Announcement of Opportunity
2007 Multistate Conservation Grant Program
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies∗
is soliciting proposals for the 2007 cycle of the
Multistate Conservation Grant Program (MSCGP).
Before applying for a Multistate Conservation grant, please carefully review all information and
instructions contained in this announcement. The following sections are included:
Background………………………………………………………………………......... pp. 2-3
National Conservation Needs………………………………………………………..... pp. 4-9
Proposal Submission Process…………………………………………………………. pp. 10-16
Requirements for Proposal Narrative………………………….…................... pp. 10-15
Required Standard Federal Forms for Application…………….......................... pp. 16
Proposal Review and Selection Processes……………………………………………. pp. 17-20
Technical Scoring Criteria for 2007 MSCGP Proposals…………………..…. pp. 17-19
Review and Selection of Priority List of Projects ………………………….... p. 19
USFWS Grant Awards and Funding ……………………………………..…... pp. 19-20
MSCGP Grantee Responsibilities……………………………………………………… p. 21
Checklist for Applicants…………………………………………………………….... p. 22
Attachment A: Recommended Budget Outline.…………………………………..….. pp. 23-24
Attachment B: Funding Available in 2007-2009……………………………….……. p. 25
Attachment C: Annual Administrative Process……...……………………….…..….. pp. 26-27
Effective March 24, 2006 the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies became the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The public launch, including a new website, is May 1, 2006.
The Multistate Conservation Grant Program (MSCGP) is intended to address regional or national
level priorities of state fish and wildlife agencies. The Multistate Conservation Grant Program
was established in 2000 by the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act
of 2000 (Improvement Act), which amended the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and
the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. Up to $6,000,000 is available each calendar
year to fund Multistate Conservation Grants (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) cooperatively administer the Multistate Conservation Grant Program. The
Association solicits proposals from eligible applicants and recommends to the USFWS a
“priority list” of projects to be funded. The USFWS selects projects from the “priority list” and
awards and manages grants (see Attachment C for the annual administrative process).
Legal requirements are as follows:
1. Up to $6 million is available each calendar year – $3 million from Sport Fish Restoration
(SFR) and $3 million from Wildlife Restoration (WR) funds. Each year’s funds are only
available for the current year and the following year; any remaining funds are
apportioned among the states. (Please note that SFR and WR funds can only be spent on
projects that benefit sport fish, wild birds, and wild mammals.)
2. A proposed project is only eligible for a grant if the project will benefit:
At least 26 states;
A majority of the states in a region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; or
A regional association of State fish and wildlife agencies.
3. Grants may be awarded by the Secretary of the Interior only for projects identified on a
priority list of wildlife or sport fish restoration projects submitted by the Association.
4. The Association’s annual priority list must be prepared through a committee comprised
of the heads of State fish and wildlife agencies (or their designees), in consultation with
nongovernmental organizations that represent conservation organizations; sportsmen
organizations; and industries that support or promote fishing, hunting, trapping,
recreational shooting, bow hunting, or archery.
5. The priority list must be approved by vote of a majority of the heads of State fish and
wildlife agencies (or their designees); and must be submitted no later than October 1 of
each fiscal year to the Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
Programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
6. The Secretary of Interior may make grants only to:
A State or group of States;
The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, or a State or group of States, for the
purpose of carrying out the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
Associated Recreation; and
A nongovernmental organization.
7. Any nongovernmental organization that applies for a Multistate Conservation Grant must
submit with the application to the Association a certification that: (1) the organization
will not use the grant funds to fund, in whole or in part, any activity of the organization
that promotes or encourages opposition to the regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife, or
to the regulated taking of fish; and (2) the grant will not be used, in whole or in part, for
an activity, project, or program that promotes or encourages opposition to the regulated
hunting and trapping of wildlife or the regulated taking of fish.
For the current law, refer to the United States Code (16 U.S.C. 669h-2 and 16 U.S.C. 777m) at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html or click on “Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act”
and “Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act” at http://epw.senate.gov/envlaws/envlaws.htm.
NATIONAL CONSERVATION NEEDS
Grant proposals submitted for funding must address all or a portion of a National Conservation
Need. National Conservation Needs (NCNs) are annually solicited and selected by the
Association to establish the states fish and wildlife agencies’ conservation priorities, and they are
used to guide proposal development and grant selection for the upcoming cycle of the Multistate
Conservation Grant Program. NCNs are generally continuous, pressing resource management
problems; or recently identified problems that are significant, urgent, can be met by a practical
and economically feasible management approach, and will result in improved resource
management or environmental quality.
NCNs were solicited (in late 2005 and early 2006) from the Association’s committees and the
four Regional Associations of state fish and wildlife agencies. Nongovernmental organizations
were encouraged to participate in the NCN process by working with the Association’s
committees and Regional Associations. NCNs were selected during the March 2006 North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
Of the 17 proposed NCNs, four were adopted by the State Directors of fish and wildlife agencies
for the 2007 grant period. These NCNs are listed below and explanations for each are on
subsequent pages. (Please read the entire NCN to ensure your proposed project addresses the
1) Subject: A National Fish and Wildlife Health Initiative (Submitted by the Fish and Wildlife
Health Committee)……………………………………………………………………..pg. 5
2) Subject: Develop and continue programs that support recruitment and participation in
outdoor recreation (including hunting, fishing, boating, trapping, and shooting sports) that
financially secure and sustain the North American hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage
(Submitted by the Hunting and Shooting Sports Participation Committee).…………..pg. 6-7
3) Subject: Support of an Association National Survey Working Group to make
recommendations for the 2011 National Survey (Submitted by the National Grants
4) Subject: Develop or advance programs that seek to create, improve, or facilitate access to
lands by hunters and anglers (As revised by the National Grants Committee; Submitted by the
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Federal & Tribal Relations Committee)
1. Subject: A National Fish and Wildlife Health Initiative (Submitted by the Association’s
Fish and Wildlife Health Committee)
Statement of Need: The importance of maintaining healthy populations has long been recognized
by fish and wildlife managers, and several disease issues are of growing concern to fish and
wildlife, animal health, and public health professionals and the publics they serve. Significant
diseases, such as plague, hemorrhagic disease, pasteurellosis, chronic wasting disease, botulism,
West Nile virus, whirling disease, and others have been found in wild and farmed fish or wildlife
populations in North America and can have a significant impact on resources. Reservoirs of
economically important diseases like bovine brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis have
inadvertently become established in native wildlife and threaten livestock industries in some
areas. Foreign animal diseases, such as foot and mouth disease, which was eradicated decades
ago, and highly pathogenic avian influenza, which never has been reported in North American
wildlife, also are of concern.
The intentional or accidental introduction of these diseases could significantly impact wildlife,
domestic animal, or human populations and would require a coordinated multi-agency response.
In view of the increasing need for fish and wildlife managers to effectively address disease
issues, the Association resolved in 2005 to develop and implement a National Fish and Wildlife
Health Plan, in cooperation with appropriate governmental agencies and non-governmental
organizations (see goal 2(f) of the Association’s Strategic Plan). Although national in scope, the
Health Initiative will not mandate programs at the state, tribal, or local level. The goal of the
initiative is to protect fish and wildlife health through the enhancement of capabilities of state
fish and wildlife management agencies to prevent, detect, manage, research, and educate the
public about disease issues.
Proposals Solicited: Proposals are requested that explore and facilitate methods for
implementation of the Health Initiative. Successful proposals should support the national
initiative either through: 1) development of state expertise in fish and wildlife health through a
fish and wildlife disease training; 2) examination of factors affecting stakeholder values, beliefs,
and attitudes toward fish and wildlife diseases, as well as management of those diseases, that will
guide education needed to gain stakeholder acceptance for the Fish and Wildlife Health
Initiative; or 3) development of a national framework for sharing data related to fish and wildlife
Desired Outcomes: Desired outcomes will be identification of key issues required for the
development and support of the national fish and wildlife health plan, as well as progress toward
2. Subject: Develop and continue programs that support recruitment and participation in
outdoor recreation (including hunting, fishing, boating, trapping, and shooting sports) that
financially secure and sustain the North American hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage.
(Submitted by the Association’s Hunting and Shooting Sports Participation Committee)
Statement of Need: The percentage of the general population that fishes, boats, hunts, traps, and
participates in shooting sports has shown a general decline over the past decade, and all state
wildlife agencies remain dependent upon revenue generated from the sales of hunting and fishing
licenses. This source of revenue has the greatest range of application in funding wildlife
management activities within the states. Since new revenue sources are typically dedicated to
specific wildlife management programs (i.e., imperiled species, waterfowl, upland game, etc.),
revenue from hunting and fishing license sales are typically eligible for financing all wildlife
programs. Adding to the financial importance, the sale of hunting and fishing licenses
determines the states’ share of traditional federally-dispersed revenue streams (i.e., Wildlife
Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration Programs). This source of revenue represents a
significant percentage of funding – second only to the sales of licenses in most states. Therefore,
few people, knowledgeable of the means by which wildlife management is financed on this
continent, would dismiss the importance of the future of hunting, fishing, trapping, and other
outdoor recreational activities. Reversing this decline will strengthen state fish and wildlife
agencies by broadening public and financial support for conservation programs. Programs are
needed at both the state and national level that will lead to the reversal of this trend and result in
increased fishing, boating, hunting, trapping, and shooting sports participation, with priority
going to those programs that increase funding support for state agencies.
State wildlife agencies also have a vested interest in the development and enhancement of public
shooting range facilities to support programs that recruit and retain shooters and hunters.
Adequate and safe public shooting ranges fill a vital niche in hunter education. Ranges are
indispensable to the hunter education objective of training responsible, ethical hunters who are
less likely to cause accidents afield. Shooting ranges help maintain hunting traditions and are
inextricably linked to recreational hunting. By building ranges, states are making an investment
in hunting safety, the image of hunting, and the future of wildlife conservation.
Desired Proposals: Proposals submitted under this NCN should address the need to involve more
people in hunting, fishing, trapping, and shooting sports and/or also be designed with the intent
of retaining current participants. Additionally, proposals submitted under this NCN should
examine or address: A) tools that foster the recruitment of new participants or the retention of
existing ones; B) convey the necessary leadership and strategic planning guidance at the national
level to assist state wildlife agencies in meeting the demands for public shooting range facilities
in their respective state; C) means to improve the acceptance of these activities in the minds of
the non-hunting public; D) means to integrate discussions of hunting’s relevance in modern
times – with the public at large and with academic communities in particular; E) means to
encourage the recreational industries to lend greater support to programs that foster these
activities or that bring a greater understanding of their roles in conservation to both the hunting
and the non-hunting publics; F) means to strengthen the positions of these activities in debate
with anti-hunting/anti-trapping movements; G) tools for relieving conflict between special
interests within the hunting/trapping community; H) means for heightening awareness in agency
decision/policy-makers to pitfalls that could weaken or compromise the future of these outdoor
experiences; I) means to assist hunter education instructors to articulate for existing and potential
participants the history and role of hunting/outdoor recreation in the conservation of North
American wildlife; and J) tools for motivating participants to politically engage for their own
benefit and to more effectively articulate there motivations for, and commitment to, these
traditions of their conservation efforts.
Desired Results: Desired results of proposals would be to: A) develop successful strategies and
tactics to increase participation and retention rates in hunting, fishing, trapping, and shooting
sports; B) develop national policies and programs to help recruit and retain participants; C)
achieve long-term benefits through continued participation and increased recruitment of new
hunters, anglers, trappers, and recreational shooters; D) develop and provide strategic planning
guidance to state wildlife agencies to assist them in meeting demands in their state for public
shooting facilities; and E) enhance networking among agencies and industry, an improved
conservation ethic among outdoor recreational participants, and a more understanding and
supportive public – all of which will help ensure a bright and sustained future for the North
American hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage.
Expected Benefits: States will benefit through an involved public active in conservation issues.
In addition, states will derive benefits through financial increases in participation fees and federal
excise tax dollars apportioned to the states. The level of success attained in the future
development of public shooting range facilities will play a pivotal role in addressing the
objectives state wildlife agencies have set in hunter education, hunter and shooter recruitment,
and wildlife conservation. Each fish and wildlife agency in the United States is impacted by this
need and would benefit significantly through increased participation and retention of these
3. Subject: Support of an Association National Survey Working Group to make
recommendations for the 2011 National Survey (Submitted by the Association’s National
Statement of Need: An Association National Survey Working Group is needed to evaluate the
need for changes to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation (National Survey). If appropriate, the Working Group will develop a 2008 National
Conservation Need for the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation (National Survey) and evaluate subsequent proposals and make recommendations to
the National Grants Committee. Participation in and oversight of the National Survey is
identified as a priority in the Association’s strategic plan (see goal #4, strategy d).
Expected Benefits: The National Survey has been conducted every five years since 1955 to
collect data and assess participation trends of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation
by residents in the United States. Historically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in
conjunction with the U.S. Bureau of Census, has conducted the National Survey, except in 1955
and 1975 when private contractors were used. The purpose of the National Survey is to gather
information, at a national- and state-level, on the numbers of hunters, anglers, and wildlife-
watching participants, as well as the frequency of activity participation and associated monetary
expenditures in the United States.
This information is used by State and Federal agencies, as well as nongovernmental and
conservation organizations and industry, to improve the management of our fish and wildlife
resources, promote participation in outdoor recreation activities, and understand the economic
contributions of outdoor recreation activities to conservation funds and the economy. Data from
the National Survey are also used to assess economic impacts, support litigation, substantiate
legislation, analyze industry trends, and provide media outlets with economic and participation
information on hunting, fishing, and wildlife-associated recreation.
However, the National Survey is currently the most expensive project funded by the Multitstate
Conservation Grant Program (MSCGP), with each 5-year Survey costing around $13 million (or
about $2.6 million per year, which is over 40% of the available MSCGP funds). The creation of
a Working Group will help ensure cost-reducing alternatives are explored and the Survey makes
efficient use of MSCGP funds, which have paid for the Survey since 2001. The Working Group
will also ensure the Survey continues to provide benefits to all 50 states and that the Survey’s
design and output continues to be developed in consultation with state fish and wildlife agencies.
Desired Proposals: Any proposal should commit to: 1) Supporting a National Survey Working
Group with necessary expertise; 2) Evaluating the need for changes to the 2011 National Survey
by February 2007; 3) If appropriate, developing a detailed 2008 NCN similar to a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the 2011 National Survey by February 2007; and 4) Evaluating subsequent
proposals and making recommendations to the National Grants Committee and State Directors
by September 2007.
4. Subject: Develop or advance programs that seek to create, improve, or facilitate access
to lands by hunters and anglers (As revised by the Association’s National Grants Committee;
Submitted by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; and the Federal & Tribal
Statement of Need: With a significant portion of the United States held in the public’s trust,
public lands are a leading destination for many hunters and anglers. However, as changes in land
management and land ownership take place, outdoors enthusiasts are having difficulty finding
places to hunt and fish. When faced with a declining base of hunters and anglers, access
becomes not just a point of frustration, but a very real barrier to recruiting and retaining
sportsmen. Adequate access to both public and private land is one of the most fundamental
issues facing the conservation community today.
To meet this challenge requires a cooperative effort between state and federal agencies along
with private landowners and the conservation community. Issues such as adequate information
dissemination, identifying and pursuing the acquisition of access easements, and proactively
engaging the participation of sportsmen in the land management planning process will help all
entities to better address the problem of declining access.
Expected Benefits: The expected benefits of successful proposals should be to develop
collaborative approaches to public and private land access at the state, regional, and national
level. These active partnerships will develop appropriate models and tools to address access
issues on the ground. Through these partnerships and the tools they develop, conflicts over
access issues should be minimized through improved communication, targeted on the ground
efforts, and more active involvement by the sportsmen’s community on land planning efforts.
Outcomes: Desired outcome and successful proposals will include: 1) development of state and
regional access working groups; 2) printed materials to improve participation in the planning
process; 3) internet based dissemination of access information; 4) effective mechanisms for
identifying access conflicts; 5) acquisition of perpetual easements, or other alternatives for
resolving access conflicts. In addition, programs should be developed in a cohesive manner so
that they can be used by multiple states and agencies.
This NCN addresses the Associations’s strategic plan. It addresses the plan’s #2 and #4
objectives, #3 of the critical issues, and #2(k) of the goals and strategies (“Support and assist in
national efforts to maintain and enhance public access to public and private lands for wildlife-
related recreation”). This NCN also addresses principals #1, #3, #5, and #6 of the endorsed
North American Model.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCESS
DEADLINE: Proposals must be received no later than midnight EDT on Friday, June 16, 2006.
Proposals received after the deadline will not be considered. Proposals must be emailed (in
Word, not pdf) to Kelly Reed at firstname.lastname@example.org – you will be notified of confirmation within
48 hours. The standard federal forms that require original signatures should be postmarked by
the deadline and mailed to: Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Attn: Kelly Miller Reed,
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 725, Washington, DC, 20001. If you have any questions,
please contact Kelly Reed, the Association’s MSCGP Coordinator, at 202-624-7890 or
Only eligible proposals will be processed so please ensure your proposal:
1) Meets the MSCGP’s legal requirements as outlined in the Background section (e.g., eligible
organization type; benefits appropriate states/regions; benefits sport fish, wild birds, and/or wild
2) Addresses one of the four 2007 National Conservation Needs;
3) Adheres to the formats and requirements for the accompanying narrative and budget, which
are discussed below; and
4) Includes all the standard federal application forms, which are also discussed in this section.
Projects selected to receive Multistate Conservation grants are funded on a calendar-year basis.
Applicants may request funding for one, two, or three years. Match/cost-share is not required,
though “partnership funds” are encouraged and awarded bonus points during the review process.
See Attachment B for funding availability. Grantees requesting two or three-year funding are
encouraged to indicate if funding for only one or two years is a viable option; grantees should
similarly indicate if additional partnership funds could be provided in any given year if
Multistate funds are not available. Providing alternative funding options gives the National
Grants Committee more flexibility to accommodate projects of merit in instances where multi-
year funds are not available or optimal. See section 4, “Budget,” below for additional
Requirements for Proposal Narrative and Budget:
Proposals must be limited to 10 pages, excluding the budget, resumes/CVs, and the standard
federal application forms. Supplemental information or materials (e.g., pamphlets, booklets,
fliers, etc.) will not be accepted. All information the applicant wants considered during the
selection process should be presented in the proposal narrative and budget, including acceptable
Please submit your proposal according to the following specifications.
A. One inch margins
B. Font size and type of at least 12 Times New Roman or 11 Arial
C. Submit electronically as one document in Microsoft Word (please do not submit
multiple files or pdf files)
2. Executive Summary - The first page of your proposal should be a one page summary of
the project containing the following information:
I. Title of Project: A short, descriptive name of the proposed project (≤10 words).
II. Applicant Information: Contact Name
Phone, fax, email
III. Project Objective(s):
IV. Proposed Length of Project: i.e., number of years
V. Funding Requested: Identify for each year of the project and the total request
VI. Funding Source: Multistate grants are funded with both Wildlife Restoration
(WR) and Sport Fish Restoration (SFR) funds. Therefore, if your proposal
benefits wild birds/mammals only, please indicate “100% WR”; if your proposal
benefits sport fish only, please indicate “100% SFR”; and if your proposal
benefits both, please indicate the appropriate percentage of WR and SFR funds
based on your assessment of the benefits to wildlife versus sport fish.
VII. States Benefited: Please choose at least one of the following: “at least 26 states”
(please also indicate if the project will benefit all states, or list the exact number
of states benefited if less than 50 and ensure the states are identified in your
narrative); “a majority of states in a USFWS region” (please indicate the region
and list the states; http://training.fws.gov/fedaid/toolkit/faregion.pdf); or “a
regional association of state fish and wildlife agencies” (please name the
regional association; also, if benefits to or endorsement by the regional
association is not obvious, please explain; if necessary, this claim will be
verified with the regional association).
VIII. NCN Addressed: Identify only the primary NCN addressed in your proposal;
other NCNs can be mentioned in the proposal text though this provides no
IX. Summary Statement: A 200-word, or less, summary describing how and why
the expected results of the project will meet the primary NCN. In addition
include a short description of methodologies and evaluation.
3. Main Body - The contents of the proposal must be 10 pages or less and contain the
A. Title: Use the same title listed in the Executive Summary; a short, descriptive
name of the proposed project (≤10 words).
B. Objective(s): Provide a concise statement of the purpose(s) of the project in
quantified and measurable terms.
• Objectives should be clearly defined, achievable, and connected to
specific goals, milestones/deliverables, and the project’s work plan.
• Objectives should provide meaningful contributions and measurable
benefits to the NCN and the State fish and wildlife agencies.
• Objectives also should be evaluated upon project completion to determine
the project’s contribution(s) toward addressing the NCN.
C. Problem Statement: What is the specific issue/problem that your project will
address and why should it be addressed? What are the anticipated, measurable,
and desired outcomes that can be accomplished by conducting this project; and
how do they address the NCN and benefit the State fish and wildlife agencies?
• State the primary NCN that your proposed project addresses, in whole or in
part. A brief explanation of how other NCNs are applicable may also be
included, however, this provides no competitive benefit and emphasis
should be on one NCN.
• Be sure to identify the states affected by the proposed project and how they
will benefit (refer to item 2 in Background and “States Benefited”
description in the Executive Summary).
D. Experience: Include a brief history of previous work conducted by the applicant
and/or others that substantiates experiences and abilities to successfully complete
this project and address the NCN.
E. Approach: Explain how the project will be conducted. The project should be
based on sound science and methodologies with achievable objectives. Describe
the techniques and methods that will be followed to accomplish the project’s
objective(s), and indicate why this approach has been chosen rather than
• The proposal should include clear and specific goals,
milestones/deliverables, timelines, and a work plan for accomplishing the
objectives and completing the project on time.
• Describe specific provisions for making the product/results available for
use to those affected by the problem or need after the grant expires and the
project is completed.
• Because quarterly performance reports are required by the USFWS for
Multistate Grant recipients, applicants should describe monitoring
processes used to track timeliness of project accomplishments.
• The proposal should include monitoring and evaluation processes to assess
and measure the project’s effectiveness in accomplishing the desired
outcomes described in the NCN under which this proposal was submitted
and the subsequent benefits to the State fish and wildlife agencies.
Explain how the project’s evaluation results will be distributed and
• If contractors/subrecipients will be used to complete project-related work,
be sure to indicate which tasks the contractor will complete (and identify
specific costs for any contractor/subrecipient in the budget). Applicants
must have a written procurement policy that provides, to the maximum
extent practicable, open and free competition (pursuant to 43 CFR 12). If
specific contractors/subrecipients are identified in the proposal, applicants
must provide information on how the contractor/subrecipient was selected
and provide sufficient justification for their selection.
F. Expected Results or Benefits: What will be gained by funding this proposed
project, and why is it important? Explain how the successful completion of the
project meets all or part of the NCN and how the results/products benefit State
fish and wildlife agencies.
• Benefits should be expressed in measurable outcomes when possible (i.e.,
number of participants likely to continue the learned outdoor activity and
purchase licenses in the future), not just desired outputs (i.e., number of
event participants or number of workshops conducted).
• Explain how this project addresses the desired outcomes described in the
NCN under which this proposal was submitted and clearly explain its
anticipated benefits to the State fish and wildlife agencies.
• Proposals should clearly address in specific detail how grant
products/materials/programs will be used, by whom, and the initial and
continuing benefits beyond the life of the grant.
• Clearly describe the anticipated, extended use/life of the project’s
results/products/services after the project is completed and how this
extended use/life will be accomplished.
G. Certification regarding fishing/hunting (if applicable): Any proposal submitted by
a nongovernmental organization (NGO) must include the certification required by
law (16 U.S.C. 669h-2 and 16 U.S.C. 777m), which is also described in item 7 of
the “Background” section above. It is recommended that you use the following
“By submitting this proposal, the organization’s primary contact and/or
authorized representative identified in this grant application certifies that the
(insert name of NGO) (1) will not use the grant funds to fund, in whole or in
part, any activity of the organization that promotes or encourages opposition
to the regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife or the regulated taking of fish;
and (2) that the grant funds will not be used, in whole or in part, for an
activity, project, or program that promotes or encourages opposition to the
regulated hunting and trapping of wildlife or the regulated taking of fish.”
H. Certification regarding partnership funds (if applicable): All proposals that
identify partnership funds in the budget must include a certification, which is
required by the National Grants Committee, confirming applicants understand the
administrative responsibilities of contributing partnership funds and the potential
ramifications if funds are not provided. It is recommended that you use the
following certification statement:
“By submitting this proposal, the organization’s primary contact and/or
authorized representative identified in this grant application certifies that the
(insert name of NGO): 1) understands that partnership fund contributions are
assessed in the Association’s review and selection of its priority list of
MSCGP projects, but are not considered by the USFWS to be an official non-
federal match/cost-share; 2) will provide the partnership funds identified in
order to complete the proposed project; 3) will report the expenditure of
partnership funds to the USFWS and the Association as required, which will
not be more frequently than quarterly; 4) understands that if the promised
partnership funds are not provided, and there is not a sufficient explanation,
potential consequences could include a poor “quality assurance” evaluation
by the National Grants Committee for the organization’s future MSCGP
applications; the imposition of “special award conditions” on this proposed
grant and/or future grants (pursuant to 43 CFR 12); and if the failure to
provide partnership funds affects the scope/objective or deliverables or other
terms and conditions of the grant, then the USFWS could take necessary
enforcement and termination actions (pursuant to 43 CFR 12).
4. Budget - An itemized budget showing funds requested for each year of the project must
be included in the proposal, and cost justifications may be necessary if not provided in
the proposal narrative.
A project may be funded for up to 3 years (however, please note that the USFWS will
issue grant awards on a calendar year basis (e.g., year 1 = January to December 2007)
with each year treated as a separate grant segment). Match/cost-share is not required,
though “partnership funds” are encouraged and awarded bonus points during the review
process. See Attachment B for funding availability.
Grantees requesting two or three-year funding are encouraged to indicate if funding for
only one or two years is a viable option. If so, applicants should explain if and what
partial outcomes can be expected. Grantees should also indicate if additional partnership
funds could be provided in any given year if there are not sufficient Multistate funds.
Providing alternative funding options gives the National Grants Committee more
flexibility to accommodate projects of merit in instances where limited multi-year funds
are available. If an alternative funding scenario is necessary, the applicant will be
required to work with the Association’s MSCGP Coordinator, immediately following the
September 2006 selection meeting, to revise the proposal accordingly. All alternative
funding options must be included in the original proposal and will not be accepted in
person during the National Grant Committee’s selection meeting.
A budget outline is provided (Attachment A) to ensure all costs are clearly represented.
• The format may be modified by the applicant to accommodate additional
expenses or special considerations. Please ensure the budget reflects the project’s
work plan, either by linking costs to the accomplishment of each objective or if
costs are attributable to more than one objective include an explanation.
• If project costs are not sufficiently described in the narrative, please include an
explanation of the cost. Proposal reviewers must be able to verify that proposed
costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable (as specified in the federal Cost
• Partnership Funds: This term is used by the Association to encourage applicants
to leverage additional funds (from within their organization and/or other partner
organizations). In-kind and cash contributions that are quantified in the budget
and listed as “partnership funds” will be used by the Association to award bonus
points during the review process, and will not be considered by the USFWS to be
an official non-federal match – thus 43 CFR 12 is not applicable to these funds.
In an effort to provide more accountability for these funds, applicants requesting
partnership funds are required to include a certification in their proposal (see
section immediately above).
• Indirect costs:
o If requesting indirect costs, applicants must submit a copy of their
organization’s approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement from their
cognizant agency (i.e., the agency that negotiates and approves rates on behalf
of all federal agencies; it’s generally the agency with the largest dollar value
of awards with an organization). This is a new MSCGP application
requirement to ensure indirect cost rates have been approved and a cost is
correctly identified in the budget as indirect or direct but not both.
o Another new requirement is that applicants can only request a maximum of
20% indirect cost rate for the use of MSCGP funds (this also applies to all
sub-recipients and contractors). However, if the organization’s approved rate
is higher than 20% (or if requesting less than the agency approved rate, say
15%), you may count any difference between the rate requested and the
agency approved rate may count as partnership funds. Please include a brief
footnote stating this is the case if it is not clear in the budget.
o If the organization does not have an agency approved indirect rate, you are not
allowed to request indirect costs and instead should include as many costs as
possible as direct costs. Just be aware that if you list, for example, copying
and postage, two items often included in the indirect cost “pool,” as direct
costs then your accounting system needs to track these expenses and record to
o For help distinguishing between direct and indirect costs, please refer to the
applicable federal Cost Principles (for help locating, see the last “MSCGP
Grantee Responsibilities” section below). In short, direct costs are those costs
readily identifiable with the grant (e.g., travel or salary for a project manager
working on the grant) as differentiated from indirect costs, which tend to be
those costs necessary for an organization’s operation (e.g., utilities, rent,
administrative support) and/or are costs incurred for several projects and are
not readily identified with the grant.
• For-profit (commercial) organizations: For-profits shall use the cost principles for
commercial organizations that are set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations
(48 CFR Subpart 31.2). Under a Multistate Conservation Grant award, no profit
or fee will be provided to a for-profit organization, whether as a grantee or as a
subgrantee or contractor. A profit or fee is considered to be an amount in excess
of actual allowable, allocable, and reasonable direct and indirect costs.
5. Qualifications of Key Personnel - Succinctly describe the qualifications of key
personnel working on the project. A one paragraph summary per person is ideal;
however, resumes or CVs no longer than one-page per person will be accepted.
Required Standard Federal Forms for Application:
The Association requires four federal forms be submitted with your application. (Note: these
forms will be forwarded by the Association to the USFWS after the Association’s review and
use.) Please note that three of the four forms require signatures and must be mailed to the
Association with an original signature (postmarked by the application deadline).
The required forms can be downloaded from the Association’s MSCGP webpage
(http://www.iafwa.org/multistate_grants.htm), or from the USFWS’ Federal Assistance Toolkit
(http://training.fws.gov/fedaid/toolkit/toolkit.pdf). These forms are in PDF fillable/printable
format (and can only be saved if using Acrobat Adobe 6.0 or 7.0, not Acrobat Reader). The four
required forms are:
o Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424)
o Budget Information for Non-construction Program (SF 424-A)
o Compliance Assurances for Non-construction Programs (SF 424-B)
o Disclosure for Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL)
For help completing the forms, please note:
1. Applicants must have a DUNS number (box 6 on the 424); to obtain a number call 1-
866-705-5711 or http://www.dnb.com/us/. Helpful information about DUNS is
available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/duns_num_guide.pdf
2. In box 9 of the 424, insert “U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service”
3. In box 11 of the 424, insert the same title used in the proposal.
4. In box 13 of the 424, all starting dates are 01/01/2007 and ending dates are
12/31/2007, 12/31/2008, or 12/31/2009.
5. In box 16 of the 424, select “or program has not been selected by state for review.”
6. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 15-628 (box 10 on the 424,
and needed on the 424-A)
7. Multistate Conservation Grant Program is the “title” requested in box 10 of the 424,
and is the “grant program function or activity” on the 424-A.
8. For 2 or 3-year requests, report cumulative amounts for all years of grant request in
box 15 of the 424 and in section B, column (1) of the 424-A.
9. In section A of the 424-A, only complete line 1 under “new or revised budget.”
10. Even if you are contributing partnership funds, do not complete the “non-
federal/applicant” sections of the 424 (box 15) or 424A (sections C and D).
(Traditionally, MSCGP projects have not involved construction, largely because of the
requirement that projects have regional or national benefits. However, if a proposed project
involves construction, forms SF-424C and SF-424D are required instead of the A and B forms
mentioned above. In addition, in those cases, the applicant must ensure compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); see http://training.fws.gov/fedaid/toolkit/3-
2185.pdf. Applicants must also ensure compliance with other environmental laws, as well as
labor standards, national preservation, and impact on human community laws. Please contact the
Association’s MSCGP Coordinator for further instruction.)
PROPOSAL REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS
Once proposals have been submitted to the Association, they will be evaluated for eligibility.
Eligible proposals will be distributed to appropriate Association committees for all committee
members’ review, score, and rank using the 10 technical scoring criteria discussed below. NGOs
that are members of a committee, as well as those that are not, are allowed to review proposals,
however, only one representative from each NGO can score, rank, and comment on proposals.
As in previous years, an online evaluation system will be used to collect reviewers’ input. The
website (http://www.iafwa-mscgp.org) is password protected. The Association’s MSCGP
Coordinator will provide log-in information to members of all the Association’s committees that
have been assigned proposals to review (this typically occurs in early July).
Technical Scoring Criteria for 2007 MSCGP Proposals:
Reviewers’ responses to the technical scoring criteria are used to develop a relative ranking of
proposals as a starting point for the National Grant Committee’s review and selection process.
Each technical criterion should be scored on a scale from 0-5, with 0 representing the lowest
score and 5 representing the highest score. Based on these 10 technical criteria, the highest score
possible for a proposal is 50 and the lowest score possible is 0. If bonus points (described
below) are added to the final technical score, the highest score possible is 55.
The technical scoring criteria used to evaluate proposals are:
1. What is the geographic scope of the proposal and its subsequent impacts/benefits?
Geographic Scope Score
Only localized benefits within a Region1 0-1
Benefits to majority of states within a Region 1-2
Benefits to all State fish & wildlife agencies within a Region 3-5
Benefits to all State fish & wildlife agencies in the Nation 3-5
A Region can be a USFWS Region or a Regional Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.
2. Is sound science used to develop the proposed methodology and will these methods
accomplish/produce the proposed project objectives/goals?
Score: 0 = sound science not used to develop methodology; objectives cannot be accomplished
using the proposed methodology.
5 = sound science used to develop methodology; objectives can clearly be accomplished
using the proposed methodology.
3. Will/can the proposed objectives and methodology produce the desired outcomes identified in
the NCN under which this proposal was submitted?
Score: 0 = objectives and methodology will not/ cannot produce the desired outcomes identified
in the NCN under which this proposal was submitted.
5 = objectives and methodology will/can clearly produce the desired outcomes identified
in the NCN under which this proposal was submitted.
4. Are the project objectives clearly defined, achievable, measurable, and connected to specific
goals, milestones/deliverables, and timelines (i.e., a work plan) for completion?
Score: 0 = project objectives are ambiguous; project lacks specific goals linked to
milestones/timelines for project completion.
5 = project objectives are clear, concise, and outline specific goals which are linked to
milestones/timelines for project completion.
5. Are the proposed project costs reasonable and is the project’s cost-benefit ratio reasonable?
Score: 0 = project is too expensive for objectives/benefits; cost is too high for benefits
5 = project costs are reasonable for objectives/benefits; cost is reasonable for benefits
6. Does the proposed project address the desired outcomes described in the NCN under which
this proposal was submitted, and does the proposal clearly explain the project’s anticipated
Score: 0 = project does not address the desired and measurable outcomes described in the NCN
and does not explain the project’s anticipated successes.
5 = project clearly addresses the desired and measurable outcomes described in the NCN
and clearly explains the project’s anticipated successes.
7. Will the objectives/goals of the project benefit the State fish and wildlife agencies?
Score: 0 = project objectives and goals will not benefit the State fish and wildlife agencies.
5 = project objectives and goals will greatly benefit the State fish and wildlife agencies.
8. What is the anticipated, extended use/life of the project’s results/products/services after the
project is completed, and are they clearly stated in the proposal?
Score: 0 = usefulness of project results ends when the project ends.
5 = usefulness of project results continues for years after the project ends and is clearly
stated and described in the proposal.
9. Regarding question #8, does the proposal clearly describe how the longevity/use of the
project’s results/products/services will be maintained after the project is completed (e.g.,
methods of product distribution/availability; promotional/cooperative efforts; program
Score: 0 = maintenance plans for longevity/use of project’s results/products/services not
5 = maintenance plans for longevity/use of project’s results/products/services clearly
described and addressed.
10. Is a monitoring and evaluation process to assess and measure the project’s meaningful
contributions, benefits, and congruence of desired outcomes to those specified in the NCN under
which this proposal was submitted clearly identified, described, and included in the proposal as
part of the tasks to be completed and information to be disseminated?
Score: 0 = proposal does not include an evaluation process to assess/measure the project’s
meaningful contributions, benefits, and desired outcomes versus actual outcomes.
5 = proposal does include a specific evaluation process to assess/measure the project’s
meaningful contributions, benefits, and desired outcomes versus actual outcomes.
Bonus Points Criteria: (Note: Bonus points will be assigned by the Association’s MSCGP
Coordinator and not individual reviewers.)
- Does the proposal leverage additional funds, either from applicant’s organization or through
partnerships, to enhance and maximize the project’s desired benefits and outcomes,
effectiveness, and success?
Score: 0 – 5 = After calculating the percentage of partnership funds versus MSCGP funds
requested for each proposal, bonus points will be awarded relative to other proposals.
The proposals will be grouped for this purpose, with the group contributing the greatest
percentage of partnership funds receiving 5 points, the next tier receiving 4 points, etc.
Proposals with no partnership funds will receive 0 bonus points.
Quality Assurance: Applicants’ prior experience and past performance on MSCGP projects will
also be evaluated by the National Grants Committee and have bearing on the selection of priority
Review and Selection of Priority List of Projects:
The Association’s National Grants Committee will recommend a “priority list” of project
proposals for State Directors to approve at the Business Meeting during the Association’s
September 2006 Annual Meeting. The Association will submit its priority list of projects to the
USFWS by the mandated October 1, 2006 deadline.
Applicants and other interested parties may attend the National Grants Committee’s selection
meeting in September. However, applicants will only be allowed to speak about their proposal if
asked a question by a member of the National Grants Committee. Committee members will be
provided a limited time to ask questions pertaining to the proposal under consideration, and
applicants will be provided a limited time to respond.
To ensure fairness and equality to all applicants, all proposals will be judged only on the merits
of the proposal and how well it addresses a National Conservation Need, the proposal’s
adherence to formatting and content requirements, the proposal’s relative ranking determined by
subject committees’ reviews, and on oral answers provided to questions raised by Committee
members during the National Grants Committee meeting. Therefore, any attempt to discuss a
proposal with a Committee member outside of this meeting is considered lobbying and is strictly
Proposals submitted for administration by the Association must be approved by the Executive
Committee prior to action or recommendation by the National Grants Committee.
USFWS Grant Awards and Funding:
The USFWS is required by law to select projects for funding from the Association’s Priority
List. The USFWS must also publish the list in the Federal Register.
After receiving the proposals on the priority list, the USFWS will review proposals (though a
significant portion of the USFWS’ review typically occurs concurrently with the Association’s
review to expedite the process and to identify problems early in the selection process). The
USFWS, among other things, ensures receipt of federal application forms; confirms budget costs
are allowable, allocable, and reasonable; conducts a debarment/suspension check; ensures NEPA
and ESA compliance, if applicable; and reviews financial management systems of applicants to
ensure costs charged to the grant can be properly tracked.
Typically in mid-November to early December, the USFWS announces its funding decisions and
transmits approval packages to potential grantees. Grantees do not have to accept funding and
can negotiate certain conditions. Grantees will be asked to sign a grant agreement (form 3-1552)
and monies will be available starting January 1, 2007.
MSCGP GRANTEE RESPONSIBILITIES
Like all federal grant programs, recipients of a Multistate Conservation grant must comply with
certain “national policy requirements” (e.g., those laws identified in the SF 424-B), grant
regulations, and the terms and conditions of the grant agreement with the USFWS.
The three main grant regulations are the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles,
and audit requirements. For help identifying the regulations applicable to your organization type
(e.g., state, non-profit, educational institution), visit the “Current Grantees” section of the
Association’s MSCGP website (http://www.iafwa.org/multistate_grants.htm). Regulations can
be found at http://training.fws.gov/fedaid/toolkit/toolkit.pdf. If your organization has never
received a federal grant, you should review the federal requirements to ensure you will be able to
properly administer the grant. The regulations require, for example, that grantees maintain a
financial management system and written procurement procedures. An audit is required for
entities expending more than $500,000 a year in federal funds.
Performance and financial reporting, required by the Uniform Administrative Requirements,
enable the USFWS to ensure compliance and progress. All Multistate Conservation grantees
must submit quarterly and final performance reports, as well as annual/final financial reports, as
• Quarterly performance reports are due within 30 days after the end of each quarter. Final
performance reports are due within 90 days after the end of the grant. A suggested
format for submitting quarterly and annual performance reports can be found on the
Association’s MSCGP webpage (http://www.iafwa.org/multistate_grants.htm).
• Financial reports are required annually and, in cases when a grant ends mid-year, at the
end of the grant period to report on expenditures. Financial reports (SF-269 short form)
are due within 90 days after the end grant period or the end of the year. Financial reports
may be found in the USFWS’ Federal Assistance Toolkit, which is available online at
http://training.fws.gov/fedaid/toolkit/toolkit.pdf, as well as on the Association’s website.
Applicants should also be aware that their proposal essentially becomes a “contract” between the
applicant’s organization and the USFWS. Therefore, certain deviations from the budget and/or
the proposal narrative must be approved by the USFWS, and some, such as change in scope, may
also require approval from the Association’s National Grants Committee. Actions that require
“prior approval” are listed in the Uniform Administrative Regulations and are also summarized
on the Association’s MSCGP website under the “Current Grantees” section. Prior approval
requests should be submitted using the USFWS’ “grant amendment” form (3-1591 Amendment
to Grant Agreement). It is often also necessary to append a more detailed written explanation for
the request. The USFWS will provide a response within 30 calendar days, as required by the
regulations, though more complex requests may result in a response that more time or other
actions are needed.
The USFWS’ Federal Assistance Training Branch offers training classes, including several that
are available for free online, to grantees. Please visit http://training.fws.gov/fedaid/fatrain.htm
for more information.
CHECK LIST FOR APPLICANTS
Executive Summary (one page)
Clearly defined and measurable objectives
Identified the primary NCN addressed by the proposal
Approach, milestones/deliverables, work plan
Identification of benefits, including those occurring once the grant expires
Evaluation processes to assess the project’s meaningful contributions and benefits
Contractor selection information
Completed budget outline and explanations
Resumes or CVs – max. one page per individual
Copy of approved indirect rate negotiation with cognizant agency (Only required if
requesting indirect costs)
Certification regarding hunting/fishing (Only required for nongovernmental
organizations, which includes non-profits, for-profits, institutions of higher education)
Certification regarding partnership funds (Only required if requesting partnership funds)
Required standard federal forms:
Application, SF-424 (with original signature)
Assurances, SF-424-B (with original signature)
Lobbying Disclosure, SF-LLL (with original signature)
(Note: If your proposed project involves construction, then a 424-C and 424-D are
needed in lieu of the A and B forms, however, construction projects may require
other documentation as well, such as NEPA analysis. Please contact the
Association for further instruction and eligibility.)
Budget Outline for Multistate Conservation Grant Proposals
NOTE: This outline may be modified as necessary to meet the applicant’s needs.
2007 2008 2009 Total
MSCGP P.F.* MSCGP P.F.* MSCGP P.F.*
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs (__%)
(Note: 20% cap for
Total MSCGP for the X-year project is $X; Total partnership funds for the X-year project are $X.
* In order to receive bonus points for partnership funds (P.F.), please 1) express all contributions
in monetary terms; and 2) ensure that you have included the required certification. Partnership
funds will not be considered by the USFWS to be an official non-federal match. However, you
are still responsible for the financial commitments listed and your contributions will be
monitored by the USFWS and the Association.
Explanation for each object class in budget:
1. Salaries. List each position separately in budget. Provide an explanation showing annual
salary rate and percentage of time, where applicable, to be devoted to the
program/activity by the employee.
2. Fringe Benefits. Enter the estimated amount of fringe benefits and fringe benefit rate.
Briefly list/explain benefits included in rate.
3. Travel. Enter estimated travel expenses. Please explain the basis for computation (e.g.,
five trips for ‘x’ purpose at $80 average cost; or six people to attend 3-day meeting for
‘x’ purpose at $115 each).
4. Equipment. Enter total estimated dollar amount of equipment to be purchased, rented or
leased. Please describe each item of equipment to be purchased, rented or leased, and
include the total cost and monthly cost per unit. (Note: equipment is defined by the
federal regulations to be items having a useful life of more than on year and an
acquisition cost of more than $5,000, or lower if established by your internal policy.)
5. Supplies. Enter estimated dollar amount of supplies. Please describe the supplies by
major type (e.g., office supplies, training materials, research forms, postage), and show
basis for computation. (Note: supplies are defined by the federal regulations to be all
personal property excluding equipment, intangible property (e.g., copyrights and patents),
and debt instruments.)
6. Contractual. List each contract separately in the budget. Please explain the type of
services to be performed and the estimated contract cost data.
7. Other. Include “other” items applicable to your grant. Lump “other” items in the budget
under this line item and provide an explanation for each major type and the basis of your
calculation. You may also list items separately in the budget and include an explanation
for the basis of your calculation.
8. Total Direct Costs. Enter the sum of all direct costs.
9. Indirect Costs. Include a copy of the approved rate agreement. A maximum of 20%
indirect costs can be requested annually for MSCGP funds so if your approved rate is
27%, you can list the remaining 7% under partnership funds. Similarly, you could list all
or any portion of your indirect costs under partnership funds. Please explain break-down
of percentages if it’s not clear in the budget.
10. Total Expenses. Enter the sum of direct and indirect costs.
Estimate of Funds Available for the
Multistate Conservation Grant Program
Although $3 million is annually available from both the Wildlife Restoration (WR) and Sport
Fish Restoration (SFR) accounts, there is not $6 million available for new grants awarded by the
USFWS in December 2006 for the 2007 cycle of the Multistate Conservation Grant Program.
This is because funds for multi-year projects, which started in 2005 or 2006, have already been
committed and must be deducted.
However, in the Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (T-bill), Congress approved additional
monies for the SFR account for 2006 – 2009. Additional monies could also become available
from grants that close between September 2005 and September 2006 and have unexpended funds
that will get returned to the Multistate “pot.” Thus, the estimated funding available for the next
three years is:
YEAR WR $ SFR $ TOTAL $
2007 726,898 218,692 945,590
2008 2,035,978 2,317,725 4,353,703
2009 3,000,000 3,143,000 6,143,000
Annual Administrative Process for the 2007 Cycle of the
Multistate Conservation Grant Program (MSCGP)
o The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association) solicits National
Conservation Needs (NCNs) from Association committees, the four Regional
Associations of state fish and wildlife agencies, and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs). Criteria for NCNs are distributed with requests.
o The Association hosts an informational meeting for interested NGOs, states, and other
potential applicants to review the MSCGP’s processes, answer questions and get
feedback, and solicit proposed NCNs. NGOs submit proposed NCNs directly to
appropriate Association committee chairs. States can work with Association committees
or their Regional Association.
o The Association’s committees and the four Regional Associations develop proposed
NCNs. Each may submit one proposed NCN to the Association’s MSCGP Coordinator
by Friday, February 17.
March (North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; March 22-25,
o The Association’s MSCGP Coordinator compiles and distributes proposed NCNs to
members of the Association’s National Grants Committee. The National Grants
Committee consists of the 4 Regional Association Presidents (or designees), and the
Association’s Fish & Wildlife Trust Funds Committee Chair, Executive Committee Vice
Chair, Executive Committee Chair (Vice Chair of National Grants Committee), and the
Association’s Vice President (Chair of National Grants Committee).
o During the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, the National
Grants Committee will convene (Friday, March 24, 8:30 a.m. - noon) to review proposed
NCNs and prepare a list of recommended NCNs for the State Directors’ approval.
o State Directors approve NCNs at the Association’s Business Meeting (Friday, March 24)
for the upcoming grant cycle.
o The Association distributes an Announcement of Opportunity to solicit grant proposals to
address the selected NCNs.
o MSCGP grant proposals must be submitted by midnight EDT Friday, June 16, 2006 to
the Association’s MSCGP Coordinator. The Coordinator will review proposals for
eligibility, and consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as necessary.
o The Association’s MSCGP Coordinator distributes eligible proposals to appropriate
Association committees for review, comment, score, and rank (using 10 technical scoring
criteria). Grant proposals are also made available to NGOs for their review, score, rank,
o The Association’s MSCGP Coordinator also sends proposals and required federal
application forms to the USFWS. The USFWS reviews proposals to, among other things,
conduct a debarment and suspension check; ensure NEPA and ESA compliance; and
review financial management systems of applicants.
o Committee members’ reviews must be completed by mid-August (exact date to be
determined). Comments, scores, and ranks are submitted using a password-protected
online evaluation system (http://www.iafwa-mscgp.org).
September (The Association’s Annual Meeting; September 17-22, Aspen, Colorado)
o The Association’s MSCGP Coordinator compiles and analyzes proposal comments,
scores, and rankings for submission to the Association’s National Grants Committee.
Reviewers’ scores are used to develop a relative ranking of proposals as a starting point
for the National Grant Committee’s review and selection process.
o The National Grants Committee convenes; reviews the comments, scores, and ranks of
each proposal; and prepares a recommended “priority list” of projects for the State
Director’s approval. Grant applicants can attend this meeting.
o During the Association’s Business Meeting, the State Directors approve the “priority list”
of projects to be funded through the Multistate Conservation Grant Program.
o The Association submits its list of priority projects to the USFWS by October 1.
o The Association’s MSCGP Coordinator notifies submitters of proposal status – all
applicants are provided with reviewers’ comments and scores.
o Priority projects are reviewed and processed by the USFWS, which is required by law to
only fund projects on the Association’s priority list, though there is no requirement to
fund all recommended projects.
o USFWS awards Multistate Conservation grants to successful applicants.
January to December
o USFWS manages recipients and their implementation of Multistate Conservation grants.
o The Association initiates the process for the 2008 cycle of the MSCGP.