SB 635 establishes a new state framework for wildlife connectivity and highway-crossing projects in Maryland. The bill creates the Maryland Connectivity Coalition, a multi-agency and stakeholder body led by the State Highway Administration, to coordinate efforts to protect threatened and endangered species, reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions, and share data and expertise on habitat connectivity. The coalition must develop project-prioritization criteria, performance metrics, and a public website with information about its work, meetings, and completed or planned crossings.
The bill also creates the Wildlife Connectivity Fund as a special, nonlapsing fund to support planning, design, construction, maintenance, monitoring, outreach, and related administrative costs for wildlife crossings and collision-mitigation projects. The Department of Natural Resources is directed to administer the fund with the State Highway Administration, create a donation website, and, if feasible, add a donation option to the vehicle registration portal. The bill further requires the State Highway Administration to report on wildlife crossings in the State’s consolidated transportation plan, including expenditures, projects in progress, and performance outcomes.
In addition to the new wildlife program, SB 635 amends Maryland land use law to require charter counties and local jurisdictions to consider wildlife movement and habitat connectivity when adopting or revising comprehensive plans. It also directs the Department of Planning, working with Natural Resources and the State Highway Administration, to provide local jurisdictions updated information on habitat connectivity concerns and current and planned wildlife crossings. The bill exempts the Wildlife Connectivity Fund from the State’s general interest-crediting rule so that interest earnings remain in the fund.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress appears favorable. The Senate committee reported the bill favorably with amendments, and the full Senate adopted it; the bill then passed third reading with a strong 38-9 vote. That voting pattern suggests broad support for the general concept of wildlife protection and safer road crossings, while the amendments indicate some refinement of the program’s structure and administration.
The main points of contention are likely to center on governance, funding, and land-use implications. The bill gives the State Highway Administration final decision-making authority over the placement, funding, and design of wildlife crossings, which may have been intended to resolve interagency disputes but could limit coalition influence. Local governments may also view the new requirement to consider wildlife movement and habitat connectivity in planning decisions as an added planning obligation. Finally, the creation of a dedicated fund, donation mechanisms, and potential transfers to the Transportation Trust Fund raise questions about fiscal administration and how much state money should be committed to these projects versus other transportation priorities.
SB 635 adds a new section to the Natural Resources Article creating the Maryland Connectivity Coalition and the Wildlife Connectivity Fund, and it amends the Land Use Article to require wildlife connectivity considerations in local and charter county comprehensive planning. It also amends the State Finance and Procurement Article to exempt the Wildlife Connectivity Fund from the general rule that net interest on certain special funds accrues to the General Fund, allowing interest to remain with the new fund. The bill affects the Department of Natural Resources, the State Highway Administration, the Department of Planning, local jurisdictions, and counties by creating new coordination, reporting, and planning duties related to wildlife crossings and habitat connectivity.
The bill appears to have received generally positive support. The committee reported it favorably with amendments, the Senate adopted the committee report, and the bill passed third reading by a substantial margin of 38 yeas to 9 nays. That vote suggests broad agreement on the need to address wildlife-vehicle collisions and habitat fragmentation, with some legislators likely seeking changes to the bill’s administrative structure or funding approach.
Likely areas of disagreement include the extent of State Highway Administration control, since the bill gives SHA final decision-making authority over wildlife crossing placement, funding, and design. Another possible concern is the new planning mandate for local and charter county governments to consider wildlife movement and habitat connectivity, which could be viewed as expanding land-use review requirements. Fiscal issues may also have been debated, including the creation of a special nonlapsing fund, donation and grant mechanisms, and the possibility of transferring money to the Transportation Trust Fund.