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]

That is the backdrop for House Bill 597, introduced by Delegate Shelly Simonds, which aimed to create something Virginia’s Wildlife Corridor Action Plan still lacks: a durable, dedicated implementation engine. [2][4]

If you received the January action alert saying HB 597 could be heard immediately, here is the update that matters. HB 597 was assigned to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Agriculture, and Natural Resources on January 20, 2026. [2] As of the DWR legislation tracker update dated January 28, 2026, the bill was tabled in subcommittee and is no longer moving forward this session. [3]

HB 597’s core move was to create a special nonreverting fund in the state treasury called the Wildlife Corridor Grant Fund. The Fund would be administered by the Director of DWR, while DWR, VDOT, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Department of Forestry would jointly develop the grant timeline, scoring system, and criteria. [4]

Eligible awards were designed to support both construction and the work that makes construction possible:

• Projects that conserve or enhance wildlife travel corridors prioritized by the Wildlife Corridor Action Plan, including associated wildlife crossing infrastructure projects (and related planning). [4]
• Feasibility studies, design, monitoring, and data collection needed to identify where crossings will actually reduce collisions and reconnect habitat. [4]
• Fencing and related measures that guide animals to safe crossing points, plus maintenance to keep completed projects functioning. [4]
• Matching dollars to leverage federal funding, which is often the difference between “good plan” and “built project.” [4][9]

HB 597 also tried to hardwire what “good” looks like by making collision reduction and connectivity explicit scoring priorities. The criteria included whether a project reduces high-cost wildlife-vehicle collisions, connects protected lands (including easements), benefits threatened or endangered species and species of greatest conservation need, extends the life and reduces maintenance costs of road infrastructure, and leverages federal grants. [4]

The action alert you received emphasized that HB 597 would have “no impact on the state budget.” The bill was clearly designed around voluntary contributions rather than a standing general fund appropriation. It directed voluntary contributions from income tax filings (Virginia’s tax checkoff mechanism) into the Fund, required DMV to offer a voluntary donation option during electronic transactions, and allowed gifts, donations, grants, and other funds. [4]

The fine print is that Virginia’s income-tax checkoff list is capped and performance-gated. New checkoffs generally cannot appear until there is room on the form (a maximum of 25), and checkoffs typically must meet minimum contribution thresholds over time to remain listed. That means the DMV pathway and private fundraising can be the faster on-ramp, and visible early wins matter for keeping voluntary models alive. [4]

This is not theory. VDOT’s crash countermeasures guidance reports that adding wildlife fencing to an existing bridge underpass and a large box culvert beneath Interstate 64 resulted in an average crash reduction of 92%, alongside up to a 410% increase in wildlife use of those structures. [5] A VTRC study of those I-64 sites found the benefits from crash reduction exceeded fencing costs in about 1.8 years, and estimated average savings of more than $2,300,000 per site over the lifetime of the fencing. [7]

Nationally, the evidence base is broad, and a recent Pew fact sheet summarizes why crossings paired with fencing are among the most effective tools for reducing large-mammal collisions: more than 80% reductions are common, and the upper range can reach 97% for certain species when projects are well-placed and well-designed. [8]

That effectiveness is exactly why federal funding is now on the table. The Federal Highway Administration’s Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program is structured to fund projects that reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions and improve habitat connectivity, including for terrestrial and aquatic species. Programs like this often require nonfederal match, which is where a state grant fund can turn a one-time federal opportunity into a repeatable pipeline. [9]

What comes next

HB 597 stalled, but the corridor work does not have to. Here are the most practical paths forward for Virginia in the near term:

• Reintroduce the grant fund concept in a future session, keeping the nonreverting structure and the explicit authority to fund studies, match, and maintenance. [4]
• Use budget language and targeted appropriations to fund WCAP priority feasibility studies and designs, so projects are shovel-ready when federal opportunities open. [1][9]
• Build and publish a short list of high-cost collision hotspots (where benefits are easiest to quantify), and prioritize projects that pair crossings with fencing. [1][5][7]
• Recruit philanthropic and private-sector partners to seed early projects, then use results to sustain the voluntary revenue streams over time. [4][8]

If you are contacting legislators about reviving this idea, keep the message simple and specific: support a dedicated, nonreverting Wildlife Corridor Grant Fund, ensure it can fund feasibility and matching dollars (not only concrete), and prioritize measurable crash reduction in the highest-cost areas. [4]

 

References

[1] Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR). “Virginia’s Wildlife Corridor Action Plan.” Web page accessed February 2026. https://dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/corridors/

[2] Virginia Legislative Information System (LIS). “HB 597 - 2026 Regular Session (Bill Details).” Accessed February 2026. https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB597

[3] Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR). “2026 Virginia General Assembly Legislation.” Updated January 28, 2026. https://dwr.virginia.gov/legislation/

[4] Virginia House of Delegates. “HB 597 (Introduced) - Wildlife Corridor Grant Fund established; voluntary contributions; report.” Bill text (LIS), January 2026. https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB597/text/HB597

[5] Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). “Large Animal Crash Countermeasures in Virginia.” April 2022 (VDOT PDF). https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/doing-business/technical-guidance-and-support/environmental/Large_Animal_Crash_Countermeasures_in_Virginia_April_2022_acc11072024.pdf

[6] Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC). Donaldson, B.M., et al. “An Evaluation of Wildlife Crossing Design, Placement, Costs, and Maintenance in Virginia.” 24-R8. 2023. https://vtrc.virginia.gov/media/vtrc/vtrc-pdf/vtrc-pdf/24-R8.pdf

[7] Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC). Donaldson, B.M., et al. “Enhancing Existing Isolated Underpasses With Fencing to Reduce Wildlife Crashes and Connect Habitat.” 20-R28. 2020. https://vtrc.virginia.gov/media/vtrc/vtrc-pdf/vtrc-pdf/20-r28.pdf

[8] The Pew Charitable Trusts. “Wildlife Crossings Save Lives, Cut Costs, and Protect Animals.” Fact sheet, January 2026. https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2026/01/wildlife-crossings-save-lives-cut-costs-and-protect-animals

[9] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). “Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program Fact Sheet.” Accessed February 2026. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/wildlife_crossings_pilot_program_fact_sheet.cfm