FY 2027 National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program (F27AS00007)

FY 2027 National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program (F27AS00007)

Coastal wetlands protect communities from flooding, help maintain water quality, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. The FY 2027 National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program (F27AS00007) was a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service competitive grant opportunity for designated state and territory agencies. It supported projects that acquire interests in coastal wetland ecosystems or restore, enhance, and manage those ecosystems for long-term conservation benefits.

This page is now a historical reference. The official Grants.gov listing records the FY 2027 opportunity as closed on July 9, 2026 at 11:59 PM Eastern Time. The listing and the attached Notice of Funding Opportunity do not announce a subsequent cycle. Do not treat the page as an open application invitation or assume that the FY 2027 forms, dates, or funding levels will carry forward to a future announcement.

In plain language, the program exists to provide eligible agencies with cost-share grants that support

• acquisition of real property interests in coastal wetlands,
• restoration of wetland functions,
• enhancement and habitat quality improvements,
• active management or long-term stewardship planning for coastal ecosystems.

The official page frames this as a conservation and public benefit pathway for fish, wildlife, communities, and recreation economies.

At a glance

Who this is for and who it excludes

The eligibility section is narrow on purpose. The call was not for individuals, nonprofits, universities, commercial firms, local governments, or other entities as primary recipients. Grants.gov classified the eligible applicant type as state governments, while the NOFO explains that participation is limited to state and territory agencies designated as eligible by the Governor of each jurisdiction. In practice, the designated agency is usually a fish and wildlife or natural-resource agency.

The listed eligible states and territories are:

• Alabama
• Alaska
• American Samoa
• California
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Guam
• Hawai’i
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New York
• North Carolina
• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
• Ohio
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Puerto Rico
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Texas
• U.S. Virgin Islands
• Virginia
• Washington
• Wisconsin

Louisiana is explicitly excluded because it receives separate statutory funding through the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act.

Applicants should not treat this as a local discretionary grant for any government unit. Designation by the Governor and location in an eligible coastal state or territory were foundational requirements. Louisiana was excluded because it receives separate statutory funding through the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act. If an agency was uncertain about its designation, the NOFO directed it to contact the Regional Office of Conservation Investment before preparing or submitting an application. Those instructions remain useful for understanding the closed round, but they do not reopen it.

What the program is trying to fund

The program has three practical lenses:

1. Habitat protection and recovery

Projects should address measurable wetland decline, whether from erosion, habitat conversion, pollution pressure, storm damage, or fragmented ownership and management systems.

2. Long-term public value

The NOFO requires that projects show at least 20 years of conservation benefit. This is central. Proposals should be written as long-horizon public infrastructure for ecological function, not as one-season restoration experiments.

3. Community and economic interface

The program language explicitly ties ecological restoration to communities, fish, wildlife, and recreation. Applicants should show not only biodiversity outcomes but how restoration supports broader recovery and resilience outcomes for people, fisheries, and public use.

The conservation portfolio often favors projects with multiple layers:

• direct wetland recovery or management activities,
• evidence-informed planning and monitoring,
• public-use or recreation integration that does not degrade conservation goals,
• partnership structures that expand conservation scale across agencies and local collaborators.

The 13 merit criteria support this multi-dimensional scoring model. You do not need to maximize every criterion equally, but you should build your narrative around the criteria and link each claim to evidence.

Closed application timeline and process

The FY 2027 application window has ended. The official timeline was:

• Posted: April 10, 2026
• Closing date: July 9, 2026, 11:59 PM Eastern Time
• Anticipated project start: January 8, 2027
• Anticipated project end: January 11, 2030

Applications had to be submitted electronically through Grants.gov or GrantSolutions. The Service recommended early submission, required every application component and third-party commitment letter to arrive by the due date, and allowed applicants to email a PDF copy to the Regional Office of Conservation Investment as a backup. A backup copy was not a substitute for the required electronic submission. Since the round is closed, these steps are preserved for archive and future-cycle comparison only.

The NOFO included practical setup requirements that could take weeks or months:

• Confirm your entity has a valid SAM.gov registration and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)
• Review and complete SAM.gov Financial Assistance General Representations and Certifications
• Register with Grants.gov and allow 30 days to register and set up a Workspace
• For GrantSolutions, request new organization support, assign roles, and ensure the ADO and PI/PD are configured

The NOFO warned that SAM.gov registration can take several months and recommended starting as soon as possible. It also asked applicants to keep the SAM.gov financial-assistance representations and certifications current. These registration requirements explain why an applicant could not wait until the closing date to begin administrative setup.

Submission mechanics snapshot

The NOFO capped the complete application at 85 pages. Its checklist specified the following components and limits:

• Project Narrative: 7-page limit
• Ranking responses (50 CFR 84.32): 20-page limit
• Drawings/maps/photos: 20-page limit
• Forms: SF-424 and a project abstract summary; SF-424A for non-construction projects or SF-424C for construction or real-property acquisition; and SF-429B when required for real property
• Budget narrative: required, including the indirect-cost treatment and rates
• Other statements: overlap or duplication of effort, plus conflict-of-interest or unresolved-matters disclosures and SF-LLL when applicable
• Third-party cost-share letters: signed letters from an authorized representative, detailing donated cash, real property, equipment, or in-kind services

Critical operational detail: all components, including letters of commitment, had to be submitted by the due date. Grants.gov applicants needed an Authorized Organization Representative to sign and submit the Workspace application. After submission, Grants.gov assigned a tracking number and emailed a timestamp to the AOR. The NOFO also instructed applicants not to encrypt, zip, or password-protect files and to allow 30 days for Grants.gov registration.

Cost sharing, match, and financial planning

This program is explicitly cost-share. The common misunderstanding is that “cost share required” means you always need equal 50% match. That is not correct, and this is where the call is precise and financially sophisticated.

The NOFO sets Federal participation caps by whether the state or territory has an established fund for acquiring coastal wetlands, other natural areas, or open space:

• With qualifying fund: Federal share may not exceed 75% of total project cost
• Without qualifying fund: Federal share may not exceed 50% of total project cost

American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands were exceptions: the Service’s Regional Directors were to waive the stated cost-sharing requirements for awards to those territories. For other eligible jurisdictions, the call allowed third-party contributions and in-kind contributions that meet federal cost-share rules. To receive points under Criterion 11, at least some non-federal cost share had to be in U.S. currency. Applicants remained responsible for the full amount of cost share committed by third parties.

For applications planning a real-property-heavy project, include a robust cost-share valuation narrative:

• describe each parcel in sufficient detail,
• clarify whether parcels are proposed with grant funds or as match,
• attach signed letters of financial commitment,
• tie in-kind and in-cash components clearly to budget sections,
• avoid mixing unallowable expenditures into cost-share assumptions.

A major evaluation point was Criterion 11, which addressed reduction of the federal share. The NOFO stated that cost share used for scoring had to identify the contributions on the SF-424 and include at least some U.S.-currency cash. For the four territories with waived cost sharing, applications that identified any amount of cash cost share received the maximum five points under that criterion. This made precise budget tables and signed commitment letters important even where a waiver applied.

Common cost-share mistakes that weaken scores

1. Treating non-allowable costs as match

If it is not clearly needed and documented for project outcomes, it will not pass administrative or merit scrutiny.

2. Under-valuing match documentation

A list of intended partners without signed monetary commitment letters is usually insufficient.

3. Ignoring Federal share ceiling logic

Some teams submit budgets that appear realistic on paper but violate capped federal participation once a different fund status is applied.

4. Not planning regional office pre-screening for eligibility

If your team assumes designation, you lose by default when the application is non-responsive on eligibility.

What reviewers care about (and how to write for it)

The scoring framework has 13 criteria under 50 CFR 84.32. The first 12 are technical; criterion 13 gives credit for additional policy and conservation value. You do not have to be a full policy legal team to be competitive, but you must map your proposal to reviewer language.

At a practical level:

• Criterion 1 (7 points): Show how the project reverses wetland loss and identify measurable wetland types.
• Criterion 2 (7 points): If applicable, explain clear maritime forest benefit.
• Criterion 3 (7 points): Prove long-term conservation outcomes for 20 years.
• Criteria 4–9: Link project activity to watershed plans, threatened species, fisheries, birds, contamination control, and catalytic effects.
• Criterion 10 (4 points): Make partnerships concrete. Vague “partnership intent” is weaker than documented partner obligations.
• Criterion 11 (5 points): Identify cost share on the SF-424 and include some non-federal cash when seeking points for federal-share reduction.
• Criterion 12 (3 points): Keep recreation/education tied directly to mission and cap out-of-scope costs to the allowed level.
• Criterion 13 (4 points): Include one or two genuinely unique factors (rare habitat, invasive-species management, local benefits, cost effectiveness).

Tie-breakers also matter when multiple applications score similarly, including:

• avoided habitat destruction from immediate threats,
• unique habitat value and biodiversity,
• lower costs per acre conserved,
• acquisition of new real property as cost share.

Review readiness that improves decision quality

To maximize review quality:

• Include explicit acres and unit-based performance metrics,
• show maps and delineations where possible,
• describe contamination controls if applicable,
• include evidence that required compliance activities are complete or underway,
• show a clear, defensible budget narrative linked to scope,
• include conflict-of-interest management and compliance posture in clean form,
• provide measurable monitoring outputs not just outputs promises.

In other words, your narrative should make reviewers work less. The difference between average and competitive submissions is often the depth of implementation detail, not the idea itself.

Practical sequence preserved from the closed round

Although the FY 2027 deadline has passed, the archived NOFO shows a clear order of work for understanding how this competition operated:

1. Confirm eligibility: verify the state or territory agency’s designation by the Governor and confirm that the project area is a qualifying coastal wetland ecosystem. Do not rely on a coastal Hydrologic Unit Code alone to establish eligibility.
2. Secure registrations: maintain the entity’s SAM.gov registration and UEI, confirm the financial-assistance representations and certifications, and set up Grants.gov or GrantSolutions access before drafting the final package.
3. Define the project: identify the parcels, ownership interest, wetland types, GPS coordinates, activities, milestones, and the person or organization responsible for long-term management.
4. Build the budget: choose the correct federal participation ceiling, document cash and in-kind sources, obtain signed third-party commitment letters, and explain indirect costs. Include real property details when land is acquired with grant funds or used as cost share.
5. Address the ranking criteria: prepare the 20-page table response for all 13 criteria, with evidence for wetland conservation, 20-year durability, species and fisheries benefits, watershed alignment, partnerships, cost effectiveness, and other qualifying benefits.
6. Assemble the application: keep the Project Narrative within seven pages, the ranking response within 20 pages, the drawings/maps/photographs within 20 pages, and the full package within 85 pages. Add the required forms and conditional attachments.
7. Submit and preserve proof: the AOR submits through Grants.gov Workspace or the authorized GrantSolutions workflow. Applicants should validate the package, avoid encrypted or password-protected files, capture the tracking number and timestamp, and retain a complete copy.

The useful lesson for a later announcement is to use the official NOFO as a requirements table. Every budget line, parcel, map, letter, and narrative claim should have a clear place in the solicitation’s forms or review criteria. A later round would need to be checked independently because this page does not announce one.

Risk, award, and post-award obligations

Once selected, the review does not stop at award selection. The NOFO includes post-award compliance requirements that are operationally meaningful:

• eligibility and financial risk review under 2 CFR 200.206,
• potential additional risk conditions for larger awards,
• SAM exclusion checks,
• formal award notice through GrantSolutions/e-mail,
• compliance submissions, anti-fraud/conflict reporting, and SF-425 financial reporting,
• progress updates and TRACS/GS reporting,
• real property records and Notice of Federal Participation where land is involved,
• final financial report within 120 days after performance end, unless specific terms differ.

The anticipated project period in this NOFO is listed as 1/8/2027 to 1/11/2030. That means implementation planning cannot stop at award receipt; agencies should budget internal reporting and staff capacity for monitoring, periodic reporting, and stewardship obligations across several years.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake: Submitting before eligibility certainty

Even excellent ecological proposals fail early if the applying entity is not in the eligible set. Always confirm designation before finalizing documents.

Mistake: Underdeveloped cost-share structure

Cost-sharing is central and technical. A strong story with weak cost-share arithmetic is a weak application.

Mistake: Missing 20-year conservation evidence

Criterion 3 is explicit and reviewable. If your design cannot show sustained effect over two decades, say how adaptive management extends benefits.

Mistake: Weak site-level specificity

Reviewers score against wetland type, habitat context, and land parcel specifics. General statements like “improve coastal resilience” do not score in place of site evidence.

Mistake: Late filing or incomplete pre-award registrations

Grants.gov and GrantSolutions registration is often longer than teams expect. Missing a completed SAM.gov compliance field can sink timing.

Mistake: Treating outreach as a separate budget side-project

Outreach and education are allowed but must remain subordinate to wetland conservation outcomes and within the expected limit. If outreach dominates budget, reviewers may interpret it as mission drift.

Frequently asked questions

Can non-federal third parties provide match as in-kind?

Yes, third-party contributions can qualify as cost share, but if you want maximum scoring, include meaningful cash contributions as well.

Do Louisiana agencies qualify?

No, Louisiana is excluded in this funding line due to separate statutory channels.

Can territorial agencies apply without match?

American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands had cost-sharing requirements waived by the Service’s Regional Directors. Applicants in those territories still needed to follow the NOFO’s budget and submission instructions, and any claimed third-party cost share required appropriate documentation.

Can pre-award costs be reimbursed?

The NOFO says that beginning performance before receiving a Notice of Federal Award is at the applicant’s own risk, if the program allows pre-award costs under 2 CFR 200.458. The award notice and applicable federal rules control; the archived opportunity does not create a blanket authorization.

How should changes after submission be handled?

Only non-scoring or non-substantive changes may be accepted; avoid relying on post-deadline edits.

Can this support project construction?

Yes, where within scope of coastal wetlands conservation and where relevant criteria are met. Construction-related components must still support long-term conservation outcomes.

Official links and references

• Official listing: https://simpler.grants.gov/opportunity/e3189942-95a7-4798-9afb-ada9bf1b2be8
• Full NOFO PDF: https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/e3189942-95a7-4798-9afb-ada9bf1b2be8/attachments/532f0e55-9e88-4448-9387-c04c2bca1776/F27AS00007_FY_2027_National_Coastal_Wetlands_Conservation_Grant_Program_Notice_of_Funding_Opportunity.pdf
• Grants.gov listing and update metadata: https://www.grants.gov

Historical reference and monitoring

The FY 2027 round should be treated as closed, not as an active call for applications. The official listing still provides the program record, the archived NOFO, the award range, the eligibility rules, and the agency contact information. It does not announce a new deadline. Organizations interested in this program should monitor Grants.gov and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a separately published opportunity and then compare its funding number, deadline, award limits, eligibility language, cost-share rules, forms, and project period with this FY 2027 record.

For historical analysis, the central lesson is that the program combined a narrow applicant class with a broad project toolbox: acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management were eligible when they served long-term coastal wetland conservation. The strongest archived requirements were concrete rather than promotional: show acres and wetland types, identify parcels and ownership, demonstrate at least 20 years of conservation benefit, address federal compliance, explain the budget and match, and submit a complete package through the authorized electronic channel. Those facts make this page useful as an archive while the next official cycle remains unannounced.