Wildlife Road Crossings Program Reauthorization Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 19, 2025
Bottom line
H.R. 6078 commits $1.2 billion over six years to enhance wildlife crossings, making the program permanent and significantly boosting support for Tribal communities to implement these critical infrastructure projects.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes and significantly expands the federal wildlife crossings program, originally established as a pilot program under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It appropriates $200 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2031, removes the 'pilot' designation to make the program permanent, and provides a 100% federal cost share for projects undertaken by Indian Tribes, along with dedicated technical assistance for Tribal entities.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this reauthorization and increased funding are crucial for enhancing public safety by reducing costly and dangerous wildlife-vehicle collisions, while simultaneously protecting biodiversity and improving ecological connectivity. They emphasize that the 100% federal share and technical assistance for Tribal projects address historical inequities and empower Tribal nations to implement vital conservation measures on their lands.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might raise concerns about the substantial federal expenditure of $1.2 billion over six years, arguing that these funds could be allocated to other pressing infrastructure or budgetary priorities. While direct opposition to wildlife crossings is rare, some may question the precedent of a 100% federal cost share, suggesting it could reduce local financial commitment or accountability.
The bill is exceptionally short and clearly written, allowing any informed reader to quickly grasp its core provisions and implications.
Section 2(a)
Reauthorization and Increased Funding for Wildlife Crossings Program
This section amends the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to reauthorize the wildlife crossings program, changing its name from 'Pilot' to 'Additional' and then simply 'Program.' Crucially, it appropriates $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2031, a significant increase from previous levels, ensuring continued and expanded funding for projects that reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this reauthorization and increased funding are essential to continue and expand a successful program that saves lives (both human and animal), reduces property damage, and promotes ecological health. The sustained funding provides predictability for long-term planning.
Critics contend
Some might argue that while the program is beneficial, the proposed funding level is excessive or that states and local entities should bear a larger financial responsibility for these projects, especially given other pressing infrastructure needs.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is balancing the significant ecological and safety benefits of wildlife crossings against the substantial federal investment required, potentially diverting funds from other infrastructure priorities.
Section 2(b)(1)(A) and (B)
Removal of 'Pilot' Designation, Establishing Permanent Program
This provision amends Section 171 of title 23, United States Code, by striking the word 'Pilot' from the heading and throughout the text, effectively transforming the 'Wildlife Crossing Pilot Program' into a permanent 'Wildlife Crossing Program.' This change signifies a long-term commitment to the program beyond an experimental phase.
Section 2(b)(1)(D) (inserting new subsection (h))
Full Federal Funding for Tribal Wildlife Crossing Projects
This new subsection mandates that for grants submitted by Indian Tribes, the Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 100 percent. This eliminates the need for Tribal entities to provide matching funds, significantly reducing the financial barrier for them to undertake critical wildlife crossing projects on or near Tribal lands.
Section 2(b)(1)(D) (inserting new subsection (i))
Technical Assistance for Indian Tribes to Access Funding
This new subsection allows the Secretary to use up to 0.5% of authorized funds to provide application assistance, technical assistance, and help in expediting fund obligation for Indian Tribes. This aims to improve the ability of Tribal entities to efficiently access and utilize program funding.
Allows the Secretary of Transportation to retain up to 0.5% of the program's authorized funds for reviewing applications, administering grants, and carrying out related statutory requirements.
Section 2(b)(1)(D) (inserting new subsection (j) into 23 U.S.C. 171)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for ensuring that federal programs have the necessary resources for effective oversight and management, rather than an attempt to obscure.
Case for: Supporters argue that dedicated administrative funds are crucial for the efficient and compliant operation of a large federal grant program, ensuring that projects are properly vetted, funds are obligated correctly, and statutory requirements are met.
Case against: Some might argue that administrative costs should be absorbed by existing agency budgets or that even a small percentage reduces the funds directly available for projects.
Estimated impact: Approximately $1 million annually (0.5% of $200 million) for program administration.
States that any unobligated funds from a fiscal year will remain available until expended and will be in addition to amounts available in subsequent fiscal years.
Section 2(b)(1)(D) (inserting new subsection (k) into 23 U.S.C. 171)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for capital-intensive programs where project development and contracting often span multiple fiscal years, ensuring funds are not lost due to administrative timelines.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision is essential for the practical implementation of infrastructure projects, which often have long planning and execution phases, preventing the loss of authorized funds and ensuring maximum investment in wildlife crossings.
Case against: Fiscal conservatives might express concern that allowing funds to remain available indefinitely could reduce accountability for timely spending, though this is a common practice for such programs.
Estimated impact: Potentially allows for the full utilization of the $1.2 billion authorized over six years, even if there are initial delays in project obligation.