National Wildlife Corridor System

Full Title:
Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity Conservation Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill would create a national program to map, protect, and restore wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity on Federal land and water. It sets up a National Wildlife Corridor System, requires agencies to manage designated corridors to support wildlife movement, and funds mapping, interagency coordination, and grants for non‑Federal projects. The broad goal is to help species move, adapt to climate change, and maintain healthy populations.

Key changes:

  • Establishes a National Wildlife Corridor System made up of Federal lands and waters designated by statute, rulemaking, or land‑use plans.
  • Creates a habitat connectivity mapping and science program at the U.S. Geological Survey to produce maps, data, and research.
  • Requires Secretaries (Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Transportation) to manage corridors to maintain or restore connectivity and to update plans and rules.
  • Withdraws designated Federal lands from certain public land and mineral leasing and mining laws, subject to valid existing rights.
  • Creates a grant program for non‑Federal projects and landowners, with up to $75 million authorized per year and eligibility for private landowners, Tribes, states, local governments, universities, and others.
  • Authorizes recurring annual funding for mapping, agency coordination, and grants (see Expenses).

What it means for you#

  • Federal land managers and agencies

    • Must help implement the National Wildlife Corridor System and update land‑use plans, rules, and guidance within set time frames.
    • May face new limits on issuing leases, approving new mining claims, or allowing development inside designated corridors on Federal lands.
    • Will take part in a Coordinating Committee for cross‑agency planning.

  • State, Tribal, and local governments

    • Can nominate Federal lands and waters for corridor designation.
    • Will be consulted on corridor management and can receive technical help and funding.
    • Their jurisdiction over fish and wildlife management (hunting, fishing, trapping) is not changed by the bill.

  • Private landowners and agricultural interests

    • The bill does not authorize forced restrictions or eminent domain on private land; any restriction on private land requires owner consent.
    • Voluntary private landowners can apply for grants and technical assistance to conserve or restore connectivity.
    • The Secretaries may form collaborative partnerships that include private landowners.

  • Tribes and Tribal lands

    • Indian Tribes can nominate areas and receive grants. The bill recognizes Tribal roles and includes tribal representatives on the Coordinating Committee.
    • “Indian land” is defined separately for trust or restricted lands.

  • Transportation and infrastructure

    • Where corridors intersect roads, agencies must consult state, Tribal, and local transportation agencies to identify voluntary mitigation measures (for example wildlife underpasses, culverts, or dam removal) to reduce wildlife‑vehicle collisions and restore connectivity.

  • Defense and military installations

    • The Secretary of Defense may waive corridor requirements for military installations when needed for preparedness or mission needs; waivers are to be published unless security concerns exist.

  • Researchers, NGOs, and the public

    • Publicly accessible maps and a corridor database are to be created, subject to protection of confidential or sensitive location data.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: The bill authorizes up to $140 million per year in new appropriations (authorization, not guaranteed funding).

Breakdown of the annual authorizations in the bill:

  • Habitat mapping and science (USGS): $5,000,000 per year.
  • Agency coordination and corridor work on Federal lands and waters:
    • Department of the Interior: $20,000,000 per year.
    • Department of Transportation: $18,000,000 per year.
    • Department of Agriculture: $10,000,000 per year.
    • Department of Commerce: $9,000,000 per year.
    • Department of Defense: $3,000,000 per year.
  • Wildlife corridor grant program (non‑Federal land and water): $75,000,000 per year (with at least 10% set aside for big game migration or seasonal habitat projects).

Other fiscal notes and detailed cost estimates: No publicly available information beyond these authorizations is provided in the bill text.

Potential additional costs or savings not itemized in the bill:

  • Administrative and staffing costs to implement mapping, reporting, and interagency coordination.
  • Potential loss of mineral leasing or mining revenue on withdrawn Federal lands (not estimated in the bill).
  • Possible transportation or infrastructure mitigation costs where roads intersect corridors, though the bill specifies consultation and voluntary mitigation.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to solve the problem of broken or shrinking habitat connections that harm native species and reduce resilience to climate change. Possible arguments in favor include:

  • The bill appears intended to improve planning and data by centralizing mapping and research to identify critical corridors.
  • It could strengthen species’ ability to shift ranges, maintain genetic exchange, and recover from disturbances.
  • Coordinated federal action may give consistent direction across agencies and support State, Tribal, local, and private efforts.
  • Grant funding supports voluntary, on‑the‑ground projects on non‑Federal lands, encouraging private landowner participation.
  • The bill emphasizes voluntary cooperation and protects private property rights (no seizure or forced restriction without owner consent).

Opponents' View#

The bill raises several practical questions and trade‑offs based on its design:

  • One concern is that withdrawing Federal lands from mining and leasing laws could reduce resource development and related revenue; the bill does not estimate those impacts.
  • The requirement to “prohibit human infrastructure, development, and activities that impede wildlife movement” on designated corridors is broad; it is unclear how exceptions will be handled in practice and what activities on Federal lands will be curtailed.
  • The bill gives limited detail about how conflicts between corridor protections and existing uses (recreation, grazing, energy, timber, or state/local projects) will be resolved.
  • Administrative complexity and coordination across multiple agencies, states, Tribes, and stakeholders could be time‑consuming and costly; the bill authorizes money but does not provide detailed staffing or implementation plans.
  • The Defense waiver provision could create gaps in protections near military lands, and publication of waivers may be limited for security reasons.
  • While the bill authorizes funding, authorization does not guarantee appropriation; the actual funding available would depend on future appropriations decisions.

What is unclear:

  • How strictly corridor protections will be applied across different Federal land types and uses.
  • The economic effects on sectors that rely on Federal land access or resource extraction, because the bill includes no fiscal impact analysis beyond authorization amounts.