DOT Releases $126 Million In Wildlife Crossing Grants For 17 States
A deer crossing the road in Washington state.
Wildlife crossing projects for red wolves in North Carolina and Nevada tortoises are among $126 million in federal infrastructure grants to 17 states that U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy finalized from a backlog of 3,200 unexecuted Biden era grants.
Duffy announced May 14 the U.S. Department of Transportation's fulfillment of wildlife crossings pilot program grants awarded in 2024 that were among 76 infrastructure grants worth $607 million approved under President Joe Biden's administration without being finalized.
'This unprecedented backlog of unobligated grants delayed critical investments in communities across the country,' noted the DOT press announcement. It linked delays in executing the federal grants during the Biden administration due to red tape resulting from such policies as the 'social cost of carbon accounting, pointless greenhouse gas emission reporting, and discriminatory DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion]
Now Federal Highway Administration funds will be released to the 16 wildlife crossing projects in Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Pennsylvania.
A spokesperson for the Nevada Department of Transportation confirmed being notified of the federal green light to send $16.83 million to the Coyote Springs Tortoise Crossings Project. 'We're pleased the grant is back in motion,' the spokesperson said. The project is to construction 61 wildlife crossings and install 68 miles of protective fencing along U.S. Highway 93 in southern Nevada. The Mojave desert tortoise, federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act weighs, is getting run over by vehicles while trying to cross the road and increasing its mortality rates.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's grant is for $25 million to create several wildlife underpasses and fencing along U.S. Route 64 within the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare County. The goal is to better connect wildlife habitats for endangered red wolves, black bears and white-tailed deer to lower wildlife-vehicle collisions.
The Florida DOT will receive $6.1 million for its U.S. Highway 27-Venus Wildlife Crossing in Highlands County to build an underpass for creatures such as black bears and panthers to freely cross without being struck by passing vehicles.
The latest batch of finalized FHWA grants also includes six infrastructure projects approved but DOT in 2022 under the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant program. These awards will go to the California DOT ($6 million) to replace an undersized corrugated pipe culvert with a spanning bridge and remove upstream concrete barrier to enable endangered or threatened fish (such as steelhead trout, coho salmon and Pacific lamprey) to better pass through the San Lorenzo River in Castle Rock State Park.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife now will receive a $9.25 million grant to improve a fish passage and native migratory fish habitat under Oregon Route 99 for coho, cutthroat, winter and summer steelhead. The current culvert is a corrugated metal pipe with fish weirs.
Three Native American tribes also are receiving the culvert grants for fish passages. The Passmaquoddy Tribe in Maine has a $7.74 million culvert grant unfrozen to improve access to Atlantic salmon habitats, 7,631 acres of alewife (herring) spawning and 40 miles of river habitat for fish in Downeast Maine.
In Washington state, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe is receiving $2.55 million for a project to replace a pair of undersized corrugated culverts on the Indian Mary Springs tributary to the Columbia River with a new 90‐foot steel bridge crossing. The venture will restore fish access to water and habitats for salmon and steelhead trout. The state's Nooksack Indian Tribe also was given funding distribution to a culvert grant ($1.23 million) for the Jones Creek Fish Passage project to replace a barrier box culvert in Jones with a bridge that will improve fish passage.
Although the culvert grants are primarily meant to improve infrastructure, government organizations are taking advantage of federal financial support in these community projects to also benefit wildlife survival and create better habitat connectivity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats see political trap in Trump's Biden probe
Democrats are warning members of their party not to fall into a political trap after President Trump ordered an investigation into former President Biden's mental state and executive actions at the end of his term. Trump directed his counsel, in consultation with the attorney general, to probe 'whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden's mental state' amid renewed scrutiny of his predecessor's age and health in the lead-up to last year's election. The probe threatens to keep an issue in the news that Democrats would like to move on from and could force them into the uncomfortable position of having to defend Biden despite his unpopularity. 'We need to avoid taking the bait for a totally unfounded political stunt, which is what this investigation is,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). 'It's a distraction from the problems that everyday Americans face in our economy: tariffs, rising prices and the 'Great Big, Beautiful Bill.'' Biden also cast the play as a distraction from controversy swirling around the current White House, pushing back sharply against Trump's suggestion that he was not the one making the decisions from the Oval Office. Trump's call for an investigation fixates on Biden's use of an autopen to sign executive actions, claiming that, if advisers 'secretly used' the mechanism 'to conceal his incapacity,' it would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of presidential power. 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,' Biden said in a statement. 'This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations.' On Capitol Hill, where Trump's House-passed spending bill is hitting snags in the Senate as Elon Musk feuds with Trump and calls to kill the legislation, other Democrats are echoing that framing. 'He's clearly trying to deflect attention from the disastrous effect he's had on the US economy,' said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). 'He only brings up Joe Biden when he's really worried about something, like 'Vladimir Putin is playing me and the world sees it. My tariffs thing is not working out.'' 'So I would say, give it as little attention as possible,' Kaine said, suggesting Democrats should turn the inquiry around on Trump and say, ''You're the president now. What about your evidence of mental decline?'' Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) and Ruben Gallego (D-N.M.) concurred that the move is a distraction from the bill and that Democrats should respond by drawing Americans' focus to the budget concerns instead. Engaging could also risk legitimizing some of Trump's claims about the end of Biden's term, suggested Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright. He called the push for an investigation 'a distraction pitch that Donald Trump is trying to throw down at the batter's box, hoping somebody will swing at it.' 'Anytime we fall into the trap, then we trap our own selves,' Seawright said of Democrats. 'We should focus on this moment and not try to get caught up into conversations that don't gain us anything electorally or politically.' Questions about Biden's age and health dogged him along the 2024 campaign trail, contributing to his eventual exit from the race. Trump, who railed against his two-time rival as 'Sleepy Joe' as they jostled for the White House, has continued to raise the issue, while Democrats seek to turn the page and look toward the midterms and 2028. Trump has repeatedly blasted Biden over his autopen use, questioning whether orders signed by his predecessor — including 11th-hour preemptive pardons for his family members and others to protect against 'politically motivated prosecutions' — are void as a result. The White House confirmed this week that the Department of Justice is reviewing Biden's pardons. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has also started its own inquiry into what Republicans have cast as a 'mental decline cover up.' This week, Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) demanded interviews from some of Biden's former top aides as well as his doctor, Kevin O'Connor. At the same time, new books, including 'Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again' from CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson, have renewed debate about his mental acuity. The scrutiny also comes after Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer last month. The diagnosis itself prompted questions about whether the timing was intended as a distraction and did little to quell talk about whether the 82-year-old should have dropped out of the race earlier. Republicans, for their part, are largely heralding the inquiries as a pursuit in transparency. 'The American people deserve to know who was making decisions from the White House between 2021-2025. I hope this investigation uncovers the truth,' Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said on X of Trump's probe. A number of Democrats seen as 2028 hopefuls, asked in recent weeks about the end of Biden's presidency, have acknowledged his weaknesses. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told an Iowa town hall last month that his then-boss's decision to run for reelection 'maybe' hurt Democrats, and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Politico there's 'no doubt' Biden suffered cognitive decline. Across the board, though, Democrats have been pointing toward the future and hoping to move on from questions about their former party leader as they stare down the high-stakes midterms next year and aim for the White House in 2028. Biden's favorability was at 39 percent in the latest YouGov/The Economist polling, compared to Trump's 44 percent and former Vice President Harris's 42 percent. 'If Democrats shift their focus to this, then they risk further alienating and frustrating their base that is ready to put Biden behind them,' said Democratic strategist Fred Hicks. He pointed out Trump's public fallout this week with Musk, who's suggested that Trump's bill could be 'bankrupting America,' and suggested it could be opening for Democrats in their pushback against the administration. But although Democrats are pushing for the party to ignore not just the probe but the Biden discourse more broadly, many have acknowledged that the issue is likely to dog them through 2028 and could even be a political liability for some potential presidential contenders. Strategist Hank Sheinkopfinterpreted Trump's new probe not as a trap or bait, but as a direct attack, and countered some of his fellow Democrats by arguing that the party ought to respond. ''Take [Trump] on or lose in 2026' is really the reality which they don't want to deal with. They somehow believe that if they don't take them on, they'll win anyway,' Sheinkopf said of party leaders. 'What they want is [to say], 'Biden, we're not talking about that, that's the past.' But that's the present. So it's a delusional argument,' he said. 'Trump is making this the present. He's defining the Demcoratic Party by Biden, and the things he's going to say about Biden, whether they are true or not. So you can't let that stand.'
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump stokes fear, confusion with pulled emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration sowed confusion and fear among physicians with its move this past week to rescind Biden-era guidelines to hospitals that provide life-saving abortions. While the move doesn't change the law, doctors and reproductive-rights advocates fear it will have a chilling effect on health care workers in states with abortion bans, ultimately harming pregnant women. Earlier this past week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced they would rescind guidance issued during the Biden administration, which reinforced to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA,) abortions qualify as stabilizing care in medical emergencies. Emergency rooms in states with abortion bans have been struggling since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade to understand when they can legally provide emergency abortions. After President Trump pulled the Biden-era guidance seeking to clarify that question, emergency room doctors will experience 'more confusion' and 'more fear,' according to health and legal experts who spoke with The Hill. 'Clinicians are scared to provide basic medical care, and this care is clearly in line with medical ethics … medical standards of care, and they're being put in this situation where they can't win,' said Payal Shah, director of research, legal and advocacy at Physicians for Human Rights. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least 13 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. There are exceptions in these states when continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to the health or life of the mother. However, most of the language in state laws is unclear on how that determination is made, resulting in instances of emergency rooms denying care. Doctors in states like Idaho, Texas and Tennessee have filed lawsuits requesting that lawmakers clarify when an abortion is allowed to save the life of a pregnant person. The doctors and patients involved in the lawsuits argue that state laws do not adequately protect pregnant patients in emergencies. Many of these states have severe punishments for doctors who violate abortion bans, like steep fines and prison time. 'For clinicians, there is actually no safe way to navigate this in this moment, and ultimately, that's how these laws are designed,' Shah said. 'They're designed to cause chaos and confusion. They're often written in ways that don't use medical terminology.' Without clear guidance, pregnant women suffer and sometimes die, as ProPublica has reported. One striking example of this is the 2023 case of Kyleigh Thurman, a Texas woman who was repeatedly denied care for a nonviable pregnancy after days of experiencing bleeding and pain. Health care workers discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg implants and begins to grow outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and are life-threatening if not treated properly. It wasn't until her OB/GYN 'pleaded to hospital staff that she be given care,' that the hospital administered a shot ending her pregnancy, according to a complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Thurman. The shot came too late, and the ectopic pregnancy ruptured Thurman's right fallopian tube, which was then removed. 'If a patient is actively hemorrhaging or experiencing an ectopic pregnancy which is also life-threatening, doctors need that clear guidance that yes, EMTALA applied,' said Autumn Katz, associate director of U.S. litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. A federal investigation into Thurman's case found that the Texas hospital violated EMTALA, according to a recent letter from the CMS. 'I finally got some justice,' Thurman said in a statement. 'I hope this decision will do some good in encouraging hospitals to help women in situations like mine.' Hospitals that violate EMTALA are subject to heavy fines and, in some extreme cases, risk losing a portion of their Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, according to the National Institutes of Health. Former President Biden leaned on the law to preserve access to emergency abortion across the country, leading to a legal fight with Idaho, which has a strict abortion ban. The Supreme Court last year dismissed the case, declining to rule on the merits of a politically charged case. The rescinding of these guidelines also means hospitals that violate the law will likely not be investigated as often as they were under previous administrations, according to Shah. That lack of punitive risk means that hospitals could be incentivized to deny life-saving care for patients. 'The standard of EMTALA is pretty high,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 'This kind of takes that layer of reassurance away, and it will make a lot of providers feel very vulnerable.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
