This bill converts the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s Wildlife Crossings Pilot into an ongoing program and strengthens federal support for projects that reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions. It updates the statutory language to remove ‘‘pilot’’ status, adds provisions aimed at improving tribal access to grants, and creates limited authorities for grant administration and technical assistance.
The measure matters to state Departments of Transportation, tribal governments, conservation groups, and project sponsors because it changes how the program is structured, creates explicit channels for tribal assistance, and clarifies how the Department of Transportation can manage and retain small shares of program funds to run competitions and assist applicants.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends IIJA-related provisions and 23 U.S.C. section 171 to replace pilot-program language with permanent program language, add express authorities for tribal assistance and grant administration, and adjust how unobligated balances are treated. It gives the Secretary discretion to use small portions of program funds for applicant support and administration.
Who It Affects
Directly affects entities that apply for wildlife-crossing grants, including State DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations, tribal governments and tribal entities identified in the statute, and nonprofit and private partners that act as project sponsors. The Department of Transportation gains discrete management tools under the statute.
Why It Matters
The bill institutionalizes a federal funding stream for wildlife-mobility projects and builds procedural pathways to speed tribal applications, which changes grant competition dynamics and federal oversight. For professionals, it restructures eligibility navigation, contracting options for technical assistance, and internal DOT budget treatment for unobligated program dollars.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill edits two related statutory locations created by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It replaces terminology that labeled the wildlife crossings initiative as a ‘‘pilot’’ and instead treats it as an established program, which removes the temporary framing that had governed earlier rounds of funding and signals a longer-term federal role in financing wildlife-transportation mitigation.
Beyond renaming, the statute adds explicit authorities aimed at tribal applicants. It directs the Secretary to promote quicker, more efficient access to funding for tribal entities by allowing the program to supply application help and technical capacity building.
The statute also specifies contractual routes the Secretary may use—federal, tribal, regional, State, private, or nonprofit partners—to deliver that assistance, which creates a broader menu of implementation options than a straight grant-only model.On program operations, the law clarifies that the Secretary can retain a small portion of program funds to run application reviews, obligate awards, and carry out linked statutory requirements. The statute also changes how unspent program dollars behave at the end of a fiscal year: unobligated amounts remain available until expended and are treated as additional to annual program allocations.
Those shifts affect internal budget planning for both the Department and prospective grantees.Finally, the bill reorganizes subsection lettering and cross-references in 23 U.S.C. §171 to accommodate the new text and ensure the new authorities and priorities—tribal support, limited administrative retention, and unobligated-fund treatment—are written directly into the highway statutes rather than left to guidance alone. Practically, applicants should expect slightly different application supports and a program manager within the Department with explicit statutory authority to manage grants and assist applicants.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes $200,000,000 per fiscal year for the wildlife crossings program for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2031.
It removes the term 'pilot' from the program’s heading and text, converting the initiative into an ongoing 'Program.', For grants submitted by entities described in subsection (c)(6) (tribal governments/entities), the statute sets the Federal share of project costs at 100 percent.
The Secretary may use up to 0.5% (one-half of one percent) of authorized program funds to provide tribal technical assistance, including application help and contracting for support.
The Secretary may retain up to 0.5% (one-half of one percent) of program funds for grant administration, and unobligated balances remain available until expended and are treated as additional to future program amounts.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Replaces 'pilot' funding language and sets multi-year appropriations
This amendment strikes the phrase identifying the initiative as a pilot and substitutes language that authorizes a fixed annual appropriation for multiple fiscal years. Practically, that creates a multi-year funding expectation in statute rather than a one-off experimental line, signaling to states and sponsors that federal support will be available on a predictable basis for project development and construction.
Converts statutory text from 'pilot program' to 'Program' and updates headings
The bill edits title and body text throughout section 171 to remove the pilot framing. The change is mechanical but meaningful: it removes statutory references that could be read to limit scope or duration and aligns the section with a standing federal program model, which can affect how DOT organizes long-term solicitations and monitoring.
100% federal cost share for tribal applicants
The new subsection makes tribal applicants (those identified in the statute) eligible for a full federal cost share, eliminating the local match requirement for those sponsors. That lowers the financial barrier for tribal-led projects and changes how applicants budget for design, right-of-way, and construction phases when tribes are involved.
Tribal technical assistance authority and contracting options
This provision authorizes a narrowly defined portion of program funds to build tribal capacity to compete for grants and to shorten the time from project selection to obligation. It explicitly authorizes the Secretary to provide those services directly or to contract with a range of partners—federal, Tribal, regional, State, private, or nonprofit—offering flexible delivery channels but also raising questions about procurement and oversight.
Grant administration retention and permitted uses
The statute now permits the Department to retain a small share of funds to operate applicant review and obligation processes and to carry out closely related statutory duties. This creates a built-in program management budget line in statute, which DOT can use to staff competitions and manage awards without relying solely on general appropriations or internal reprogramming.
Treatment of unobligated balances
The new text requires that unused authorized amounts remain available until expended and that they be considered additional to amounts otherwise available for the program. That reduces the risk that a late-stage application or administratively delayed award loses funding at fiscal year-end and changes grantee and agency cash-management expectations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure 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
- Tribal governments and tribal entities — Eliminates the matching requirement for eligible tribal applicants, lowers entry barriers, and funds capacity-building to improve application success rates.
- State Departments of Transportation and regional planners — Gains a stable, program-level federal funding source for wildlife mitigation that can be integrated into long-range transportation and safety plans.
- Conservation organizations and environmental consultants — Increased federal funding and program permanence create more project opportunities for design, monitoring, and post-construction ecological work.
- Local communities in high wildlife-vehicle collision zones — Stand to see more projects funded that reduce collisions and improve safety and habitat connectivity, often with federal support for local implementation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal budget/appropriations process — The multi-year authorization establishes a recurring federal funding commitment that must be matched by appropriations decisions, increasing federal outlays if Congress funds the authorization.
- Project sponsors outside tribal eligibility — Non-tribal applicants retain cost-share responsibilities and face competition from projects eligible for full federal support, which could skew award distribution.
- Department of Transportation program offices — Gains additional statutory responsibilities for technical assistance and grant management; those duties may require internal reallocation of staff or new hiring despite the small retention allowances.
- Private contractors and nonprofits engaged for technical assistance — Will bear the administrative and performance risk of delivering capacity-building on tight timelines and under federal procurement rules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between scaling federal investment in wildlife-transportation solutions and keeping program management light and flexible: Congress provides a stable funding vehicle and narrow administrative authorities to speed access—especially for tribes—while deliberately limiting the share of funds available for administration and capacity building, which may undercut the very access and timely obligations the law aims to promote.
The bill inserts operational authorities and funding expectations into statute but leaves important implementation choices to the Secretary. The amount set aside for tribal technical assistance and for grant administration is intentionally small relative to total program funding, which may limit the Department’s ability to deliver deep, sustained capacity-building or to scale up review and oversight without additional resources or staffing.
That constraint could mean continued reliance on allied organizations and State partners to fill gaps.
The statutory language grants broad contracting options for delivering tribal technical assistance, but it does not set procurement standards or performance metrics. This creates potential variability in how assistance is delivered across regions and raises questions about accountability, conflict-of-interest management, and the timeline for obligating construction dollars once a project is selected.
Finally, while unobligated balances remain available until expended, the bill does not address long-term maintenance funding for constructed crossings, leaving project sponsors to secure ongoing stewardship from other sources.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.