The bill creates the Hawaii Native Species Conservation and Recovery Grant Program within the Department of the Interior, administered by the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It directs the Secretary to issue an annual Federal Register request for proposals and award competitive grants, microgrants, and cooperative agreements to public, private, nonprofit, academic, and Native Hawaiian entities for projects that reduce invasive species threats, restore habitat, bolster populations, improve monitoring and research, and increase public engagement.
The statute sets a multi-year funding authorization ($30 million per year for 10 years), builds a federal cost-share framework with targeted exceptions (including full federal funding for certain Native Hawaiian, youth workforce, and microgrant projects), requires interagency and state coordination to set annual funding priorities, and mandates an annual congressional report on grants and project status. The bill also caps administrative spending and requires funds to supplement, not supplant, existing conservation dollars in Hawaii.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a competitive grant program and publish an annual request for proposals to fund projects in Hawaii that address invasive species, habitat loss, climate impacts, population management, monitoring, and public outreach. It sets criteria, ranking procedures, and allows technical assistance and cooperative agreements.
Who It Affects
Eligible applicants include the State of Hawaii, county governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, nonprofits, businesses, and universities; federal agencies and Hawaii Boards of Land and Natural Resources and Agriculture must help set funding priorities. Applicants should expect matching requirements, application ranking, and reporting obligations.
Why It Matters
This creates a dedicated, sustained federal funding stream focused solely on Hawaii’s native species with explicit mechanisms to prioritize science-based projects and Native Hawaiian involvement, while imposing administrative limits and 'supplement, not supplant' language that could shift how local and federal funds are combined.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director, to stand up a competitive grant program for native species conservation in Hawaii once appropriation dollars are available. The program must publish an annual Federal Register request for proposals tied to funding priorities that the Secretary develops each year in coordination with federal agencies, the Hawaii Boards of Land and Natural Resources and Agriculture, and other stakeholders the Secretary deems appropriate.
Applicants can be state and local governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, nonprofits, businesses, and colleges and universities. The Secretary must create ranking criteria—again, with the listed partners—and use those criteria to select projects that address invasive species control, climate impacts, habitat restoration, population management, science and monitoring, and public outreach.
The statute explicitly allows different award mechanisms (grants, microgrants, cooperative agreements) and authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to help grantees implement projects.On cost sharing, the bill sets a general federal cap at 75 percent of project costs but builds in explicit exceptions allowing the Secretary to fund up to 100 percent of a project’s costs—either at the Secretary’s discretion or automatically for three categories: projects led by Native Hawaiian organizations, projects that significantly advance youth workforce readiness, and awards of $50,000 or less. The law permits non‑federal matching in the form of in‑kind contributions (services, materials, or land access) and mandates that at least 5 percent of annual program funds be used for projects that fall into those exception categories.To guard against conflicts, state officials on the Hawaii Boards must recuse themselves from decisions on grant applications submitted by the State or local governments they represent.
The Secretary must also produce an annual report to Congress listing each funded project and its status. Finally, the bill authorizes $30 million per year for ten fiscal years, and limits administrative expenses to no more than 5 percent of annually appropriated funds.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes $30,000,000 per fiscal year for ten years to carry out the grant program.
The Secretary must establish the program and publish an annual Federal Register request for proposals tied to interagency- and state-coordinated funding priorities.
The federal share is generally capped at 75% of project costs, but the Secretary may fund 100% and must allow 100% funding for projects led by Native Hawaiian organizations, projects that significantly contribute to youth workforce readiness, or grants of $50,000 or less.
At least 5% of annual program funds must be allocated to projects that qualify for the 100% federal share exceptions (Native Hawaiian orgs, youth workforce projects, or microgrants).
Administrative expenses for the program are capped at no more than 5% of each year’s appropriated funds.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Sets the Act’s formal name: the Hawaii Native Species Conservation and Recovery Act of 2025. Practical implication: this is a standalone statutory authorization aimed exclusively at Hawaii, which clarifies jurisdictional scope for agencies and appropriators.
Definitions
Defines key terms—eligible entities, grant program, Native Hawaiian organization (referencing the NATIVE Act), native species, Secretary, and State—so eligibility, administrative authority, and the subject matter for grants are clear. Practical effect: by referencing the NATIVE Act for the Native Hawaiian organization definition, the bill imports an existing legal standard rather than creating a new threshold for cultural or tribal entities.
Program establishment and purposes
Directs the Secretary to establish the Hawaii grant program within 180 days after funds are appropriated and to fund projects via grants, microgrants, cooperative agreements, or other mechanisms. It also enumerates program purposes—controlling invasive species, addressing climate impacts, habitat restoration, population management, capacity building for science and monitoring, improving information collection, and community engagement—framing the acceptable project types for applicants and reviewers.
Priority-setting, solicitations, ranking criteria, and recusal
Requires the Secretary to coordinate annual funding priorities with federal agency heads (NOAA, EPA, USDA and others), the Hawaii boards of land and agriculture, and other stakeholders the Secretary selects. The Secretary must publish an annual request for proposals in the Federal Register and develop ranking criteria for awards. It also contains a recusal rule: state board members representing the State or a county must recuse from decisions on applications submitted by that entity—reducing conflicts but also narrowing local input on those specific awards.
Cost‑sharing, exceptions, and set‑aside
Establishes a default federal cost-share limit of 75% with three explicit exceptions allowing up to 100% federal funding: Secretary discretion; projects led by Native Hawaiian organizations; projects that significantly advance youth workforce readiness; and grants of $50,000 or less. The non‑federal share may be in cash or in-kind (services, materials, or land access). The bill also requires that at least 5% of program funds each year go to projects that qualify under the listed 100% funding categories, which effectively creates a guaranteed minimum for small, youth, or Native Hawaiian-led efforts.
Technical assistance, consultation, and funding rule
Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to grantees and requires consultation with Native Hawaiian organizations on projects with implications for the Native Hawaiian community. It also contains a 'supplement, not supplant' clause directing that program funds must add to rather than replace other funds used for similar purposes in Hawaii—an enforcement lever that could affect how applicants stack federal, state, and private dollars.
Annual reporting to Congress
Requires an annual report to Congress describing each funded project and the status of projects in progress. For implementers, this translates into explicit recordkeeping and reporting obligations for the Secretary and, indirectly, for grantees whose project descriptions and progress will be public and subject to congressional oversight.
Authorization of appropriations and administrative cap
Authorizes $30 million per year for the first fiscal year after enactment and the following nine years, and limits administrative expenses to no more than 5% of each year’s funds. This sets both the scale of the program and a hard ceiling on DOI administrative spending, which will shape staffing and oversight capacity.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Native Hawaiian organizations — The bill creates eligibility for full federal funding of projects led by Native Hawaiian organizations and requires consultation on projects affecting the Native Hawaiian community, improving access to federal resources and cultural stewardship roles.
- Local conservation nonprofits and community groups — The availability of microgrants (including a guaranteed minimum annual set-aside) and technical assistance lowers barriers to entry for smaller organizations that lack capital for large matches.
- Hawaii state and county natural resource agencies — The program supplies dedicated funds and federal technical support for priorities coordinated with state boards, augmenting local restoration and invasive species programs.
- Universities and researchers — The statute explicitly funds scientific capacity, monitoring, and research activities, supporting applied research, student training, and long-term ecological monitoring projects.
- Workforce and youth programs — Projects that significantly contribute to youth workforce readiness can qualify for 100% federal funding, creating a pathway to fund training, seasonal employment, and capacity-building efforts tied to conservation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies and DOI/FWS — Implementing the program requires staffing, interagency coordination, grant administration, monitoring, and reporting; while administrative funds are capped at 5%, the program will still demand agency capacity to manage grants and oversight.
- Appropriators / federal budget — The program is a recurring $30 million-per-year authorization for ten years; Congress must appropriate funds each year, and budget pressures could affect actual funding levels.
- Applicants (non-Federal) — Most grantees will need to provide up to 25% matching funds or in-kind contributions, and comply with application, reporting, and monitoring requirements, which can be costly for small nonprofits and businesses without grant management infrastructure.
- State and local governments — Although eligible, they may face conditions under 'supplement, not supplant' rules that constrain how they combine these federal dollars with existing state funds.
- Private landowners providing land access — Projects that require in‑kind land access could impose opportunity costs or administrative burdens on landowners who agree to participate.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill aims to deliver targeted federal resources to Hawaii while preserving local input and cultural priorities, but it pits efficiency and centralized competition (to maximize conservation impact and accountability) against equitable access and local control—especially for Native Hawaiian and small community organizations that lack grant-writing capacity yet are central to stewardship.
The bill centralizes federal authority for project selection and priority-setting in the Secretary while requiring coordination with state boards and federal agencies. That raises classic implementation questions: who gets to shape priorities in practice, how closely will the Secretary follow local recommendations, and will the recusal rule reduce useful local expertise when the State seeks funding?
The statute’s coordination and consultation requirements create a broad stakeholder table, but they stop short of creating binding state co-governance or guaranteed representation in decisionmaking beyond consultation and recusal.
The cost-share design seeks to balance federal leverage and equity by allowing up to 75% federal support but carving out full funding for Native Hawaiian organizations, youth workforce projects, and small microgrants. That architecture eases access for some vulnerable applicants but leaves open whether the 5% minimum set-aside is sufficient to ensure equitable participation.
The 'supplement, not supplant' clause is meant to prevent displacement of existing funds but may complicate budgeting for state agencies and nonprofits that blend multiple sources; enforcing that rule will require clear guidance on allowable fund stacking and could reduce flexibility for integrated projects.
Operationally, the 5% administrative cap constrains the DOI’s ability to scale oversight, compliance monitoring, and technical assistance—activities the bill also instructs the agency to provide. Finally, the statute relies on competitive selection and annual RFPs, which can favor organizations with grant-writing capacity; the technical assistance provision helps, but its scope and timing will determine whether smaller or community-based applicants can compete effectively.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.