Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
States and subcommittee debate deadlines and oversight for State Wildlife Action Plans
Loading...
Summary
The subcommittee debated HR 1676, the Making SWAPs Efficient Act, which would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to approve state wildlife action plans within 180 days or allow them to be deemed approved.
The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries heard June 26 on HR 1676, the Making SWAPs Efficient Act, which would set a 180‑day deadline for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval of state wildlife action plans (SWAPs) after peer review.
Colonel Roger Young, executive director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, told the committee that states have experienced long delays — in some cases 18 months or more — when submitting SWAPs and that a six‑month deadline would bring needed predictability. "This bill would bring certainty to an uncertain process and provide accountability for a process that the Service has said they are committed to undertaking," Young said.
The nut graf: witnesses and members agreed on the need for efficiency, but some expressed concerns that a hard deadline could reduce federal oversight capacity if staffing or resources at the Service are cut. Dave Michael of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the Service supports efforts to improve predictability and has worked with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on guidance and digital tools to speed reviews, but he cautioned some reviews require extra time to meet statutory requirements.
Members noted that 45 to 47 SWAPs were due this year and that the review process involves a regional peer review team and subsequent Service approvals. Michael described steps the Service now takes — technical assistance before submission, digital forms to reduce errors, and regional review teams — and said the average review time is about six months while acknowledging variability. He recommended continued collaboration between the Service and states to streamline the process.
Several members and witnesses raised staffing and budget concerns. The ranking member and others noted recent personnel changes at Interior and proposed budget cuts to programs that could reduce the Service’s capacity to complete reviews in a timely way; Michael said the Service would provide written follow‑up on personnel questions and collaborate on technical fixes to the bill.
Background and next steps: supporters urged committee approval of HR 1676 to provide states with certainty for program implementation; the Service asked to work with the sponsor on language to preserve oversight and operational flexibility.
