NFWF's First National Species Recovery Grants: $35.5M, 110 Awards, and a Program Built Around Delisting. How to Get Into the Second Cycle

On October 21, 2026, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced the first awards from a new program, the National Species Recovery Grants (NSRG). The first round includes 110 grants worth $35.5 million. Grantees added $8.6 million in matching contributions, so the total investment is $44.1 million.

The species list covers a wide range. It includes polar bears in Alaska, the round-leaf birch (a tree found in only one Virginia county), the Neuse River waterdog salamander in North Carolina, Hungerford's crawling water beetle in northern Michigan, the razorback sucker in the Colorado River Basin, fishers in California, red-cockaded woodpeckers and imperiled insect pollinators in Illinois. NFWF executive director and CEO Jeff Trandahl described the program's purpose simply: "Focusing on species recovery is essential to preserving our conservation heritage."

What sets NSRG apart is not its size but how it is built. NSRG is not an open conservation competition. It funds only the recovery actions USFWS chose in advance, and it ranks species by how soon they could leave the endangered list. If you work on listed species, your chances of being funded depend more on that design than on the quality of your writing.

How the program is built

NFWF's 2026 request for proposals sets out the main rules.

Purpose. The grants fund "voluntary implementation of priority recovery actions described in the species' recovery planning document(s)." That means the recovery plan, recovery implementation strategy or recovery outline USFWS has already written for a species. The program does not fund new research questions unless they are a step USFWS has already listed.

USFWS sets the list. USFWS prioritized two kinds of species:

• Species that, "with additional funding, are likely to warrant delisting or downlisting within the next three years."
• Species "in areas of substantial overlap with land-use activities such as energy, timber, mineral development, and ranching."

Those priorities became the two award categories:

Each proposal must fall under one category, and the categories are tied to specific species and actions in Appendix A, the spreadsheet USFWS compiled for the program. If your species and action are not in Appendix A, you were not competitive in 2026.

Award size. NFWF estimated awards from $30,000 to $3.5 million. The first round averaged about $323,000 per grant ($35.5 million across 110 awards), much closer to the bottom of that range than the top. Many projects look like monitoring, eDNA survey or habitat-management work for a single species, not large landscape restoration.

Match in practice. The $8.6 million match is about 24 cents per grant dollar. That ratio fits a portfolio weighted toward Category 1, where match does not count. Applicants should read it as confirmation that Category 1 is truly match-free, not as a sign that match is unimportant. In Category 2, match is how priority is set.

Who won

NFWF named several funded projects without dollar amounts. They show who succeeds in this program:

• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission: eDNA testing for the Neuse River waterdog. This is a state wildlife agency carrying out a monitoring action from the species' recovery documents.
• University of Notre Dame: the first eDNA test for Hungerford's crawling water beetle, a survey-technique action of the kind the RFP lists under "Monitoring and Research."
• Utah State University: sequencing the genome of invasive smallmouth bass to explore genetic control. This is threat reduction for the razorback sucker and other native Colorado River fish.
• University of Illinois: improving pollinator habitat on energy transmission corridors, a clear Category 2 project where energy infrastructure overlaps listed species.
• Integral Ecology Research Center: GPS collars and Bluetooth transmitters to study how fishers respond to forest management. This is another Category 2-style project, on timber land.

The list includes state agencies, research universities and a small nonprofit research center. That matches the RFP's broad eligibility: federal, state, local, municipal and Tribal governments, 501(c) nonprofits, educational institutions and businesses. Only international organizations and unincorporated individuals were excluded. The RFP also said it preferred applicants with experience on the target species and applicants who held or had held an ESA permit.

What the design says about federal policy

Two features of NSRG reflect current federal endangered species policy.

First, delisting is the main goal. Many recovery funders favor the species in the worst shape. NSRG instead funds species that are close to recovery so they can be removed from the list. That gets results agencies can report, but it means critically endangered species with long timelines rank lower here than in other programs.

Second, Category 2 names the industries. The RFP explicitly lists energy, timber, mineral development and ranching. Recovery work in those landscapes can reduce conflict between listed species and land use, for example by giving a utility the population data it needs to plan maintenance, or by giving a timber company a habitat-management protocol it can adopt. The Illinois transmission-corridor and California fisher projects both fit that pattern. Because match is prioritized in Category 2, partners in those industries who contribute cash or staff time can directly improve an application's ranking.

There is also a related funding stream. Separately from NSRG's RFP, NFWF manages a USFWS cooperative agreement worth $57.5 million in Inflation Reduction Act funds. It is meant to pay for remaining recovery actions for historically underfunded listed species over about ten years, with performance running into 2034. NFWF's announcement does not say whether NSRG draws on that agreement, so do not assume they are the same program. For applicants, the important point is that NFWF is now a major channel for federal recovery-action money, and USFWS decides where it goes.

The process: invitation first

The 2026 timeline shows that this was not an open call:

• February 24, 2026: invitations for full proposals sent
• March 5: applicant webinar
• April 9, extended to April 14: full proposals due through NFWF's Easygrants portal
• February through July: review
• Mid-August: planned award announcement

Invitations went out before the full-proposal window opened. The RFP also told applicants to "work closely with your USFWS contacts to determine an appropriate request amount." In practice, the field office or regional recovery biologist for a species decides who has a credible proposal. If USFWS staff do not know your organization, you are unlikely to be invited.

The awards were also late. They were planned for mid-August and announced October 21, about two months behind schedule. The RFP had warned that awards depended on "receipt of funds from federal agencies and/or other funding partners." First-year federal pass-through programs often slip like this, so build that delay into project start dates, field seasons and hiring.

Compliance details that sink otherwise strong projects

The NSRG RFP includes several federal requirements that are easy to miss:

• Drone restrictions. Under the American Security Drone Act, effective December 22, 2025, federally funded projects may not use, operate or buy drones on the Covered Foreign Entities list. That includes common DJI and Autel models and covers existing drones as well as new purchases. Many field biologists use exactly these models for surveys. Budget for a compliant drone or a contractor who has one.
• Buy America. Iron, steel, manufactured products and construction materials must be made in the United States (2 CFR Part 184). This affects fencing, water-control structures and propagation facilities.
• Reimbursement. Payments are mostly reimbursable, and NFWF will not consider monthly advance requests. Small nonprofits need enough cash to carry a field season.
• Permits and NEPA. Compliance with NEPA, ESA Section 7 or Section 10 and NHPA must be documented before any ground-disturbing work. For work in U.S. waters, NFWF strongly encourages a pre-application meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers.
• No compliance substitution. Grant funds cannot pay for actions an applicant is already legally required to take, such as permit conditions, mitigation or settlement obligations. Projects can go beyond baseline compliance, but the proposal must clearly separate the two.
• Equipment. NFWF encourages renting or using match for equipment, and asks applicants to call staff before budgeting NFWF funds for purchases.

How to position for the second cycle

The RFP says NFWF "anticipates that there will be two funding cycles." No second-cycle dates have been published. If it follows the 2026 pattern, invitations would go out early in the calendar year. The work that decides who gets invited happens well before then:

1. Find your species in the recovery documents. Get the current recovery plan or outline for each listed species you work on and identify the specific actions not yet funded. Proposals score on "implementation of priority recovery actions described in appropriate recovery document(s)," so quote those actions directly.
2. Talk to the USFWS recovery lead now. Contact the field office biologist assigned to the species. Ask whether it is likely to be on a second-cycle Appendix A, which actions are priorities, and what request size makes sense. The program is designed around that conversation.
3. Choose your category on purpose. If your species is near its downlisting criteria, frame the project around the specific criterion it helps meet. If your project area overlaps energy, timber, mining or ranching land, recruit the landowner or operator as a partner with cash or in-kind match. It counts in Category 2, and the partnership itself is evidence of feasibility.
4. Make your metrics measurable. Proposals need "specific, quantifiable performance metrics" with baselines and targets from NFWF's metric list (Appendix B of the RFP). Population counts, acres restored, individuals released and eDNA detection rates all qualify. General statements of "conservation benefit" do not.
5. Prepare your permits. Having an ESA permit is a stated preference. If your project needs a Section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit, apply now. Permits take time and can delay an awarded project.
6. Book a proposal lab. During the application window, NFWF offered 20-minute virtual sessions with program staff on Tuesday through Thursday afternoons. Use them.

For broader context on federal wildlife funding this year, see our analyses of USFWS's Coastal Program and Partners for Fish and Wildlife, which also depend on field offices, and the final IIJA round of FHWA's Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program.

Bottom line

NSRG's first 110 awards show a program that does not reward open-ended conservation ideas. It rewards organizations ready to carry out a specific action USFWS has already chosen, for a species close to recovery, in a landscape where land use and conservation have to coexist. Applicants who work with USFWS in advance are likely to be invited to the second cycle.

If you are turning a recovery-plan action into an NFWF proposal, with metrics, a match strategy and a compliance plan, Granted can help you draft and check it against the RFP's criteria.