New Bill Forces Feds to Approve State Wildlife Plans Within 180 Days to Speed Up Conservation Funding

The “Make State Wildlife Action Plans Efficient Act of 2025” is all about cutting administrative red tape to get conservation dollars where they need to go faster. This bill takes aim at the federal review process for State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs)—the comprehensive blueprints states use to protect at-risk fish and wildlife species.

The 180-Day Clock Starts Now

Under current law, states submit these plans to the Secretary of the Interior, but the approval process can drag on, stalling critical conservation projects. This bill amends the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c(e)(3)) to impose a hard deadline: the Secretary must now approve or disapprove a state’s plan no later than 180 days after it is submitted. For state wildlife agencies, this means predictability. They can budget and plan long-term projects—like restoring a critical stream habitat or managing an invasive species—knowing exactly when they’ll get the green light, instead of waiting indefinitely.

Conditional Funding: Getting to Work Sooner

Perhaps the biggest change for people who work in conservation is the conditional funding provision. Right now, states often have to wait for final federal approval before they can access their allocated federal funds. This bill changes that. As soon as a state submits its plan, the Secretary must conditionally authorize the state to begin implementation and must immediately set aside the federal funds. This means states can start spending money and launching projects almost immediately, rather than watching valuable time tick by while the plan sits in a federal queue. Think of it as getting provisional access to the budget while the final audit is still underway. This is a huge win for efficiency, getting shovels in the ground faster.

The Accountability Check

While this is a clear push for speed, the bill also builds in a mechanism for accountability. If the Secretary blows past the 180-day deadline for any state, they are required to submit a report by June 1 of the following year to the leadership of both the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. This report must detail the status of the plan and, crucially, explain why the program wasn't approved on time. This puts political pressure on the Department of the Interior to prioritize these reviews, ensuring that bureaucratic delays don't sideline conservation efforts.

The Trade-Off: Speed vs. Scrutiny

For state agencies, this bill is a streamlined path to funding, reducing the uncertainty that makes long-term planning difficult. However, the shift to conditional funding and the tight 180-day deadline introduce a potential trade-off. Federal reviewers now have less time to scrutinize complex, multi-year state plans. While the intent is to boost efficiency, there’s a risk that prioritizing speed could lead to less thorough oversight. If a state is conditionally authorized to spend funds on a program that is later found to be flawed and rejected, it could create administrative headaches and require funds to be clawed back. The Department of the Interior will need to consult with states to develop a review process that is both fast and comprehensive, a challenge Congress explicitly directs them to undertake.