The Wildlife Road Crossing Program Reauthorization Act of 2025 authorizes $200 million per year for fiscal years 2027–2031 from the Highway Trust Fund (excluding the Mass Transit Account) for the wildlife crossings program in 23 U.S.C. §171, makes those amounts available until expended, and removes the program’s “pilot” label. The bill also amends section 171 to give eligible tribal recipients a 100 percent federal cost share, allow the Secretary to set aside up to 0.5 percent of program funds for tribal technical assistance, and permit the Secretary to retain up to 0.5 percent for grant administration and related statutory duties.
Why it matters: this is a multi-year, dedicated funding stream for wildlife crossing projects that both normalizes the program (by striking “pilot”) and explicitly tries to lower barriers for Tribal nations to access funds. The changes shift project economics (full federal funding for qualifying tribal projects), create small set-asides for capacity-building and administration, and draw directly from the Highway Trust Fund — all of which affect state DOTs, Tribal governments, conservation groups, and the pool of highway infrastructure dollars available for other uses.
At a Glance
What It Does
Authorizes $200 million annually (FY2027–FY2031) from the Highway Trust Fund for the wildlife crossings program, removes 'pilot' language from 23 U.S.C. §171, and makes appropriations available until expended. It establishes a 100% federal share for eligible tribal projects and permits the Secretary to use up to 0.5% for tribal technical assistance and up to 0.5% for grant administration.
Who It Affects
State departments of transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (as program administrators and applicants), Tribal governments and eligible tribal entities that seek grants under 23 U.S.C. §171(c)(6), conservation NGOs and contractors that design and build wildlife crossings, and the Highway Trust Fund as the funding source.
Why It Matters
The bill moves the program from pilot to standing status with multi-year funding and adds targeted measures to reduce Tribal access barriers. That combination increases the program’s scale, changes project financing dynamics for Tribal applicants, and reallocates a portion of Highway Trust Fund resources toward wildlife-vehicle collision mitigation and habitat connectivity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill turns the current experimental wildlife crossings pilot into a permanent programmatic authority by striking the word “pilot” from every appearance in 23 U.S.C. §171 and updating the chapter analysis. It ties explicit, multi-year funding to the program: $200 million each fiscal year from 2027 through 2031 drawn from the Highway Trust Fund (excluding mass transit funds).
Those appropriations are available until expended, meaning grant recipients may draw funds across fiscal years without the usual year-by-year expiration.
Recognizing persistent capacity problems in Tribal communities, the bill creates two specific mechanisms aimed at improving Tribal access. First, it makes the federal share for projects awarded to eligible tribal recipients under the statute 100 percent, eliminating local match requirements for those projects.
Second, it authorizes the Secretary to use up to 0.5 percent of program funds annually for tribal technical assistance: application help, technical support, and measures to shorten the time between project selection and obligation of federal funds. The statute explicitly allows the Secretary to provide that assistance directly or through contracts with federal, Tribal, regional, State, private, or nonprofit entities.On the administrative side, the Secretary may retain up to 0.5 percent of annual program funds for application review, award obligation and administration, and to carry out related statutory duties (the bill cites section 172 and specific subsections of section 144).
Those two 0.5 percent set-asides slightly reduce the pool of funds available for construction but are framed as necessary for program delivery and to help close the capacity gap for Tribal applicants. The text is narrowly focused on appropriation levels, the Tribal provisions, contracting options for technical assistance, and modest administrative retention; it does not specify project selection criteria, distribution formulas, or environmental review changes, so those implementation details are left to the Secretary and existing law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes $200 million per year for the wildlife crossings program for fiscal years 2027–2031, funded from the Highway Trust Fund (excluding the Mass Transit Account).
All amounts appropriated under the authorization are made available until expended, removing the usual fiscal-year expiration for those funds.
The bill removes the word 'pilot' from 23 U.S.C. §171, effectively converting the pilot program into an ongoing programmatic authority.
For grants to eligible entities described in 23 U.S.C. §171(c)(6), the federal share of project costs is 100 percent, eliminating the non-federal match for those Tribal projects.
The Secretary may use up to 0.5 percent of program funds each year for Tribal technical assistance (and may contract that work to federal, Tribal, regional, State, private, or nonprofit entities) and may retain up to 0.5 percent for grant administration and to carry out specified statutory duties.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act as the 'Wildlife Road Crossing Program Reauthorization Act of 2025.' This is purely identifying language but signals Congress’s intent that the bill is a reauthorization and amendment rather than a one-off appropriation.
Authorization of appropriations and source
Directs $200 million per fiscal year for FY2027–FY2031 to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) specifically for the wildlife crossings program. It also makes those funds available until expended, which gives awardees multi-year drawdown flexibility and means obligations and outlays can cross fiscal years without lapse. Practically, that availability reduces pressure on recipients to expend funds within a single fiscal year but also locks part of the Highway Trust Fund into this program for five years.
Removal of 'pilot' language and clerical update
Strikes every occurrence of the word 'pilot' in 23 U.S.C. §171 and updates the chapter analysis to relabel the section as 'Wildlife crossings program.' This changes the legal posture of the program from experimental to established statutory authority, which affects long-term planning at FHWA, states, and Tribal nations.
100% Federal share for eligible Tribal projects
Adds a provision that sets the Federal share at 100 percent for grants to eligible entities identified in subsection (c)(6) of section 171. Mechanically, this removes non-federal match requirements for those Tribal projects and alters project economics, making Tribal applicants more competitive and reducing the need for Tribal matching funds or in-kind contributions.
Tribal technical assistance set‑aside and contracting authority
Authorizes the Secretary to use up to 0.5 percent of program funds each year to help eligible Tribal entities access and execute projects. The assistance can include application and technical help and efforts to accelerate the period between project selection and fund obligation. The statute allows the Secretary to provide assistance directly or through contracts with a wide range of parties (federal, Tribal, regional, State, private, or nonprofit), broadening implementation options but raising questions about oversight and contracting standards.
Grant administration retention
Permits the Secretary to retain up to 0.5 percent of program funds annually for application review, award obligation, and administration, and specifically to carry out section 172 and parts of section 144 (the bill cites statutory duties tied to program oversight). This creates a small but explicit administrative funding stream inside the program rather than relying solely on broader agency appropriations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation 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 eligible Tribal entities — receive a 100% federal cost share for qualifying grants and access to a dedicated technical assistance pool intended to reduce application and delivery barriers.
- Conservation organizations and environmental mitigation planners — gain a larger, predictable funding stream for wildlife-crossing projects and habitat connectivity efforts that they can partner on or help design.
- Ecological engineering, construction, and design contractors — see increased project pipeline and contracting opportunities tied to multi-year funding and an expanded program.
- State departments of transportation that prioritize wildlife crossings — can tap a program with clearer long-term funding and reduced competition from pilot-level constraints, enabling multi-year planning.
- Motorists and rural communities — stand to benefit indirectly from reduced wildlife-vehicle collisions and associated economic and safety gains when crossings are built.
Who Bears the Cost
- Highway Trust Fund (HTF) allocation — $200 million per year is drawn from the HTF (outside the Mass Transit Account), reducing discretionary space in the HTF that might otherwise serve other highway programs.
- Non‑Tribal applicants (state/local projects) — may face stiffer competition for a finite pot, and because Tribal projects can be fully federally funded, some non‑Tribal projects that rely on matching funds could be deprioritized.
- Federal Highway Administration and agency staff — responsible for administering increased grant volume and Tribal assistance activities; although the bill authorizes small administrative set-asides, execution and oversight still create agency workload.
- Project sponsors and contractors — must meet federal grant requirements and the administrative and reporting conditions that accompany these funds, and a small share of funds is diverted to administration and technical assistance rather than construction.
- Other Highway Trust Fund‑backed programs — may effectively receive less funding or face harder prioritization decisions because Congress earmarks this multi‑year sum for wildlife crossings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to square two legitimate goals — expanding and stabilizing funding for wildlife crossings while removing financial and capacity barriers for Tribal applicants — with a limited pot of Highway Trust Fund dollars; the central dilemma is whether dedicating multi-year HTF resources and modest administrative set-asides will genuinely increase project delivery and equitable access for Tribes, or simply shift scarce HTF resources away from other highway needs without resolving underlying capacity and prioritization challenges.
The bill focuses on funding levels and two narrowly defined programmatic changes (tribal access and modest administrative set-asides) but leaves significant implementation details to the Secretary and existing law. It does not define selection criteria, geographic prioritization, environmental review streamlining, or performance metrics; without those details, states and Tribes may face uncertainty about how funds will be distributed and which projects will be prioritized.
The broad contracting permission for Tribal technical assistance (including private entities) expands delivery options but raises oversight and conflict-of-interest considerations, since the statute does not set contracting standards or transparency requirements for those third-party providers.
The funding source and the 'available until expended' language create trade-offs. Drawing $200 million annually from the Highway Trust Fund (outside the Mass Transit Account) secures multi-year program financing but constrains HTF flexibility for other highway priorities.
Making appropriations available until expended benefits project delivery timetables but reduces year-to-year budgetary transparency and could slow congressional oversight of how quickly funds are used. Finally, the 0.5 percent caps for both tribal technical assistance and grant administration are modest relative to the capacity gaps many Tribes face; the statute assumes those small set-asides will be sufficient to accelerate project delivery, but that is an empirical question and likely requires careful implementation planning.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.