Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maryland lawmakers consider wildlife‑crossing program to cut vehicle collisions and protect species
Summary
Delegate Sheila Ruth's bill would formalize an existing connectivity coalition, create a small fund for crossings and require jurisdictions to consider wildlife connectivity in local planning; supporters said crossings reduce collisions and wildlife mortality, while some departments challenged the fiscal note.
Delegate Sheila Ruth asked the committee to formalize a multi‑agency, multi‑stakeholder “connectivity coalition” and create a Wildlife Connectivity Fund to begin planning and financing wildlife crossing projects along Maryland roadways.
Ruth said the bill does not require construction of overpasses or culverts but would create a framework for long‑term collaboration among State Highway Administration, the Department of Natural Resources and local jurisdictions, and would permit donations and a voluntary contribution checkbox at vehicle registration to seed a special fund. The bill would also require local comprehensive‑plan consideration of habitat connectivity and direct the Department of Planning to provide guidance.
Supporters — including conservation groups, state biodiversity advocates and the Hunters of Maryland — pointed to data and U.S. examples showing that targeted crossings, fencing and underpasses can reduce wildlife‑vehicle collisions dramatically and help species recover. “When they're properly placed, crossings can dramatically reduce collisions, saving lives and our money,” said Misty Boos of Wildlands Network.
DNR and SHA told the committee they have been part of an informal group meeting since 2023 and that SHA had already secured federal planning funds for a pilot but that federal grant disbursement was currently paused. SHA also requested the bill allow SHA to chair the formalized coalition. DNR provided corrected testimony clarifying costs and noted the fiscal note submitted with the bill overestimated mandatory expenditures; committee staff and Ruth said SHA would follow up with a fiscal clarification.
Ending: Lawmakers appeared sympathetic to the bill’s low‑mandate, long‑horizon approach but asked for a clearer fiscal picture. Sponsors and SHA emphasized that groundwork and planning are the immediate goals; physical crossings would come later if matched by funding.
