Update note: This article was updated on February 13, 2026 to reflect committee action taken after the original publication date.

Virginia has a wildlife corridor plan and a wildlife-vehicle collision problem large enough to demand follow-through. More than 60,000 known deer-vehicle collisions have occurred annually in Virginia since 2015, costing the Commonwealth and its citizens approximately $533,000,000 each year. [1]

In response, Delegate Shelly Simonds introduced HB 597 to create the Wildlife Corridor Grant Fund, a dedicated, non-reverting account designed to move Virginia from planning toward implementation. The bill frames corridors as public safety infrastructure and conservation infrastructure at the same time: fewer crashes, less property damage, fewer emergency responses, and better habitat connectivity for the wildlife populations that sustain Virginia’s hunting, angling, and outdoor recreation traditions.

What HB 597 does, in plain terms

HB 597 establishes a Wildlife Corridor Grant Fund administered by the Department of Wildlife Resources in consultation with partner agencies. It authorizes grants to eligible applicants, including state agencies, localities, metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation authorities, Tribes, nonprofits, and academic institutions. [2]

Grant criteria in the bill focuses on whether a project advances priorities identified in the Wildlife Corridor Action Plan, reduces high-cost wildlife-vehicle collisions, connects protected areas, benefits priority wildlife, and leverages available federal funding. [2] That structure reinforces science-based prioritization rather than one-off projects driven by politics or convenience.

The bill also recognizes that early progress is not always concrete and steel. HB 597 allows funding for activities like data collection, feasibility studies, designs and plans, infrastructure monitoring, and the matching funds that are often required to unlock federal grants. [2]

How the fund could be financed, and why that question is harder than it looks

HB 597 ties the Fund to Virginia’s existing income tax voluntary contribution system. In that system, taxpayers can designate a portion of their refund to listed causes. [2]

Virginia’s income tax return can only carry a limited number of voluntary contributions at one time, and new entries can sit in a queue until space opens. [3] That is not an argument against HB 597. It is a reminder that voluntary checkoff mechanisms can be slow to ramp up, even when the public supports the cause.

This is why a grant fund approach is still worth pursuing. Once the funding stream is real, the Commonwealth can use those dollars as a match to compete for federal transportation and wildlife-crossing programs, including the Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program administered by the Federal Highway Administration. [4] These programs can support both terrestrial and aquatic connectivity improvements, which matters because culvert upgrades and aquatic organism passage projects are often part of corridor solutions. [4]

Where the bill stands right now

Legislative status can change quickly, and HB 597 advanced after early reporting suggested it was stalling. HB 597 was reported from House Appropriations on February 11, 2026 (15-Y, 7-N), and a fiscal impact statement was issued on February 12, 2026. [5] In practical terms, that means the bill remained alive at that point in the session and was still in play.

Why this should matter to hunters and anglers, not just motorists

The best argument for corridors is not abstract. Corridors help animals move through landscapes increasingly segmented by highways, subdivisions, and commercial development. Connectivity supports healthier wildlife populations and reduces conflict. It also reduces the human costs of wildlife collisions, which show up as real expenses for families and communities.

Virginia already has strong evidence that targeted mitigation works. VDOT guidance and supporting research indicate that fencing paired with existing underpasses can sharply reduce deer-vehicle collisions and increase safe underpass use. [6] In one Virginia research effort, crash reduction benefits exceeded fencing costs in about 1.8 years, with average savings exceeding $2,300,000 per site. [7]

That is the bridge corridor policy should build: projects that are defensible on public safety grounds and equally defensible on conservation and wildlife management grounds.

What you can do this week

If you want Virginia to move from planning to action, your message to legislators can be simple and practical:

• Support HB 597 because it creates a dedicated, non-reverting funding mechanism to implement the Wildlife Corridor Action Plan.
• Emphasize that wildlife crossings and related mitigation are proven safety investments that also conserve habitat connectivity.
• Encourage a version of the bill that keeps a clear pathway for leveraging federal dollars and matching funds.

A note on HB 596

HB 597 is the funding side of the corridor equation. A related bill, HB 596, was aimed at the implementation and accountability side by setting up a structure for interagency coordination and reporting. HB 596 did not advance this session, but the concept pairs naturally with HB 597 in future sessions: one bill helps create a funding stream, the other helps ensure the Commonwealth measures progress and stays on an implementation timeline. [8]

Virginia’s corridor work does not need to be a one-session effort. It needs to be a sustained effort built on sound science, prioritized project selection, and clear public reporting. HB 597 is one meaningful step toward that outcome.

-Garrett Robinson is the Corporate Partnerships Manager for the Armed Forces Initiative of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and a retired Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant with 26 years of active-duty service. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization or entity. He lives in Stafford, Virginia.

References

[1] Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources. Virginia Wildlife Corridor Action Plan.

[2] Virginia Legislative Information System. HB 597 bill details.

[3] Virginia Code § 58.1-344.3 voluntary contributions requirements and constraints (context).

[4] Federal Highway Administration. Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program.

[5] LegiScan. HB 597 actions and fiscal impact timing.

[6] Virginia Department of Transportation. Large Animal Crash Countermeasures in Virginia.

[7] Virginia Transportation Research Council. Enhancing Existing Isolated Underpasses With Fencing to Reduce Wildlife Crashes (VTRC report).

[8] Virginia Legislative Information System. HB 596 bill text and committee disposition.