to show a benefit to at least 26 states, a majority of the states in an FWS region, or a majority of the states belonging to an AFWA regional association. The proposal had to list the regions and state abbreviations that would benefit and explain the benefit to those jurisdictions. Canadian provinces and other non-U.S. partners could participate in some regional associations, but they were not counted for this threshold.

What this meant for applicants:

• a well-structured single-state proposal that does not create regional spillover is a weak fit;
• a proposal needed to demonstrate cross-jurisdiction outcomes and coordinated implementation;
• the project logic needed to connect clearly to a 2027 AFWA Strategic Priority;
• the narrative needed measurable objectives, practical deliverables, monitoring, and a credible budget.

Who was eligible

The FY 2027 NOFO listed these eligible applicant categories:

• state governments,
• public and state-controlled institutions of higher education,
• private institutions of higher education,
• nonprofits with 501(c)(3) status, other than institutions of higher education,
• nonprofits without 501(c)(3) status, other than institutions of higher education, and
• other entities where the additional eligibility text allowed them.

The notice also identified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or a state or group of states, as eligible for the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Watching. For this program, “states” included the 50 states, the District of Columbia for Sport Fish Restoration activities only, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Canadian provinces and other non-U.S. jurisdictions were not eligible applicants. Eligible species were wild birds, wild mammals, and sport fish as defined in the NOFO.

Also note:

• projects had to address at least one of the 2027 AFWA Strategic Priorities;
• the benefit area had to meet the regional threshold of at least 26 states or a majority of a defined regional grouping;
• applicants needed a credible partnership and implementation design, not just a local project with incidental partners.

Because regional benefit thresholds were explicit, a proposal needed to explain why the work was multi-state and why this scale was necessary. The proposal narrative had to state the beneficiary geography, participating agencies or partners, measurable objectives, planned approach, expected results, deliverables, and how results would remain useful after the grant period.

Deadline structure and the two-stage submission model

The FY 2027 opportunity had a staged process that is important for understanding the archive entry. It is no longer accepting the initial proposal.

1. Stage 1: Grant Proposal package by July 14, 2026 (11:59 PM ET)

   Applicants submitted a Grant Proposal without federal forms through the AFWA MSCGP Portal.

   The required components were:

   • Project Narrative
   • Budget Narrative
   • Budget Table
   • no federal forms in this stage, as stated by the NOFO.

2. Stage 2: Complete application invitation

   If the stage-1 proposal was selected for further consideration, the team was to be invited by email in late September 2026 to submit a complete Grant Application through a Directed Announcement in GrantSolutions.gov.

   At that point, the package was to include:

   • Project Narrative
   • Budget Narrative
   • Budget Table
   • Required Statements
   • Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)
   • Federal forms.

3. Important administrative detail

   The NOFO states clearly that complete Grant Applications should not be submitted in Grants.gov for this NOFO. That instruction applied to the FY 2027 process; it should be rechecked against any future notice.

The immediate implication is that a team can move toward a quality stage-1 packet without waiting for all federal reporting infrastructure, but must preserve strict continuity so the second-stage transition is not a rebuild exercise.

Registrations and system preparation for the FY 2027 round

The submission system requirement is technical and can become the primary bottleneck if started late. The official materials require:

• UEI and SAM.gov registration for almost all non-individual applicants;
• active SAM.gov registration and a UEI before award; the program could allow an application while registration was in progress with prior approval, and the Financial Assistance General Representations and Certifications had to be checked and current;
• GrantSolutions registration and user role setup.

At minimum, the GrantSolutions process requires:

• a new-organization request with required metadata,
• ADO and PI/PD role assignment,
• Login.gov account setup for GrantSolutions users,
• role management and approval structure aligned to your administration path.

In practical terms, applicants that treat this as a writing task often stall here and lose time. Treat registrations as a pre-submission deliverable, not a back-end administrative chore.

Practical pre-check sequence (recommended)

• Confirm your jurisdiction and entity eligibility, including whether your group naturally contributes to multistate benefit metrics.
• For a future notice, confirm the registration lead time stated in that notice rather than relying on the FY 2027 schedule.
• Build a document tree before writing:
  • draft narrative,
  • budget with clear line-item logic,
  • partner agreements,
  • cost-share explanation (if applicable even though not required).
• Establish state/territory benefit matrix with clear evidence per requirement:
  • name the regions,
  • map state coverage,
  • show how benefits are distributed.

Review logic: what reviewers are likely to prioritize

The program’s review framework includes eligibility checks, merit review, and a national-level review chain. The published material describes a two-step technical/recommendation flow where AFWA priority process supports project ranking before FWS-level decisions.

You should therefore write in a way that satisfies both technical and governance reviewers:

• Eligibility reviewers need to see clear applicant legitimacy and jurisdictional fit; if they cannot verify threshold eligibility quickly, the packet can be removed from deeper scoring.
• Merit reviewers need measurable logic tied directly to strategic priorities and regional necessity.
• FWS/portfolio reviewers need confidence that the project is administratively executable, with realistic budgeting and partner responsibilities.

A conservative, strong proposal shape is:

• start every section with a regional problem statement,
• map each activity to a defined priority,
• assign each activity to a lead entity and partner,
• show benefit across required state count conditions,
• include monitoring metrics at the start of the narrative.

Money and budget expectations

The published summary lists:

• total funding: $11,000,000,
• 45 expected awards,
• award ceiling up to $1,000,000,
• cost sharing not required.

The page also separates estimated allocations between the two track types:

• Traditional Multistate Conservation Grants: $6,000,000 with per-application request ceiling $625,000.
• R3 Multistate Conservation Grants: $5,000,000 with per-application request ceiling $1,000,000.

This matters for budget strategy:

• if your project is purely Traditional conservation outcomes, budget and timeline should align with the corresponding ceiling,
• if R3-related objectives are central, you can model within the higher T-MSCG and R3-MSCG allowance structure as applicable.

No match is required, which is unusual relative to many conservation lines and lowers one common barrier. However, it does not remove the need for transparent financial logic. A weakly justified budget still loses against clear, well-explained cost realism.

A strong budget section should include:

• per-activity cost breakdown,
• shared costs across participating entities,
• in-kind or contribution assumptions clearly labeled,
• administrative overhead not overrun.

Avoid “full generic budgets” that appear copied across states or partnerships. The review committee expects the budget narrative to be tied to the regional implementation design.

Project design guidance for this specific NOFO

Because this is a multistate mechanism, applicants often underperform by writing like a local plan. A more competitive submission should be designed around three technical pillars.

Pillar 1: Strategic-priority alignment

Start with the applicable AFWA priority(s), cite exactly why the project maps to them, and include evidence sources for need. Don’t leave this to a single concluding paragraph.

Pillar 2: Regional benefit proof

Use the requirement thresholds directly:

• 26+ states, or
• majority of one FWS region, or
• majority of one regional association of fish and wildlife agencies.

For each claim, list the affected states and briefly describe expected outcome by state bloc. Don’t rely on generic “regional collaboration” language; use explicit geography.

Pillar 3: Governance and implementation realism

Each partner’s role needs an operational assignment:

• who leads data collection,
• who handles permits and compliance,
• who manages partner deliverables,
• who is responsible for milestone monitoring and reporting.

This is a long-cycle portfolio (implementation is usually not a one-month initiative), so governance matters as much as technical quality.

Common errors that can invalidate an otherwise good proposal

1) Ignoring first-stage and second-stage logic

Submitting a comprehensive narrative without preserving a clean stage-1-to-stage-2 transition causes duplication and inconsistency. The stage-1 materials should already contain architecture clean enough to scale.

2) Weak regional scale explanation

The NOFO is explicit that projects should have multistate impact. If your draft can be rewritten as “one state with a few partner letters,” it will likely fail review.

3) Incomplete administrative readiness

Many teams have excellent technical narratives but lose because SAM.gov and GrantSolutions role setup is incomplete. Since the call has hard system-specific requirements, that is a preventable error.

4) Ambiguous benefit-counting method

If you claim 26+ state impact, the proposal should include enough detail for the reviewer to check where and how each state benefits.

5) Submission channel confusion

The NOFO states that complete applications are not submitted in Grants.gov. Confirm this before submission. Use the correct channel at each stage.

FAQ

Is this a recurring grant, or only one cycle?

The listing shows the FY 2027 funding window, with archive date shown as Jan 1, 2027. In that framework, it is a cycle-specific opportunity for FY 2027 multistate grants.

Do I need federal matching funds?

No, the NOFO states no cost sharing is required for this opportunity.

Can a nonprofit apply?

Yes, certain nonprofits may apply depending on 501(c)(3) status categories and exclusions described in the official eligibility text.

Is there any way to apply after July 14, 2026?

The initial submission deadline in the public materials is July 14, 2026 at 11:59 PM ET. Late submissions are not expected to be accepted.

What happens after stage-1 submission?

Selected proposals are notified by email in late September and then move into a complete Grant Application cycle via a directed announcement in GrantSolutions.

Can foreign entities apply?

The source defines U.S. states and related U.S. jurisdictions and treats non-U.S. jurisdictions as not eligible applicants, with only limited roles in partnerships allowed for benefit-counting context.

Archive interpretation and future checks

The FY 2027 round is closed. Its real deadline remains in the deadline field so the page preserves an accurate record, while historicalReference = true prevents the entry from looking like a live listing. No FY 2028 deadline is stated on the official AFWA program page reviewed for this update. A future applicant should wait for a new official funding number and then verify the new deadline, award amounts, strategic priorities, application route, and eligibility before reusing any FY 2027 material.

The durable planning lessons from this round are clear. Establish the geographic benefit case before drafting technical detail. Name the state agencies and partners that will participate, their responsibilities, and the deliverables each will help produce. Connect every activity and budget line to a measurable objective. Complete SAM.gov and GrantSolutions preparation early if a future notice uses the same systems. Finally, preserve a clear distinction between an initial proposal portal and any later directed federal application.

Official sources

• Official opportunity listing (grants search and key metadata): simpler.grants.gov opportunity page
• Full PDF NOFO (authoritative): Foa_Content_of_F27AS00009.pdf
• AFWA Multistate Conservation Grants Program page: AFWA program page
• FWS program overview: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Multistate Conservation
• FWS regions reference cited in the NOFO: FWS regions
• AFWA regional associations referenced in the NOFO: AFWA regional associations

The FY 2027 grant is best treated as a high-complexity coordination opportunity, not a simple science concept grant. Its archived requirements show that regional relevance, partner accountability, and clear staged execution were central to a credible proposal. A future round must be assessed against its own official notice.