HB7143 amends 23 U.S.C. §332 to widen participation in the federal pollinator-friendly practices on roadsides program, require specific agency consultation, adjust who must be consulted during plan development, raise individual grant limits, and reauthorize program funding at a higher annual level through 2031. The bill adds 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations to the list of eligible entities, clarifies Tribal consultation boundaries, and inserts a consultation requirement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for certain plan elements.
For transportation agencies, conservation nonprofits, and tribes, the changes create new opportunities to lead roadside pollinator projects and access larger grants. For program administrators the bill increases responsibilities around consultation and oversight while modestly expanding the program’s financial envelope for the next six fiscal years.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill (1) adds nonprofit organizations that qualify under section 501(c)(3) to the roster of eligible implementers under 23 U.S.C. §332, (2) requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for an enumerated planning element, (3) limits Tribal consultation during plan development to Tribes with Tribal land within 50 miles of a proposed project, (4) raises the per-project grant cap from $150,000 to $500,000, and (5) increases authorized annual funding from $2 million (FY22–26) to $5 million for FY2026–2031.
Who It Affects
State departments of transportation, Federal land management agencies, 501(c)(3) conservation nonprofits, federally recognized Tribes (subject to the 50-mile proximity rule), and the Federal Highway Administration which administers the grant program. Contractors and maintenance providers working on rights-of-way projects will also be affected by changing project scale and design requirements.
Why It Matters
The bill both broadens the pool of implementers and increases grant sizes, enabling larger or more complex habitat projects along rights-of-way. It also formalizes an ecology-focused touchpoint with the Fish and Wildlife Service while narrowing the scope of Tribal consultation, shifting how projects are planned and who has influence at the planning stage.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB7143 modifies the existing roadside pollinator program in four practical ways. First, it enlarges who can apply and carry out projects by explicitly adding nonprofit organizations that meet section 501(c)(3) requirements to the statute’s list of eligible entities.
That opens the door for conservation NGOs and land trusts to directly receive and manage federal grants alongside state DOTs and federal land agencies.
Second, the bill introduces an explicit requirement that certain elements of plan development be done “after consultation with the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.” This creates a required ecological consultation step intended to ensure habitat design aligns with federal wildlife conservation expertise, and it may affect project timelines and technical specifications.Third, the bill tightens and clarifies Tribal consultation language. It alters who counts as an “affected or interested” Tribe by limiting required consultation during plan development to Tribes whose Tribal land lies within 50 miles of the proposed project.
The statute also clarifies that this consultation requirement applies during plan development and that it does not create an obligation for additional consultation beyond that phase. Practically, Tribes farther than 50 miles from a project will not be entitled to the same planning-stage consultation under this statute.Finally, on the funding side, the bill raises the per-project grant cap from $150,000 to $500,000 and reauthorizes the program at $5 million per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2031.
Those increases permit larger single projects or fewer but more substantial awards, while the overall program budget remains modest relative to nationwide transportation spending, meaning competitive pressures and prioritization decisions will increase.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 23 U.S.C. §332(b) to add organizations described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code to the list of eligible entities.
It requires that the planning element listed in subsection (d)(1)(F) be developed after consultation with the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
When developing plans, required consultation with Indian Tribes is limited to Tribes whose Tribal land is located 50 miles or less from the proposed project or practice.
The statute raises the maximum grant under subsection (e)(2)(B) from $150,000 to $500,000 per project.
Reauthorization changes increase annual authorized funding under subsection (l)(1) from $2,000,000 (FY2022–2026) to $5,000,000 for each fiscal year 2026 through 2031.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expands eligible entities to include qualified nonprofits
This amendment inserts a new paragraph (4) expressly authorizing 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofits to participate as eligible implementers. Practically, that lets conservation organizations apply directly for federal roadside pollinator grants rather than relying on state DOT sponsorship or partnership models. It also standardizes eligibility by tying it to federal tax-code status, which simplifies vetting but excludes organizations that are not tax-exempt under those exact sections.
Requires consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a planning element
The bill adds an explicit consultation requirement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a specific plan development element identified in paragraph (1)(F). This is a procedural insertion: applicants must seek input from a federal wildlife authority before finalizing that element, which is likely to influence plant selection, timing, and habitat design. Expect technical guidance and possible conditions attached to grants as a result.
Clarifies which entities can prepare plans and narrows Tribal consultation scope
Amendments change who may develop plans to any entity listed in subsection (b)(1), (3), or the new (4) — expanding authorship to nonprofits. The text also rewrites the Tribal-consultation clause to require consultation only with Tribes whose Tribal land is within 50 miles of a proposed project, and it adds a clarification that the statutory consultation duty applies during plan development only. That reduces the temporal and geographic breadth of mandatory Tribal engagement under the statute.
Increases the single-project grant cap
This edit raises the per-project federal grant ceiling from $150,000 to $500,000. The larger cap allows single awards to support bigger design and implementation scopes—establishing larger habitat areas, additional engineering for roadside safety combined with habitat objectives, or multi-site projects—while leaving program-wide funding decisions to administrators.
Reauthorizes and increases annual program funding
The bill replaces the prior authorization level of $2,000,000 per year (for FY2022–2026) with $5,000,000 per year for FY2026–2031. This reauthorization increases the program’s fiscal capacity but remains modest, meaning administrators will need to set priorities and possibly favor higher-impact projects given the higher per-project ceiling.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- 501(c)(3) conservation nonprofits — Gain direct eligibility to apply for and manage federal roadside pollinator grants, expanding their ability to design and implement habitat projects without acting through a state DOT or federal land manager.
- State departments of transportation — Receive access to stronger technical input via mandatory U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultation and a larger pool of potential partners and contractors to deliver projects.
- Federally recognized Tribes located within 50 miles of projects — Retain a formal seat at the planning table for nearby projects, which can influence habitat choices and mitigations directly affecting Tribal lands and cultural resources.
- Pollinator conservation projects — Stand to receive larger grants allowing more substantial habitat creation, seed mixes, and project longevity compared with prior per-project limits.
- Local communities near rights-of-way — Can benefit from improved roadside ecology, reduced mowing in targeted areas, and potential co-benefits like erosion control and stormwater retention.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and administering agencies — Face increased administrative workload to vet nonprofit applicants, coordinate USFWS consultations, and manage larger awards with potentially more complex compliance needs.
- State DOTs and federal land management agencies — May absorb planning, permitting, and maintenance coordination burdens when partnering with new nonprofit implementers and adjusting to USFWS input.
- Project contractors and designers — Might need to adapt specifications and construction practices to meet fish and wildlife recommendations, potentially increasing design or construction costs.
- Tribes beyond 50 miles — Lose guaranteed consultation rights under this statute even if projects affect migratory pathways or cultural resources tied to broader landscapes, shifting the burden of outreach onto project sponsors rather than being statutorily required.
- Congressional appropriators and fiscal managers — Face trade-offs: increased per-project caps and higher authorizations will pressure overall discretionary budgets, requiring prioritization among competing transportation and environmental programs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between scaling the program (by broadening eligibility and increasing award sizes so more and bigger projects get funded) and preserving rigorous, equitable environmental and Tribal participation safeguards (which can be resource-intensive and time-consuming). Larger awards and more implementers increase impact potential but also raise the stakes of how consultation, ecological review, and long-term maintenance are handled—areas the bill expands in some respects (USFWS consultation) and contracts in others (narrowed Tribal consultation and limited ongoing engagement).
The bill tightens some procedural boxes while leaving others open. Requiring USFWS consultation for a planning element strengthens the science advisory layer, but the statute does not define the scope, timing, or binding force of that consultation.
Agencies will need to negotiate whether USFWS input is advisory, whether it imposes conditions, and how it factors into NEPA analyses or permit conditions. That ambiguity could produce variable implementation across states and projects and slow approvals if not protocolized.
Limiting required Tribal consultation to Tribes with Tribal land within 50 miles of a project simplifies statutory obligations but creates a hard geographic cutoff that may not align with ecological or cultural realities. Migratory pollinators, shared watersheds, and cultural resource interests often extend beyond such arbitrary radii.
The bill’s clarification that consultation is limited to plan development narrows ongoing engagement, potentially leaving later design or maintenance decisions with less Tribal input. Finally, while per-project caps and annual authorization amounts rise, the program’s overall budget remains small relative to national transportation funding; administrators will face tougher triage decisions about which projects receive now-larger awards, and the statute does not add maintenance funding or dedicated metrics for ecological outcomes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.