The bill creates a multi‑part federal approach to sustaining wildlife connectivity. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant Program administered through a cooperative agreement with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), funds a State and Tribal Migration Research Program administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Science Applications program, continues a USGS Corridor Mapping Team, and amends the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act to allow technical assistance focused on migration corridors.
The legislation emphasizes voluntary, partnership‑based actions—leases, easements, fence modification, hydrology improvements, road and infrastructure modification, and vehicle‑collision reduction—while authorizing appropriations for fiscal years 2026–2031. It includes cost‑share rules, reporting requirements, data‑safeguarding language, and an explicit savings clause to preserve State and Tribal management authority and private property rights.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires Interior to set up a grant program that NFWF will administer under a cooperative agreement, offering competitive matching grants for projects that improve movement areas. It also directs direct funding to States and Tribes for migration research, continues USGS technical corridor‑mapping support, and designates an Interior coordinator to align Federal, State, Tribal, and non‑profit actions.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include State fish and wildlife agencies, Indian Tribes, State departments of transportation, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, USGS and USFWS science programs, NGOs and private landowners engaged in easements or leases, and Federal agencies that implement or partner on infrastructure and habitat projects. Projects must show State or Tribal acknowledgment of support for the movement area targeted.
Why It Matters
The bill channels federal resources into place‑based connectivity work and ties those investments to existing federal programs (Secretarial Order 3362, DOT wildlife crossings pilot, USDA Migratory Big Game Initiative). It sets practical cost‑share ceilings and priorities, builds a Federal‑nonprofit delivery model for conservation grants, and requires mapping and reporting that could standardize how movement areas are identified and tracked nationally.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill sets up a grant program focused on improving or conserving habitat in defined ‘movement areas’—places wildlife use to move seasonally or repeatedly. Interior must create the program within 180 days and, within a year, sign a cooperative agreement with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to run competitive matching grants.
Eligible projects include acquiring non‑Federal land or leases, modifying fences and roads, improving hydrology, and measures to reduce wildlife‑vehicle collisions. Proposals must identify movement areas and include written acknowledgment from the State or Tribal wildlife agency with jurisdiction.
NFWF will solicit proposals at least annually, administer awards, receive advance yearly payments to manage and invest for program benefit, and may prioritize multi‑partner proposals or those from national/regional associations representing State or Tribal agencies. The Federal share may reach 90 percent, with a minimum 10 percent non‑Federal match except when the Foundation waives cost‑share requirements for projects benefiting Indian Tribes, historically disadvantaged communities, or areas of persistent poverty.
At least half of each year’s grant funds must go to projects that directly conserve, restore, or enhance big‑game movement areas.Separately, Interior must fund a State and Tribal Migration Research Program administered through USFWS Science Applications, giving States and Tribes direct funds for data collection and analysis. USGS must continue a Corridor Mapping Team to support mapping and research using GPS and other credible data, publish annual analyses to the extent practicable with State maps, and coordinate data protections to avoid disclosing sensitive private‑land or individual locations.
The bill also amends the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act to allow program funds to help Federal agencies on voluntary migration corridor work, reauthorizes that program through 2031, and establishes a DOI senior executive to coordinate implementation and interagency activity. Finally, the bill contains a savings clause preventing use of funds to force non‑voluntary changes to agriculture, forestry, energy development, mining, water rights, or to alter State or Tribal wildlife authorities or private property rights.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation within one year to administer competitive matching grants for movement‑area projects.
The Federal share of a grant may be up to 90 percent, with a typical minimum 10 percent non‑Federal match; the Foundation may waive matching requirements for projects benefiting Indian Tribes, historically disadvantaged communities, or areas of persistent poverty.
At least 50 percent of annual grant‑program funds must be used for projects that directly conserve, restore, or enhance big‑game movement areas.
USGS must continue a Corridor Mapping Team, publish annual reports of mapped migration corridors and connectivity analyses, and coordinate data protections to safeguard private‑land locations and prevent illegal take.
The bill authorizes funding for multiple programs through fiscal year 2031 (funding described as “such sums as are necessary”) and requires biennial reporting by the Foundation and periodic reports to Congress on funded projects.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Defines goals and anchors to existing initiatives
This section frames the Act around improving connectivity for migratory big game and other wildlife and explicitly links the new programs to Secretarial Order 3362, the DOT wildlife crossings pilot, and USDA’s Migratory Big Game Initiative. That cross‑referencing signals an intent to coordinate with existing federal efforts rather than create standalone policy, which matters for grant priorities and interagency cooperation.
Creates the NFWF‑administered competitive grant program with cost‑share rules
Interior must establish a non‑regulatory grant program and, within a year, contract with NFWF to provide competitive matching grants to a broad set of eligible recipients (States, Tribes, DOTs, NGOs, universities, counties, and Federal agencies). Proposals must identify movement areas and include written State or Tribal acknowledgment. The Federal share cap (up to 90 percent) and minimum 10 percent match are explicit; NFWF can waive matches for tribes, disadvantaged communities, or persistent poverty areas. NFWF receives advance yearly payments and can invest funds for program benefit; it must also report biennially on outcomes.
Direct research funding to States and Tribes administered by USFWS science program
Interior must set up a research program that delivers funds directly to State fish and wildlife agencies and Indian Tribes through agreed processes to collect and analyze movement‑area data. Administration is assigned to the Science Applications program of USFWS, which will be responsible for how funds are allocated, monitored, and integrated into federal mapping and conservation efforts.
Authorizes voluntary technical assistance and continues corridor mapping with data protections
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act is amended to allow Program funds to support other Federal agencies on voluntary migration corridor or seasonal habitat efforts, and its authorization window is extended through FY2026–2031. USGS is directed to sustain a Corridor Mapping Team to assist States and Tribes, publish annual analyses of mapped corridors where practicable, and work with partners to protect sensitive location data to prevent poaching and protect private‑land privacy. The bill also requires periodic reporting on the conservation value of projects that build on existing mapping efforts.
Designates an Interior coordinator and requires interagency convening
Interior must appoint an SES employee with big‑game movement experience to coordinate the Act’s activities, advise State/Tribal partners and agencies, maintain an activity summary, and help convene relevant Federal agencies to coordinate funding and streamline engagement with States, Tribes, and NGOs. The section also authorizes appropriations for coordination staffing.
Limits on use of funds and safeguards for State/Tribal authority and private rights
The bill prohibits applying funds to require non‑voluntary changes to agriculture, forestry, energy, mining, water rights, or access tied to valid existing rights, and includes a savings clause preserving State and Tribal wildlife management authority, treaties, private property and privacy rights, public recreational access, and that the Act does not create Federal land designations. Practically, this narrows program tools to voluntary incentives and partnerships rather than regulatory mandates.
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
- State fish and wildlife agencies — receive direct research funds (via USFWS Science Applications) and are the required endorsers for grant proposals, giving them leverage in prioritizing movement areas and technical support for mapping and management.
- Indian Tribes — eligible for grant and research funding, potential waiver of matching requirements, and explicit protection of tribal management authority and treaty rights, enabling tribes to lead on movement‑area work without forced land‑use changes.
- National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — becomes the federal delivery partner: it administers competitive grants, receives advance annual funds it may invest, and gains a central role shaping project selection and partnership priorities.
- Private landowners and conservation NGOs — stand to gain through voluntary leases, easements, and cooperative projects that are eligible for grant funding and technical assistance to reduce vehicle collisions or modify infrastructure.
- State departments of transportation and infrastructure planners — can access targeted funds to modify roads and reduce wildlife collisions, integrating connectivity into transportation projects.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (Interior, USFWS, USGS, USDA, DOT) — must coordinate, supply technical staff, accept reporting responsibilities, and potentially adjust existing programs to align with new grant and mapping priorities, with associated administrative costs.
- National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — takes on program administration, investment management, proposal solicitation, priority‑setting, and reporting duties; NFWF will need capacity to manage advance payments and apply waiver criteria equitably.
- Taxpayers/federal budget — the bill authorizes ‘such sums as necessary’ for multiple programs through FY2026–2031, creating open‑ended appropriation exposure if demand for grants and mapping assistance is high.
- State and local governments or NGOs serving as non‑Federal match providers — in many projects they must provide cash or in‑kind matches (typically 10 percent), which can strain smaller agencies or community organizations unless waivers apply.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between achieving landscape‑scale wildlife connectivity—often requiring coordinated, sustained, and sometimes costly action across public and private lands—and preserving voluntary, partnership‑based conservation that protects State and Tribal authority and private property rights; the bill privileges incentives and technical support, which respects sovereignty and property but may fall short of tools needed for some connectivity outcomes.
Two implementation tensions stand out. First, delegating federal grant administration to NFWF speeds delivery and leverages private‑sector grant experience, but it raises questions about public oversight, procurement transparency, and consistent application of waiver and priority criteria across diverse geographies.
NFWF’s authority to receive advance payments and invest them creates efficiency but requires clear audit, accountability, and conflict‑of‑interest safeguards.
Second, the bill leans heavily on mapping and shared data to identify movement areas while simultaneously requiring protections for sensitive location and private‑land information. That balance is sensible but operationally tricky: mapping at the granularity useful for infrastructure planning or collision mitigation can reveal landowner locations or animal concentrations vulnerable to poachers, and the statute defers many protections to cooperation with States and Tribes without prescribing a uniform data‑access standard.
Additional ambiguities include the definitions and thresholds for a valid ‘‘movement area’’ (what level of evidence suffices), the practical application of the matching waiver (how NFWF will evaluate ‘‘historically disadvantaged communities’’), and how this voluntary approach will reconcile with major infrastructure or development projects that already have statutory timelines and environmental review processes. Finally, the savings clause protects State and Tribal authority and private property rights, but it may also limit options if landscape‑scale connectivity ultimately requires land‑use restrictions or more intrusive mitigation measures to be effective.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.