AB 902 (Connected Communities Safer Roads Act) adds Section 158.6 to the Streets and Highways Code and requires lead agencies to incorporate appropriate wildlife passage features into transportation projects in designated connectivity areas when those projects may significantly impair wildlife connectivity. The requirement applies to projects that create a new highway or add a lane, while routine maintenance, reconstructions, and bike/ped projects within existing rights‑of‑way are excluded.
The bill matters because it extends the state's 2022 Safe Roads and Wildlife Protection policy into the nonstate highway network, pushing local agencies and regional planners to consider habitat connectivity in project design. It creates practical questions about how to identify affected areas, how to measure “significant impairment,” who pays for passage features, and how the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s role (including approval of mitigation credits) will be exercised in practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Section 158.6 to require lead agencies to incorporate wildlife passage features or equivalent mitigation for new highways and added lanes in high‑connectivity areas that may significantly impair connectivity. Allows use of DFW‑approved compensatory mitigation credits with DFW concurrence.
Who It Affects
Local public agencies that lead funding and construction of roads (cities, counties, regional transportation agencies), metropolitan planning organizations, consultants and contractors who design highways, and conservation organizations monitoring habitat connectivity.
Why It Matters
It extends connectivity protections beyond the state highway system to locally led highway expansion projects, shifting design, permitting, and funding considerations onto local implementers and tying project decisions to DFW connectivity mapping and mitigation mechanisms.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 902 requires lead agencies to incorporate “appropriate wildlife passage features” into certain transportation infrastructure projects located in areas identified as important for terrestrial connectivity. The trigger is threefold: the site must be in a connectivity area (either ranked 3–5 in the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Areas of Conservation Emphasis or identified in a qualifying general plan update), the project must be capable of significantly impairing connectivity, and the project initiation phase must fall on or after the statutory date(s) in the bill.
The bill limits its scope to construction that meaningfully expands vehicle capacity: creating a new highway or adding a new lane. It expressly excludes ordinary operation/repair/maintenance projects, reconstruction or replacement projects, and bicycle lanes and sidewalks built within an existing right‑of‑way.
Projects on the state highway system where the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the lead agency are exempt; AB 2344 previously targeted state highways and remains relevant for those projects.For projects covered by 158.6, agencies must incorporate passage features “to feasibly avoid, minimize, and mitigate” impairment. The bill permits—but does not require—use of compensatory mitigation credits authorized under Fish and Game Code Section 1957 to satisfy the obligation, and only if the Department of Fish and Wildlife concurs.
The statute leaves technical choices (what counts as “appropriate” features, how to demonstrate feasibility, and when mitigation credits suffice) to the implementing agencies and DFW review processes.The text contains an inconsistency in effective dates: one clause ties the requirement to projects with initiation phases beginning on or after January 1, 2028, while another line states it applies to projects with initiation phases on or after January 1, 2026. That discrepancy will matter for projects in planning now and will likely require administrative clarification or legislative correction.
The bill also does not set prescriptive design standards, funding sources, or an enforcement regime; those operational gaps will determine how the policy plays out at the project level.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 158.6 to the Streets and Highways Code, establishing the new connectivity requirement for lead agencies.
A project is in scope only if it is in a connectivity area identified as Terrestrial Connectivity ranks 3–5 in DFW’s Areas of Conservation Emphasis or designated via a qualifying general plan update.
Covered projects are limited to creating a new highway or adding a new lane; maintenance, reconstruction, replacements, and bike/ped lanes in existing rights‑of‑way are excluded.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife must concur before compensatory mitigation credits (Fish & Game Code §1957) can be used to meet the statute’s requirements.
Projects on the state highway system where the Department of Transportation is the lead agency are expressly excluded from Section 158.6.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and policy statement tying bill to AB 2344
Section 1 lays out legislative findings linking transportation infrastructure impacts, climate change, and the need for habitat connectivity, and explicitly references AB 2344 (2022) as state policy precedent. Practically, those findings establish the bill’s purpose—extending the connectivity policy to non‑state highway projects—and create a statutory backdrop that agencies and courts can cite when interpreting implementation obligations.
Core requirement and three trigger criteria
Subsection (a) requires a lead agency to incorporate wildlife passage features “to feasibly avoid, minimize, and mitigate” connectivity impairment, but only when three triggers are met: the project lies in a DFW rank 3–5 connectivity area or a qualifying general plan‑identified connectivity area; the project may significantly impair connectivity; and the project initiation phase begins on or after the statutory date(s). This is the operational heart of the law and creates a factual inquiry for each candidate project—mapping, impact screening, and a feasibility analysis for passage features.
Use of compensatory mitigation credits with DFW concurrence
Subsection (b) allows lead agencies to satisfy the obligation through compensatory mitigation credits approved under Fish and Game Code Section 1957, but only if the Department of Fish and Wildlife concurs. That channels agencies toward mitigation banking and credit markets as an alternative to on‑site passages, while giving DFW gatekeeping authority over credit use. The practical implication is reliance on DFW review timelines and the availability/price of credits in local markets.
Applicability dates, Caltrans exemption, and project definition/exclusions
The text includes conflicting timing language—one clause ties applicability to projects with initiation phases beginning on or after January 1, 2028, another states January 1, 2026—creating legal ambiguity about when obligations begin. The statute expressly exempts projects on the state highway system where the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the lead agency, leaving state highways under Caltrans and AB 2344 while AB 902 targets local leads. The law narrowly defines a “transportation infrastructure project” as only new highways or added lanes and lists categorical exclusions (maintenance, reconstruction/replacement, and bike/ped within existing ROW). That framing focuses obligations on capacity‑increasing projects rather than routine work or multimodal improvements.
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
- Wildlife and habitat connectivity advocates — gain a statutory tool to push for passage features on locally led highway expansions in mapped connectivity areas, potentially improving gene flow and climate‑driven range shifts.
- Regional planners and MPOs focused on landscape resilience — the bill formalizes connectivity as a planning consideration, allowing agencies to align transportation investments with conservation priorities.
- Communities near wildlife corridors — may see reduced wildlife‑vehicle collisions and improved ecosystem services where passage features are implemented.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local lead agencies (cities, counties, regional transportation agencies) — must evaluate connectivity impacts, design or fund passage features or purchase mitigation credits, and absorb design, permitting, and potentially construction costs unless new funding is identified.
- Project sponsors and developers of new highway capacity — face added upfront design obligations and potential delays while feasibility and DFW concurrence processes are completed.
- Department of Fish and Wildlife — will shoulder expanded review responsibilities (concurrence on credit use, connectivity mapping interpretation) with no dedicated funding in the statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the ecological need for continuous wildlife movement—made more urgent by climate change—against the practical realities of local transportation funding, project schedules, and technical capacity; protecting connectivity requires measures that add cost, complexity, and potential delay to locally led highway expansions, and the bill leaves unresolved who pays, how performance is measured, and how to balance regional transportation needs with landscape‑scale conservation.
AB 902 sets a policy direction but leaves many implementation details unresolved. The statute defines triggers (DFW ranks, general plan identification, and a ‘may significantly impair’ standard) but does not define the threshold or methodology for determining significant impairment, nor does it provide objective design standards for what qualifies as an “appropriate wildlife passage feature.” That gap hands considerable discretion to lead agencies and DFW, which can create inconsistent application across jurisdictions and add litigation risk during project permitting.
The bill channels agencies to compensatory mitigation credits as an alternative compliance path, but relies on DFW concurrence and existing credit markets. If credits are scarce, expensive, or DFW imposes strict limits on their use, local agencies may face hard choices between costly on‑site features, project redesign, or delaying/abandoning projects.
The statute also contains contradictory effective dates (2026 vs. 2028 in different lines), creating immediate uncertainty for projects already in planning. Finally, by exempting Caltrans‑led state highway projects, AB 902 creates a jurisdictional patchwork—state highways remain governed by AB 2344 regimes while local highways must follow AB 902—raising cross‑jurisdictional design and connectivity continuity issues where local roads intersect state highways.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.