The Prince George’s County Transportation, Infrastructure and Environment Committee on Oct. 14 voted 3-0 to advance CB 23‑20‑25, a bill that would require the county to study wildlife displacement tied to new development and to develop a fee formula and mitigation considerations if displacement is substantial.

The measure asks the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the county Department of the Environment (DOE) to produce a study within six months of enactment identifying types of wildlife present, areas where wildlife occur, the costs associated with removal or mitigation, and a formula for reasonable fees tied to loss or protection of wildlife. The bill also tasks DPIE (the Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement) with administering any fee schedule in coordination with planning.

“Community members brought at this point that sometimes there’s development that happens in the community, and they feel like that development is pushing wildlife into residential areas,” said Vice Chair Zoriana Oriada, the bill’s sponsor. “This legislation is a starting place. It just asks us to look at it, bring the stakeholders to the table, see if there’s things that we should be considering.”

Planning Director Lakisha Hall told the committee the planning department already administers reviews related to new development under Subtitle 25 (the Woodland Wildlife Habitat Conservation Ordinance) and that DPIE collects fees associated with that ordinance. “We do not collect any fees at all as associated with that ordinance,” Hall said, asking for clearer cross‑agency language in the draft. Hall also noted the department reviewed other jurisdictions’ plans, including Washington, D.C.’s wildlife action plan, and recommended aligning the new study with existing development review steps.

DOE and MNCPPC both were added to the amended draft to reflect a shared role; the amendment also asks the agencies to seek input from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. The sponsor said the draft intentionally left flexibility for the administration to decide whether to staff the effort internally, convene a task force or hire outside consultants.

DOE staffing and cost concerns surfaced in the hearing. DOE commented that the agency lacks wildlife treatment capacity—its current role is to transport injured wildlife—and that certain species (for example, raccoons, skunks and foxes) cannot be legally relocated under Maryland law. DOE’s representative estimated that standing up a county program with in‑house wildlife services could cost in the range of $900,000 up front and about $800,000 annually thereafter if the county required it to perform relocations or treatments. The bill as advanced, however, requests only a collaborative study and does not compel the county to create a new service model.

Committee members asked that the administration provide a clear funding and staffing plan and that agencies meet with the sponsor to refine the draft language. The committee’s action was recorded as a motion to move the draft (draft 2) forward as amended; the motion carried 3‑0.

Next steps: the bill will move out of committee for further consideration by the full council, with committee members asking the executive branch and agencies to provide cost estimates and an implementation plan before final action.