Donald Beyer (D-VA)
Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity Conservation Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 9 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity Conservation Act of 2026, aims to protect and restore natural habitats so native fish, plants, and wildlife can move safely across land and water. It sets up a scientific mapping program run by the U.S. Geological Survey to track wildlife movement and identify habitat gaps. The legislation establishes a National Wildlife Corridor System on federal lands and waters through statutes, rules, or land management plans. It creates a Coordinating Committee and allows state, tribal, and local governments, along with public groups, to nominate federal areas as wildlife corridors. Additionally, the bill sets up a grant program funded at $75,000,000 annually to support voluntary conservation projects on non-federal lands and waters.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +8
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill establishes a National Wildlife Corridors System to protect habitat connectivity and biodiversity.
- Scored +5
Does this put more money into scientific research?
The bill authorizes $5,000,000 annually for a habitat connectivity mapping and science program.
- Scored +5
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill grants Federal agencies significant authority to designate and manage National Wildlife Corridors.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill prohibits certain types of development and mineral leasing in designated corridors.
- Scored -3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill prohibits human infrastructure and development within designated National Wildlife Corridors.
- Scored -2
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill restricts certain human activities and land entries that could affect agricultural land use near corridors.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Support for Voluntary Private Landowners and Local Groups: Section 301 establishes a wildlife movement grant program that provides annual grants to voluntary private landowners, agricultural cooperatives, local governments, and Indian Tribes to increase habitat connectivity. This benefits local communities by providing financial support for local conservation and restoration work.
-
Improved Public Safety on Roads: Section 203(g) requires federal officials to consult with state, tribal, and local transportation agencies to implement voluntary environmental mitigation measures. This provision aims to improve public safety and reduce vehicle-caused wildlife crashes through the construction of underpasses, overpasses, and fencing.
-
Respect for Private Property Rights: Section 260(b) explicitly protects citizens by including a savings clause stating that nothing in the title authorizes the seizure of private property through eminent domain or the imposition of restrictions on the use of private land without the landowner's consent.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restrictions on Land Use and Development: Section 203(a)(2) prohibits human infrastructure, development, and activities that impede wildlife movement within National Wildlife Corridors, except where required to meet the minimum requirements of the Act. This could limit certain public or economic uses on designated federal lands and waters.
-
Withdrawal of Public Lands from Mining and Leasing: Section 203(e) dictates that all federal lands and interests within a designated National Wildlife Corridor are withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under public land laws, location and patent under mining laws, and the operation of mineral, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws. This may negatively impact industries and individuals who rely on access to these federal lands for mining and energy development.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill establishes a National Wildlife Corridors System to protect habitat connectivity and biodiversity. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — The bill encourages the construction of wildlife underpasses, overpasses, and culverts to mitigate road impacts. Does this invest in rural communities? — The grant program provides financial resources to rural water districts and local governments for habitat connectivity.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill authorizes $5,000,000 annually for a habitat connectivity mapping and science program.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill grants Federal agencies significant authority to designate and manage National Wildlife Corridors.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill prohibits human infrastructure and development within designated National Wildlife Corridors.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill provides grant opportunities for Indian Tribes to increase habitat connectivity on their lands. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill provides grants to local governments and water districts for conservation and connectivity projects. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill prohibits certain types of development and mineral leasing in designated corridors. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill restricts certain human activities and land entries that could affect agricultural land use near corridors. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Restrictions on land development may indirectly contribute to higher land prices or housing scarcity.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The bill's environmental restrictions could theoretically limit land access for certain outdoor-oriented veteran activities.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The bill's restrictions on development in wildlife corridors could limit land available for residential expansion.
- 9/24/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/31/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/6/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/22/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Vern BuchananRepublican · Florida
Julia BrownleyDemocrat · California
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Laura FriedmanDemocrat · California
Timothy KennedyDemocrat · New York
Zoe LofgrenDemocrat · California
Kevin MullinDemocrat · California
Frank PalloneDemocrat · New Jersey
Mike ThompsonDemocrat · California