Establishes provisions relating to wildlife crossings. (BDR 35-340)
Impact
AB112 mandates the collaboration between the Department of Transportation and the Department of Wildlife to assess the current highway design standards and identify locations with a high need for wildlife crossings. The bill requires the creation of an updated inventory that details connectivity needs, helping to prioritize projects that enhance wildlife movement across highways. Specifically, newly funded projects would be instrumental in promoting wildlife permeability, which is vital for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem health in the face of expanding urban infrastructure.
Summary
Assembly Bill No. 112, also referred to as AB112, establishes significant provisions regarding wildlife crossings in the state. The bill creates the Wildlife Crossings Account within the State General Fund, which will be overseen by the Director of the Department of Transportation. The primary goal of this legislation is to improve wildlife safety and health by reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions and enhancing connectivity for wildlife through the implementation of specific infrastructure features across the state’s highway system. This initiative recognizes the importance of wildlife in the state and aims to mitigate risks posed to both animals and motorists.
Conclusion
Enacted on July 1, 2023, AB112 reflects a growing recognition of the necessity to address wildlife conservation within transportation planning. As environmental considerations become increasingly significant amid development challenges, this legislation represents a proactive step towards creating safer and more sustainable intersections between wildlife habitats and human infrastructure.
Contention
While the bill has broad support among wildlife advocates and environmentalists, there are concerns. Opponents worry that the bill may not sufficiently address the implications for land use and grazing permits, as it requires consultation with private landowners. There are apprehensions that without careful policy design, the integration of wildlife features might inadvertently disrupt existing land management practices. Furthermore, the appropriation of $5 million to facilitate these projects may raise questions about funding allocations and priorities in the context of competing state needs.