H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments: transcript

Yes. Mr. Chairman? That's correct.

Okay. I'm kind of, uh, happy to be back in, uh, be able to, uh, present in this committee. You guys are welcome. Uh, uh, appreciate the committee, uh, taking us on, uh, HB 4 31. Um, first substitute Wildlife Crossing Amendments. This is a, you know, this is the kind of a bill I like to do at, uh, um, when we pass something like this, we have the potential of seeing what we've done one of these days. I mean, you know, uh, if you look at the top of, uh, parleys Canyon, where we've got, uh, a, uh, world class, uh, wildlife crossing, crossing the interstate, uh, 80 up there, and, uh, you know, we don't have any idea how many dollars we've saved, how many animals lives, and how many, uh, potential, uh, people that it could be, uh, could have been affected by, uh, collision. So anyway, hb uh, uh, and the amendment just kind of clarifies a couple things, but HB 4 31, uh, creates a fund within the, the Transportation Infrastructure Fund, the TIFF Fund for Wildlife and Livestock Safety. The money is from sales and use tax. Uh, plus any donations suggestions are that $1 donation with car registration and also dollars. Uh, no, uh, specific, uh, uh, dollars on, on hunting license, hunting permits, uh, could be added to it. Uh, you know, somebody wants to opt in when they, uh, get their drive, uh, their car license. There's a, gonna have, probably have a check on there. You can donate a dollar and add that to your, uh, registration cost when you want, if you, if you feel so inclined. Also on, uh, possibly hunting and fishing licenses, similar type stuff. Um, so we'll have, uh, the DOT wildlife and, uh, other stakeholders decide where this, uh, where the best opportunities to put this money and where it needs to be. And it will go into an non lapsing. And 10% of it can be used for, uh, areas where we've got high livestock, uh, uh, inclinations. And, you know, like we said, it'll be for along all highways will be, uh, looked at. Um, and of course there'll be fencing, overpasses, culverts, and any other kind of fish passages or whatever that might be needed. And it'll be decided by, and like I said, this is what kind I like to do. 'cause one of these days we'll be driving down the road being so there's, uh, something that we help fund and, and saved a lot of li uh, animals' lives. I, I like to point out one of the things I think that might be really, uh, just a benefit that we'll see years from now, eight years from now, we've got the, the, uh, if we get snow eight years from now, we're supposed to have the old Window Olympics here. And it would be great not to have too many, uh, you know, mangled deer laying along beside the road when the world comes to visit us. So, uh, that'll be another plus we'll have. So anyway, with that, that's, uh, basically what, uh, the bill does. Let's go out there and, uh, save some wildlife and, and make sure we keep that safe for the livestock.

Uh, let me, let me pull it here. I'll, the amendment. What it does is, uh, uh, the Department of um, wildlife said that, uh, they like to call it, you know, I mean, we're technically getting a hunting permit rather than a hunting license, even that we refer to it as a license. And, uh, and we didn't wanna limit the contribution of a dollar, so any amount can, that's why, uh, it was, uh, not, you know, taken off. And those are the only two things it does. Just wherever we talked about a license with wildlife, we change it to permit. And, uh, and the way it's written, the way I understand that tells us that we can, uh, we don't have a limit on the amount of money that can be donated.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I wanna make sure I am getting this right. So it's the only money that's coming in is voluntary contributions. There's no new fees, new taxes, anything like this. So completely voluntary. So

We're gonna take, uh, $2 million that, that's, this is the way, uh, we've said that. But we're gonna take $2 million that are within the transportation fund and be able to airmark to, uh, the transportation infrastructure and a fund, an air market for, uh, wildlife crossings and, uh, livestock safety, uh, places. And also included will be, uh, any, uh, distri any, uh, donations.

So if I may follow up, Mr. Chairman, go ahead. So the, the 2 million that's coming from the tiff, that has to be appropriated somehow, right? That's,

That's that I got that. I've got some, there's some, uh, DOT people here that probably could answer that better than I can. Okay.

That might be, might be good to find out how that money, but, and that money would just come from the tiff. It's not necessarily from motor vehicle registrations, it's

Just No. The motor vehicle registration. Well, I don't know how the T's for sure funded, but Yeah. But that, uh, donation part of that would be just, uh, something that it, when you go down or when you get your go online or however you get your, uh, registration notification, you, there'll be a place you can check and, and then that'll be included on, on what you pay.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I don't know if it would be appropriate to have Udot come up now or during public comment to answer that question. That would be helpful.

Uh, good afternoon. Oh, you should be on. Good. A good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Carlos ud, Utah Department of

Okay. Utah Department of Transportation. There we go. Uh, the, the question, so the, the Transportation Investment Fund is in statute that 27.68% of the statewide sales tax goes to the Transportation Investment Fund. It's about $1.3 billion a year that is used for capacity projects. This bill would now statutorily take 2 million every year from that fund and put it into this subaccount to be used for the purposes described, described by Representative Chew.

There you go. Okay. So to make sure I understand. So that, uh, fund, uh, right now there is a prioritization process to prioritize all these processes. If this bill were to pass, it would automatically jump to the front of the line.

Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Yes, thank you. Thank you. So, so right now it would, this is not considered a project. So this would be just a, you know, a above the line, take down $2 million out of that 1.3 approximately. 'cause it's a percentage of sales tax, um, every year going into a sub account. And so the projects that would then be identified as described in the bill would be done in consultation with the Division of Wildlife Resources to come up with, you know, wildlife saving projects.

Yeah, I, I'm just still trying to figure out where the, where the, what the impact. So if, if this bill were to pass this project would be funded, and then other projects that are competing ideas that are competing for the other fund possibly wouldn't be funded.

Mr. Chairman, Go ahead. Thanks, father. Yes, thank you. Um, I would say that this is more of a cash flow issue because this is a program, not a pro, is, the way I look at that is this is a program that every year we'll be looking to identify projects within that, um, there are, this would not have, we have about $12 billion of projects currently programmed right now. And we like to maintain about two to $300 million balance because the pace of expenditures and the rate of the money coming in are things that we try to manage when we're dealing with that amount of money. $2 million is not gonna impact any of the projects that are programmed. And when you think about the size of the projects that we're, we're having to program, again, it's, it's, um, not gonna have an really any meaningful impact. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay.

Thank you. Uh, so just kind of tag you along on, on that. Um, so I, I asked some questions about the same thing, you know, but it seems like we're doing some of those crossings anyway throughout the year, but, but the way that's paid is on the project basis, right?

Yes. So, so Mr. Chair, what, the way we do these right now, it's, it's, they're one-offs mostly. And so we look for opportunities where we have money either within the transportation fund, so that's money coming from the gas tax, um, or we look for opportunities with federal grants to be able to do these. And I believe the intent of the representative here is to create this ongoing program for us to be able to then kind of build a list of projects that we could get to. And so it's, we're much more intentional about doing it. I don't wanna speak for the representative.

I, I appreciate that. 'cause that's, uh, exactly how I intended it to be.

So will you still be going for federal grants?

Yes. All right. We, sorry. But we, we look for every opportunity to bring money to the state as, as best we can.

Okay. So some of these projects, the way understand that it might take years of building up that fund to do a project. 'cause one bridge might take $10 million out or, or more, whatever. Yeah. So they, uh, they're pretty expensive. But, uh, anyway, thanks for the explanation,

Thank you. Um, do, do we have any idea how many projects we might, we might need throughout the state to do this?

Well, um, I, I couldn't say, uh, exactly. We, we just got started, but, uh, we do have some folks here that could probably answer that.

Yeah. Because if we could, because I'm wondering how many projects

We've got. We've got our eyes on, on, on a number of, but yeah, I'd like to, uh, to have, uh, Isabelle help me here.

Hi. Um, so in speaking to the, can

I'm Isabelle Lingenfelter, representing the Utah Wildlife Federation. Um, in speaking to the Division of Wildlife Resources, they've identified a list of over 20 projects across the state, uh, that this would go toward.

And, and so if I could continue, uh, 20 projects, do we have an idea how many? 'cause some of 'em are gonna, they're gonna vary in cost, right? I mean, if the bridge is gonna cost 10 million and a fence is gonna cost 2000 or something, I don't know. Do we have an idea how much it would cost to do these?

Um, so they vary in price from $70,000 to $14 million.

And, and are there, beyond the, you mentioned 20, but there's gotta be more than, I mean, if we took care of the whole estate, there's gotta be more than 20.

Uh, so that's the priority list that they've identified at this point. Um, there's a little over 20 projects on there.

Alright, thank you. And I, I'd like to interject

to there, uh, representative, you know, uh, if you've been, uh, like out in rural Utah as much as I have just since what's happened as far as traffic since, uh, COVID and, and, uh, there's a lot of places where we've got, uh, more traffic currently than we did four or five years ago, and we don't know how that might change. So it, you know, it'll all play into what we're gonna try to, to do.

I, I've got a question. Um, you got $1.3 billion TIFF fund, you're gonna pull $2 million every year ongoing, that fills up this account that will be used to mitigate wildlife damage or crossings. Is, is the programming, is Udot already doing the programming around projects of this nature? Sorry, Carlos.

That's all right. I think that's good for Carlos to get to come up here back and forth. Get my exercise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Carlos p use our Department of Transportation. Um, we are actively working, we do this on a, on a daily basis, working with the Division of Wildlife Resources and the local communities around the state, identifying where there's opportunities to mitigate for, um, wildlife inter, you know, interactions with vehicles. And so it's for, from our perspective, obviously we, we don't want to have dead animals hit on the road, but we also think of it from a public, a safety issue. You know,

It's, I guess what I'm getting at is you're already doing this. Yes. This would just create a designation, sub-account fund to support your efforts continually that you're already doing. Is that fair to, is that accurate?

Yeah. Again, we didn't propose this bill, um, but this would, this would create an opportunity where there'd be constant money coming in that we could then program against instead of looking for those one, one-time opportunities.

Great. Thank you, Carlos. And just to this, the bill sponsor, I guess the, the thing you would say though is that it would allow other donations to come into the fund. And I suppose that's the value add is am I That's,

That, that's part of it. Plus, uh, I foresee the opportunity that, uh, you know, we've got a lot of, uh, situations out there, um, just like in my area with the drought like it is. And, uh, the need to, uh, do a good job of managing the grazing and stuff on our, uh, rangeland for both the benefit of, uh, livestock and wildlife plus the safety. If, uh, we can combine these with some other programs such as, say, the Gipp program or some of them where we can, uh, help with safety, combine it with, with, uh, other monies to, uh, create, uh, grazing management opportunities, that those are just sort of a plus that could be, you know, a plus one you might say, on when we're going about trying to, uh, pick these, uh, places. So, uh, I think it looks like a win-win for everybody, actually. And, and, yeah, uh, we're concerned about the money. Is it enough? But yeah, we start adding it up, it makes a difference.

My name's Elias Johnson. I, um, just with myself, I'm a, I'm a conservation biologist, uh, and I actually really support this bill, uh, in, in many regards. I think the idea of increasing wildlife corridors for connectivity, it is important for biodiversity and, uh, and things of that, of that nature. I, I will say I'm, uh, concerned about, um, 14, uh, I believe 14, uh, CII, uh, which says that the department shall use 10% of the money in account for livestock related safety protections. I don't see why that needs to be added to this bill specifically, because, um, I would think that that would be on the responsibility of the, the individual, uh, grazing the livestock and not on, on the public. And so, while I agree that it's important to care about wildlife across our state, and that is a state, uh, a state benefit, um, creating safety, uh, guards that, uh, that interact with, with that don't seem necessary to me.

So, Mr. Chair, can I, uh, can I respond to that or would you rather wait, tell, uh, later? I'm okay with later.

I'm Isabelle Lingenfelter. I represent the Utah Wildlife Federation. Uh, UO commissioned a study in 2018 that showed that animal vehicle collisions cost the state $137 million a year. Uh, this investment in building wildlife crossings will help improve public safety, will save the state money, and help recover our struggling mule deer populations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you committee. Um, my name is Jordan Nielsen. I'm the state Director for Trout Unlimited. Uh, trout Unlimited is a national organization that focuses on protecting and reconnecting and restoring cold water fisheries. Um, I have staff across the state that work to find win-win projects that enable, uh, current water uses while also restoring and enhancing fisheries. Um, historically this bill, or, or, or what we've done with, with this type of work has focused on the warm and fuzzy creatures. While, uh, trout are not quite as warm and fuzzy. Uh, they do get their, their migration patterns do, are impeded by roads. And this bill, uh, includes fish passage, which we appreciate. Um, we do fish passage projects all over the state, and we want to thank the sponsor and encourage your support. Thank you.

Kirk Robinson, executive Director of Western Wildlife Conservancy, which is a nonprofit corporation registered here in Utah. I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this bill. Um, we all know that the human footprint is growing and it's taking habitat away from wild animals. And in addition, we're killing them on the highways, and that's causing the state in various ways and individuals a lot of money plus some lost lives. It seems to me it's a, we have a moral obligation to take care of the wildlife in our state and to protect public safety. Thank you for the opportunity.

Good afternoon. My name's Terry Camp. I'm representing the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. Uh, we support this bill. We believe it'll help keep Utah's roadways safe and reduce wildlife and vehicle collisions that too often result in animal and sometimes human fatalities. I also want to mention, we really think this, uh, will be able to match well with federal funds. It'll create a dedicated source so that if there are federal funds available, it's much easier to get those matches through pilot projects and, um, other Federal Department of Transportation funding. So, uh, we'd urge the committee to support it. And thanks for your time. Great.

Hi, my name is Caitlyn Curry, representing, uh, Utah back country hunters and anglers. We also firmly support this bill, and I just wanted to add that as a sportswoman in the state of Utah, I've been really personally proud to see the partnerships between the Utah Divisional Wildlife, UDOT NGOs, and the legislature on highway mitigation efforts for wildlife. We really are a leader among Western states, and this is really continuing to push us in that direction. Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity. Uh, Josh Brown representing Piute Charitable Trust. Just a couple things, a lot of comments been spot on. There's the opportunity, just some quick facts. Roughly about a 90% reduction in a lot of these, um, wildlife crossings. If you look at the Parleys Canyon one, for example, it's around 77%. It's, it's saving money, it's saving our family's lives as they drive on the road. And as we come up to the Olympics and other events, this is, I think, a really good thing to do, the right way to do it. It's, you know, it, it pays for itself in the opportunities and reductions in insurance costs and cost to human life and health. We were the first state to do it in 1975 in Beaver, and as, uh, Terry from Farm Bureau said, great opportunity to help us as we get look for federal funding to have those funds available to be matched. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. I'm Justin Shannon with the Utah Division Wildlife Resources. The points I wanted to make about partnerships and federal match have been mentioned. So I just wanna offer my thanks to the sponsor for bringing this forward and, uh, voice our support for the bill. Thank you.

I'm here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, members of the committee. My name is Matt Anderson. I'm the director of the Utah Sportsman's Caucus representing fishers, hunters, and trappers across the state. Don't need to rehash what's already been said. Um, this is a wonderful bill. We fully support it and feel it's good for wildlife and people alike. Thank you.

Hey, you guys, thanks for letting me join you today. Same, same. I really wanna express my support for this bill. I really appreciate the partnerships that we can form between wildlife and agriculture and the beauty that can keep everybody safe on the roadways. And so this bill does a great job balancing that and we urge you to support it from the Utah Wool Growers Association. Thank you so much.

Oh, sorry. I forget. I'm not in natural resources and you guys aren't used to me. I'm Sierra Nelson. I'm executive director of the Utah Wool Growers Association. We love this bill.

Quite all right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I make a motion that we pass out favorably. First substitute HB 4 31 as

Oh. Thank you for reminding me that that was actually the motion that I intended to make, to move the amendment one on first substitute HB 4 31.

So I think that's, that's a good, uh, motion. Thank you.

Sure. I make a motion that we pass out favorably first substitute HB 4 31 as amended.

Um, no. I think this is a good bill. I've made my poor seat mates wash the, the live stream right here. So we big fan of it and, uh, uh, I appreciate the sponsor, bring it forward.

Thank Mr. Chair. I love the idea. I love the program. I don't like the way this is being funded. I think this should, uh, be create a program seeking RFA, uh, use the, the appropriations process. I, I don't like earmarks generally, so, um, I'd love the program. I have concerns with the funding.

So I appreciate the, the discussion we've had and, and the fact that, uh, I've had as much support as I have from the, the, the committee. I'd like to stress that this is, uh, probably as important, uh, uh, a safety feature. It is a, a saving on the lives of the wildlife. Of course, we could solve this whole problem. I just, if everybody only drove 55 miles an hour instead of the 80, 80 plus miles an hour that we see driven even on our 65 mile an hour roads. Uh, as far as, uh, you know, I think it's a, a great benefit, uh, to be able to include the opportunities where we have, uh, uh, livestock, uh, um, concerns because, uh, wherever animals are with their livestock or wildlife, they're, they like to be in the same places with the drought like it is. And, uh, the green grass that grows up next to the, the pavement. 'cause a little extra water runs off when we happen to get some. While it's a lot, it's very attractive to, uh, animals to get up there, both wildlife and, uh, livestock. If we can do a better job of our grazing management next to these highways, uh, with the livestock portion of it, why that would be a real benefit. But we can all see, uh, there's not a one of us in this room. I don't care who you are, who likes to see a, uh, a fawn splattered all down the highway just because he, uh, got out on there when he shouldn't have. So anyway, I appreciate the support on this bill and, uh, yeah. Uh, and I would, uh, challenge, uh, the, the good representative from Provo and come up with a, a better idea on how to, uh, fund this and, and we'll dang Sure do that.

Can my, uh, yeah. Intern

Thanks. Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Uh, 4 31 was, uh, is a bill that, uh, that I was, uh, made aware of right when we started session, and, uh, felt like it was something we needed to, to, to work at or look at, you know, especially with the, the, like, we're gonna be, uh, hosting the Olympics in a few years. And, and I don't think there's anything much worse than, uh, coming in from, uh, one of our neighboring states on the interstate and seeing a bunch of, uh, dead, uh, wildlife laying on the side of the road. And especially when we have probably we, one of the premier, uh, wildlife crossings that's ever, uh, constructed at the top of, uh, parleys Canyon. And it's amazing, uh, how many animals are able to cross that and, uh, get across our interstate. Um, wildlife vehicle collisions cost Utah PAC Taxpayers $135 million annually, property loss and loss hunting revenue. This bill, uh, hb, uh, 4 31 creates a, a fund within the Transportation Infrastructure Fund, uh, for wildlife and livestock safety. Money is from sales and use tax plus any, uh, donations. It's been suggested that, uh, folks could, uh, include a dollar on their car registration when they, uh, get their car registration or any number, uh, any amount a dollar on their, uh, hunting or fishing license. Plus, who knows who might be interested in donating to it. DOT and Wildlife, uh, and other, uh, interest parties is who we anticipate. We'll decide where the money needs to be spent. And, um, it's a $2 million non lapsing, uh, with 10% that could, uh, be used if we deem it and it's necessary. Uh, where there is livestock, uh, auto collisions also on open range. It, it all deals with highway fencing, overpasses, culverts, and fish passages. I 84 and I 80 is one of the top candidates. And you can see with this handout I passed out, these are just some of the structures that are, um, that recommended Just recently. An interesting, uh, footnote on the bottom of the page, there was 35 antelope killed at once, um, on a highway collision just in my area over near the Utah, Colorado border. So, uh, it's a real thing and just, uh, something I feel like, uh, we need to look at. And like I said, especially with, uh, the Olympics coming, we wanna make sure Utah, the first impression folks, uh, see when they come here is, uh, is not a bunch, uh, some multiple animals laying on the side of the road.

Okay. Seeing no questions, I'm just gonna ask, um, do you, where did the $135 million accident number come from and do we know

That came from, uh, I believe it was Piute Research. I'm not sure some of the folks here, uh, probably could do a little better job answering that than I could, but that's where I got it from. Thought it was a fascinating number.

Hi, uh, Mr. Chair. I'm Isabel Lingenfelter with the Utah Wildlife Federation. Um, and that number came from a study that UOC commissioned in 2018.

Oh, okay. Awesome. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, do we know how much, you know, if we commit 2 million ongoing every year to, you know, to the number from the, from the tiff, do we know how that money is going to be spent and how much annual savings we will save as a result of, in other words, I'd hate to be, you know, $20 million into, uh, the program and only see the number grow as a per capita as opposed to see it shrink? Right. That's, I guess the, the question.

So as, as far as, uh, knowing where the money will be spent, that's, uh, the object of having a, um, a group, a committee, an organization that we put together that, uh, will, uh, determine where that needs to be to be spent or the higher priorities and the what would consider will be the most benefit for our, uh, return on our dollar.

USU conducted a study of the Parli Parley Summit Wildlife Crossing that showed over its lifetime. It will save the state $15 million.

15 million. Yes. Is That annual? I think that

was a, that's Over its lifetime. Yeah. So the, the bridge cost,

Wasn't that a 50 plus million dollars project?

No, the bridge cost $5 million to build. Okay. Okay. And it will save $15 million over its lifetime.

Okay. I was thinking of like an intersection cost, so that's good. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, is there, the last question I had is, is there a problem with, you know, like I was thinking of the one in parleys, is there a reason these projects aren't being, you know, funded at the state level and the TIFF program? 'cause obviously the one in Parleys got funded. Is there a reason why we're creating a special process, you know, an earmark within the earmark, so to speak, for this process versus, I mean, I could make a list of all the other projects people would like to make an earmark an ear of an earmark of, and that's, I think that's the concern I have, uh, is trying to balance that perspective care to get any thoughts on that?

I'm not sure I understand your question there.

Yeah. Uh, let me, so our current process with the TIFF is the transportation, uh, commission meets and they review, uh, identified needs throughout the state that they do traffic studies. They do all this other, you know, uh, magic work that goes into, you know, creating a prioritization list. That prioritization list then goes through and, you know, identifies here's the projects, here's the list, and they do a cost benefit analysis as it relates to the state and, and then make those decisions based on, you know, based on that data. And I'm, I'm wondering if, you know, we feel like there's a reason those types of projects, you know, like a wildlife bridge or whatever it might be, if there's a reason why those aren't elevating to the top of that project list.

So I don't have, uh, the exact reason for it. I have an idea of why, from some of what I've heard. There may be somebody here that could answer it a little bit more. But what I understand is, like, our Parleys Canyon was kind of a test. Let's see if it's gonna work. And, uh, it's been such a successful one, and I'm not a hundred percent sure of how the, the funding came for that, but it was such, has been deemed such a successful one that now we're looking at where do we need to, to do these things and how are we gonna fund them. And so that's where this is kind of came in. Let's, uh, see if we can make this happen. I've got Ms. Wilson standing up with folded arms back there. That's usually not positive. Uh, you know, but she might, she might be able to shed some light on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lisa Wilson, udot, deputy Director for Engineering and Operations. Um, TIFF is specifically set aside for capacity projects. So a standalone wildlife crossing a project like that isn't gonna qualify in tiff. So the commission won't prioritize those for funding.

What if, is there another way to fund those that isn't tiff?

So, um, the way that the process works for our, the, the transportation fund and the federal funds is we go through a process in our regions. We, I mean, they have lists of projects that, you know, beyond what we can afford to, to build. Um, they'll provide a ranking list of those types of projects to the commission, which we will be doing in March or yeah, March and May at our workshop. And we'll prioritize those and fund them. Quite a few of those are like wildlife fencing projects. Um, there are some smaller crossing projects. The, the project that the, um, representative referenced to 84 and 80, that's a very large project. We've been applying for grants on that. Um, my understanding with this, this, um, program that this bill would set up is that it would also allow for donations to come in to the, to the fund and, and help grow it so that we can do larger projects standalone.

Does you not have a position, uh, really on taking TIFF funds and using it for this purpose as opposed to congestion?

We're neutral on this. Yeah.

Yeah. So, um, in 2023, we created the RT, uh, the Rural Transportation Infrastructure Fund. I'm curious why we wouldn't do the earmark out of that since it's likely that most of these would be out of rural transportation funds. Is there any reason? Like, I think, I don't know how much is in there right now,

So I I'm sure you know, senator, that, uh, I try to be, uh, prepared on, on what I, on, on questions or things. And that's something I hadn't anticipated. I, uh, uh, I don't have an answer for you on that.

I'm only bringing weird questions today for people. Um,

I'm not sure whether someone here does have an answer for that or not, but

Well, it's primarily today, but sometimes I'll bring a normal one. But, uh, yeah, I, I do have some of the concerns that we're now taking. Uh, basically it's an ongoing earmark out of the transportation infrastructure fund for this. Um, and there's already another earmark, which is, that's what I kind of view the Rural Transportation Infrastructure Fund, which is taking it out of there and doing an earmark out of it. And, um, and I'm trying to understand if this program fits within the purposes of the RTF, I guess would be the better one. I don't know if Lisa, if you know, but

I am not an expert on RTIF, but my understanding was that it was more of a pass through program to the rural counties.

Yeah. To the third through sixth mm-hmm. Uh, infrastructure fund. And it may be mostly for B and C roads, but this also is creating pass throughs under rural roads primarily. I mean, there's, there's some in the urban areas, you know, parleys is a good example, but there's, the majority of these, as you said, are gonna be along, you said I 80. And where did you say that you thought that most of these would go?

Well, The, the ones that are signaled right now are definitely I 80 and I 84. Yeah. And, you know, it's because of the volume of the traffic and the speeds and, and the number of, uh, wildlife, uh, yeah. Migratory paths that those, uh, intersect.

And those are mostly through third in third through sixth counties as well, I

Would guess? Uh, yeah. Yeah. Most of 'em would be, yeah. Okay. That's, You know, we've got some, uh, things that we would be considering, you know, similar like what's happening down in, uh, Eagle Mountain and, uh, Saratoga Springs and those areas where, where, um, uh, you know, um, populations have grown into those, uh, habitat, uh, migration paths.

Yeah. Do we consider these crossings, if it's crossing a state level road, um, would this pay only for state level roads or would it also pay for crossings on B and C level roads?

Uh, my anticipation is it would be state level roads, not, not the smaller ones that are, you know, um, you know, we could really fix this pretty easily if we could. Uh, if we could slow traffic down to 55 miles an hour, we're never gonna do that again. It's not gonna be that speed. But, uh, these, these kind of instances would be, and there, our, our b and c roads are, are, uh, generally a little slower and, uh, not so much volume through, through there and, and, um, yeah. You know, there's

Not as much of an Issue. Yeah.

It's not quite as much of an issue. Yeah. You know, you, you slam into an animal at 80 miles an hour. Uh, the, the possibility of physical damage to the operator and the occupants of the car, uh, plus the damage that's done is, uh, is, is high.

Yeah. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.

So, so, uh, I'd like to say on, on your, uh, questions about the, where the funding came from and the idea for that. Um, you know, uh, I, I got, um, was asked about this if I was interested in this bill, and I thought it was a, a, a real interesting bill to take on. And it was, uh, I was asked, um, after a meeting that the, the folks had with the, the speaker about this, and he, uh, uh, told me, and of course this is only hearsay 'cause I was just told that, uh, they felt like the TIF fund was be the best after talking to transportation. This might be the best place to, uh, start with this thing. So that's how come it's wound up where it sat the way I understand it. But like I said, that could be hearsay. I wasn't a part of that meeting, but that's how I was, uh, informed when I said, yeah, I'll take this on.

Go ahead. Thanks. Representative Chew. I'm Isabelle Lingenfelter. I'm, uh, the Conservation Director for the Utah Wildlife Federation, and this bill has brought together hunters anglers, the agriculture community and conservationists, uh, because this is an issue that, um, the entire state is dealing with. Um, there are over 7,000 mule deer hit on Utah's roads annually. Uh, and the Division of Wildlife Resources believes that that number is actually higher, as much as 10,000 wildlife vehicle collisions, um, can be prevented. And crossings have been shown to prevent those collisions by up to 90%, which is where you get a lot of the savings that we've indicated are possible through this. Um, the Transportation Investment Fund is a good general fund that can cover projects widely from across the state and not make rural counties pay for projects that might not directly benefit them. Thank you.

Um, Terry Camp. I'm the Vice President of Public Policy for the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. Uh, we're supportive of this bill. Uh, we believe by creating a dedicated funding source that it will help, uh, leverage Federal Matching dollars because it's something that's a little more guaranteed rather than if they have to compete for it and there's uncertainty. So we would just urge the committee to favorably report the bill. Thanks.

Uh, thank you chairman, uh, committee members. My name is Greg Sheehan. I'm the president and CEO of the Mul Deer Foundation. Uh, number of years ago, I served, uh, as the Director of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Um, want to thank Representative Chew for presenting this bill and your consideration of it today? Um, in the last 50 years, we've seen populations, uh, grow by 350% in the state. Um, while the number of new roads is, is around 10% new state paved roads, and, um, the, during that same time, we've seen the Mule Deer populations in the state of Utah reduce by about 50% across the state. So we're, um, appreciative of consideration of this bill in the hopes that it will address some of the needs that are identified around the state. And, uh, Mr. Chairman, you know, you mentioned how we're gonna find these places or where does it matter? And I think, uh, I think we have good data on that to identify those needs and where they occur. Uh, U DOT's been great over the years as they've done highway expansions, widening, et cetera, of trying to put in some of the structure and building that into the project costs. But as you've heard from the UDOT representative, um, it's been limited to try to go address existing roadways that are out there. And I think this will give some sort of a stable funding so that UA Division of Wildlife Farm, you know, farm Bureau or others, can help identify, counties can help identify these needs and plan for those in the future. And I think these dollars are allowed to be carried forward in case a a larger project can't be addressed within one year. Plus, there's opportunity to match with federal and other dollars. So, just wanna thank you for consideration of that.

May I ask you a question real quick? Yes.

Um, you know, it's, uh, it's interesting, have, have we studied this and we have like this kind of, I do. We have a map or anything that says absolutely this is

where we go, or We have, uh, UDOT has an app, uh, that they carry with them that when they pick up roadkill deer, so they know where all the hot spots are around the state. And some of those have been addressed already, uh, through various sorts of fundings that the Parleys Canyon really became a public matter as that continued to occur. Uh, similarly, division of Wildlife puts radio callers on about, uh, eight to 900 deer a year. And they, when they are, are killed, or, um, you know, something occurs with them plus their migration corridors, they know exactly where those important places are, where those, uh, animals are being killed. So there, there really should be nothing random about identifying these locations and trying to isolate them in rather than trying to, you know, address thousands of miles of roads around the state. So it'll be targeted.

Yeah, I think that's a, I think it's an interesting point. Sorry, I'm just, I, um, I mean, I'm, I'm convinced there's a need, I'm trying to convince myself this is the right way to do it. I think that's the, I think that's the only part for me. So, go ahead, Josh. Thank you.

Hello. Uh, Mr. Chairman, member of the committee, Josh Brown, representing Piute Charitable Trust. Hello, Senator Harper. Uh, the discussion, really, I don't wanna repeat everything that's been said. Um, you kind of asked the question, Senator McKay is, you know, why do this? What makes the sense? If you, you and I have both lived through the underpasses and overpasses on Bang It or out in the daybreak area, and you know how much those cost is a retrofit. One thing we really haven't talked about is if we go through and we design this, and this becomes part of that, here's how we design the roads. I mean, as we discussed Udo's, you know, really looking at getting people to where they need to be, it helps minimize the cost in the long run. It's the right way to do highway design. It keeps costs lower. We create a fund that is actually able to hit these Senate or these federal matching funds, and we also have the ability to kind of continue to lead out. Utah was the first, uh, state in the nation to have a wildlife crossing. And as we've all seen, the success is good. The numbers show that this is just a way to create this as the future standard of how we design these roads and through ways such that wildlife crossings can be safe, helps in species propagation, different species variation, it's a good thing to do. It historically has been more of the afterthought, here's something we could do or should have done, but not generally put up in the plan as here's how we're designing the road. That'll be it. We're talking about an overpass, not an animal hookup joint. Right. Well, there's underpasses too, and that's, and it's a little More private, just, you know, talking about species propagation and cross pollination or cross, uh, no,

Hi, Chelsea Duke, I am the Assistant Chief of Habitat for the Division of Wildlife Resources. Um, a lot of my points that I wanted to touch on, partnerships, federal funding match, um, have already been, um, spoken to. So I will just thank the sponsor. And I also just wanna make a comment that I think the vehicle of donations through the DMV and through the Division of Wildlife Resources website are, um, incredibly helpful. It gives people the opportunity to contribute to this fund and, um, grow that fund so we can go after those federal matches. Right now we have over 20 priority projects identified between DWR and udot of areas that really need our assistance. So, um, I really appreciate a designated fund to go after these projects. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Um, I'll be very brief. I just want to echo everything, um, that every individ individual before me has testified. Um, I'd also just like to reiterate that these funds in this account can be leveraged for federal match, um, and that wildlife crossing structure is really a critical part of our transportation infrastructure. Um, economically from a economic perspective, a public safety perspective, and a wildlife perspective, it's pretty much a one size fits all solution. Thank you. Tell

Oh, I'm so sorry. My name is Casey Lindstrom and I'm the Utah Project Manager representing Wildlands Network.

Hi you guys. I'm Sierra Nelson. I'm executive director of the Utah Wool Growers Association, and I'm also the Vice chair of the Utah Sportsman's Caucus Advisory Council. I wanna speak in favor of this bill today. You know, where I'm from, there's two kinds of people, those who have hill elk and those who will hit elk. And realistically, that's a real challenge, especially as we grow and our urban sprawl takes over these wild spaces, it becomes more and more dangerous for our wildlife. These crossings are not only very, very important to wildlife, but it's really important to human safety as well. And this is a huge benefit to agriculture. And the, in the same sentence, it's a win for everybody involved. I realize you guys are working on a way to figure out the finances, and I give you every kudo trying to figure that out. I'm glad it's your problem. Not my problem.

Oh, okay. He's right here. I apologize. We've got pause. You're good.

This, it happens to the best of us. Don't even worry about it. But I just really wanna encourage you guys to support this bill. It's a win for wildlife, it's a win for ag. It's a win for the people of Utah who don't have to find out what it's like to hit an elk. So thank you guys for your time. I appreciate it, and I hope you have a great day.

I'll be very brief. My name is Matt Anderson. I'm the director of the Utah Sportsman's Caucus representing anglers, trappers and hunters throughout the state of Utah. Our caucus boat, us unanimously to support this bill. It's a good piece of legislation, uh, to Sierra Nelson's point. Um, elk are horrible to hit, but as someone who's hit a moose, I can tell you there is one thing worse than an elk and it's a moose to hit. So we urge you to support this bill, um, protecting wildlife of the people of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank

Yeah, I'll move that. We recommend favorably HB 4 31. Um, I will speak to that, if that's all

I do have, so there's most of the bill I really like the part that, um, that I think is giving me some heartburn and the other members of the committee, um, is line 360 6, where you take 2 million out of the tiff and you fund it all. Okay. And it creates an earmark, and then you deposit it into this account every year. Um, I would, I would be surprised if that gets through the Senate to be candid, um, on it. I think it that's gonna struggle. Uh, the rest of it. I think creating a fund, allowing voluntary contributions, doing all of that. Um, but I'm happy to move it through. I'm just trying to let you know that I think that funding is gonna be a hard sell on the Senate side, and, and I don't know that where other people are gonna go. But, um, so, but the rest of it, I, I really like, I just think that, uh, that the Senate looks really closely at the transportation funding and so, yeah. Okay.

Sure. I appreciate that. And I appreciate those comments. Senator Brammer, uh, the, the $2 million was suggested and it was, uh, suggested by the folks within the transportation. So that's, uh, where we, uh, came up with that number. And I appreciate that. Uh, you know, uh, one of the young ladies that, uh, testified said that, uh, I, I had some figures, they're probably older than her, said that 7,000 deer, uh, are annually and killed. I, I had 5,000, but 7,000, I'm not gonna argue with that. 10,000 elk are annually, maybe not killed, but at least, uh, struck. And, uh, it's interesting, the, the emotional toll that it, that, uh, a driver, uh, experiences or the passengers in a car that experience after, uh, uh, uh, you know, colliding with an animal no matter what, uh, what kind of an animal it is, is, is, uh, is something that, uh, needs to be taken into consideration. Besides the economic toll, you know, uh, uh, ever periodically with running livestock in as many as I do and as many miles of highway there are in some of my areas, uh, quite frequently I get a call at night about some animal that's been hit, and sometimes it's mine, but quite frequently it's not. And yet, uh, with my knowledge of other people in the area and their animals, I, I help, uh, identify stuff. But I, I've gotta tell you one, one of the things that strikes out the most to me, and when we talk about this emotional toll, one, one, uh, Christmas Eve, uh, a number of years back, uh, I got a phone call probably about nine o'clock at night, and there'd been the, the dispatcher said that there'd been a cow hit on the highway that was close to my, uh, uh, well, actually it was within, uh, one of my areas where I sometimes have cattle, and I shouldn't have had any cows in that area that night. So I went out to see what it was. It was not a, a domestic cow. It was a cow elk. And, uh, the luggage and the Christmas presents that were laying all over the road because of the, the collision, the kids were, uh, probably about eight and 10 year olds were sitting in the highway patrol's car waiting for a family members to come from three hours away to pick up this family and, and, uh, take their stuff and, and get 'em home where they were headed for Christmas. And every time a vehicle went by, I don't know whether any of you have, have, have had the opportunity to see a, uh, dead animal laying on the side of the road and their eyes glare as the headlights strike that. Those children in that vehicle, I'm sure to this day probably have, uh, nightmares about, about how eerie that looked for to be sitting there and, and see, uh, an eyeball off a dead animal glaring back at you. So anyway, um, I think that we've got something here we need to address, uh, whether we've got the absolute perfect solution. I couldn't say that, but I do think we've got a good, uh, opportunity to, to help with the situation that we know is out there. So, uh, thank you for that motion. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Just by way of comment, kinda building off of what Senator Brammer said, I think that restricted funds are generally a recipe for inefficient use of dollars. Um, so I, I look at the sheet here and I am for every one of those things. And I'm also for, um, turning Mountain View Corridor into a freeway. And I'm for improving the connection, uh, between the eastern and the western portions of Utah County, right. Uh, in Senator Brammer area. Um, and I'm for lots of things that are currently on the transportation priority list, the only way I know how to judge, uh, whether or not these are more important than those, is to put them in the same pot and have them compete for the same dollars. And I worry that if we take money out of the tiff to fund these things, specifically what we'll find is we will prioritize less important wildlife crossings over more important other transportation options. Um, so from that standpoint, I just think that, uh, that, uh, you know, transportation infrastructure should be part of the, of the pot and go through the regular transportation process prioritization process.

but here's, um, but I think Senator Fillmore is giving you a good council representative, and I'm wondering if we can't, um, I'm wondering if we can't consider this before the end of the session. And here's what, here's what I think we can do. If you'll meet with the U Dots representatives, um, Ms. Wilson, I think there's a way that we could accomplish what Senator Fillmore had, which is including wildlife mitigation as part of the tiff's overall priorities. And instead of creating an earmark, just give them counsel to the Transportation Commission to also include this, you know, wildlife mitigation as part of their priorities. I think one that will help you with the funding component and get you past the Senate concerns one and two, I think in that way we can make financial decisions as you, you know, weigh this against the two policies, we can make those decisions and we wouldn't be as limited to the $2 million. Uh, you know, sometimes the problem with, and this is, I apologize, I'm, I'm pontificating a little bit, but, um, I really like you and I really like this, this idea, right? And so I'm trying to figure out how, is there a lot a way that we can do this? And by adding it as a criteria that can be considered for the Transportation Commission as they're weighing projects. I think that's one. But the other part of it, um, is making sure that, um, uh, you know, that in that criteria that they're focused on places of high financial loss, right? Uh, where we've, we've got data, we've got maps, and we can support it objectively. I feel like including that type of conversation is low lying fruit for the Transportation Commission to, to look at from an objective standpoint. And I feel like adding that criteria with U DOT's help may help you get through what I think will be tough getting it funded through the Senate side of things. 'cause I like your policy. So let's see if we can be helpful on the policy side. And I'm happy to meet with you dot with you to, to help get it done if you'd like.

I really appreciate that, uh, uh, Senator and, uh, I, I've gotta tell you guys this, you know, this is the first time I've, I've, I've been in, uh, sat before this committee and I, and I've had a little bit of, uh, what apprehension I, I felt like I might feel like a deer in the headlights. And, and so I, uh, I I appreciate that. And, and we'll get, uh, busy on that and, and be back.

Yeah. I don't want you to feel like that dead eyeball staring back at you either. So, okay. Let's make sure we get that right. But I'm serious. I, I'm happy to help sit down and, and if there's a way we can help craft, you know, direction, the Transportation Commission as they weigh these things out, I, I'm more than happy to help. Okay.

Thank you, Senator. I'm sure we'll be in touch then.

You, Mr. Chair. Uh, yes, indeed. Uh, the substitute is way different, like, uh, completely different than the original version. So, um, let me kind of back up and give you, and I know we're short on time. I'll be quick. Uh, last year when we passed Senate Bill 1 32, uh, allowing users of more than a hundred megawatts of power to generate power, uh, we did not envision, uh, the fact that, uh, a couple of things. One is, uh, there may be a taxing component on those large users. Uh, that's the way this bill file started, but that component was rolled over into a house bill. And then we found another issue where one of the companies that is, uh, looking to do, uh, power generation, uh, needs, uh, natural gas, and they understood or somehow contemplated that in the bill file, they would be able to use imminent domain to move that gas line to where they needed to go. Um, quite honestly, uh, I don't think eminent domain is, uh, wise or well to use, uh, by a private entity. And, uh, so this bill file, now, this substitute is dealing completely with that, and it basically, uh, disallows or at least clarifies the language that eminent domain will, will not be available for use, um, in this, in these large load, uh, generation facilities without Mr. Chair. That's what the bill thought. That's what the substitute does. Okay. With that, uh, does that conclude your Presentation? Yes. Thank you.

That's my presentation, Mr. Chair.

Yep. Um, appreciate the sub and I think, I think it, I think under current law this would be prohibited anyways, but I appreciate the clarification. So I think this is moving in the right direction. I just have a question on the final, on some of the final new language. In a claim involving the exercise of Mno domain, a property owner may file a sworn declaration that includes objective evidence. I'm just of as pri Well, I just wanna make sure that the, the burden of proof is on the person trying to claim or, or trying to make the claim for imminent domain as opposed to the, the, the subservient property owner. And so I, maybe I'm just reading this for the first time, so just make, I'm just trying to get some clarification. Look, If I can direct to lines, uh, 2 73 through 2 75.

You're, you're The attorney. Yeah. I'm just looking at this first blush. So that's what I'm trying to see. Like, do we want, do we want to shift the person trying to exercise? Do we want to shift the burden to the person trying to exercise, uh, imminent domain, or should the burden be first be with that person in the first place? I think, I think that's, I just need to read through this and think about it a little bit more. Okay.

I'll be happy for, I'll be happy for any edits because No, I, my intent is that any person wanting to exercise eminent domain would have to prove, be under the burden of proof should be on them, not on the, not on the landowner. Yeah.

I, I think we're on the same page. I just wanna make sure this is right. Let's, let's make sure the language is right moving forward. Yeah, I'm, I'm trying to make sense of the same thing a little bit just as I look at it, it up in, uh, lines 2 0 9, it says private person may not exercise, but then two 70, you know, two 70 and everything else seems to lay out a process for a private property owner to exercise eminent domain. Am I, what am I, what am I not understanding? Sorry. It,

It, you could be right. I mean, this sub came out. I'm okay. We, we've been working on it in the last 72 hours. Yeah.

Yeah. And if, and if we open a door some way, we wanna make sure that it's clear that we're not gonna allow this.

Okay. So we can definitely, we'll, I'll definitely take a look at that. Okay. With the, with the drafting attorney.

Yeah. That's a, um, acknowledging the intent and the lateness of the session, I'm going to go with it and say the, in as long as the intent remains that no one can exercise imminent domain for the purpose of, of this generation, I think I'm okay with the bill. So, Yeah, that's, that's where we're headed.

Okay. Um, we'll make it clear by the time we get to the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A motion that we favorably recommend first substitute Senate Bill 2 31, the full body of the Senate.

You know, I was going through my calendar this last year and, um, you know, I don't know about you, but I'm starting to wonder if the legislative process isn't starting to feel like a full-time job. Is anybody here feeling that way more and more? Um, unbeknownst to most, uh, we have the 45 day legislative session that's included in the Constitution. Uh, we have nine interim days between the appropriations committees and, uh, our regular appropriations committee hearings. We have nine. Uh, for, for me, it's nine confirmation hearings at minimum, assuming that it's only one confirmation committee that doesn't include usually pre-meetings that go along with those confirmation committee, uh, hearings or confirmation hearings or issues. Um, and then we have five working days, and then there's at least five days for a conference. All total, that's 73 basic days. If you do the basic service of this job, it is 73 days. So, uh, obviously I feel like that time limit is starting to get, uh, is starting to self-select. If it hasn't been self-selecting, it is already self-selecting those who can be successful legislators and serve in the, in the responsibility. I, I know what it's like to go to my employer. Uh, when I was elected in 2012, in a special election, there were seven other candidates. I put my name in the ballot. Uh, and, uh, I did not expect to win. Uh, I know this will surprise everyone, but I had actually never been inside the capitol before I got elected, uh, the chief clerk. Uh, so I gave a speech that night, uh, at the, uh, at the special election and, and somehow won. Uh, and I, I was so surprised. I, I called, I Uintah my employer early that morning, stressed, because the legislative session was going to start the following Monday and it was Friday. I literally, I didn't think I was gonna win, and I had to tell them that I needed the next two and a half months off so that I could be a, a legislator. Uh, that, that was as popular as you can imagine it would be for an employer. I, I was very fortunate at the time my employer was a mayor of a city and had some background and experience, uh, in, in, you know, the legislative service and legislative process. And he was very supportive, but not a lot of employers of that way. In fact, I see a lot of my legislative colleagues change jobs over the term of their legislative service, usually taking sometimes less pay, sometimes, uh, shifting laterally for, you know, different responsibilities, sometimes being passed over for management or whatever it may be, because the legislative session is so intense upfront. So the intent of this bill is to make it so that the requirement for the regular session to not meet during or to not meet in consecutive days, what that would do is it would give legislative leadership the opportunity to come up with the days that we feel like we should meet. We need a budget process, and so we can work together on our budget process. But if you could take those 45 days, lighten our interim day commitments down to, you know, maybe a couple of days, take our confirmation hearings and overlap them with the other, could we potentially get our legislative session back to 50 days hypothetically, as opposed to stretching out to the 73, which is the minimum that I ident identified before. So the purpose of this constitutional amendment is to try and, uh, encourage a process that may lengthen out throughout the year, but be in smaller bite-sized segments so that Right. More regular Utahans can, um, uh, can apply for the job. With that, uh, I'm happy to open for questions.

Uh, I have a question. So, would the idea be that this would open up the ability to, uh, do like the first 30 days

Uh, I don't think we need a long presentation. Uh, good. 'cause I haven't prepared one. Thanks. We,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A motion that we favorably recommend first substitute house bill 4 31 to the full body of the Senate.

I, all I can say is third times is the charm, so thank you. Thank you representative. Yep. Sounds good. Some point the fourth time is begging though. At that point then it's like too much. Right? You know, that's how it was. My wife asked me that when I asked her to marry her four times.

I appreciate that motion. And, uh, yeah, let's expedite this com, this committee Meeting.

Thanks for the time of the committee. I appreciate it.

Madam Marine Clerk First substitute House Bill 4 31, wildlife Crossing Amendments by Representative. Chew this Be Heard in transportation with Vote 7 4 1

Thank you Mr. Speaker. You know, uh, I'm sure you remember, you and I have talked about this, uh, quite a little bit. But, um, HB 4 33 1 for substitute, uh, wildlife Crossing Amendments. The, the Wildlife Vehicle Collisions in the state of Utah cost $135 million annually, uh, to property loss and loss hunting revenue. This bill creates a fund within the Transportation Infrastructure Fund for Wildlife and Livestock Safety. Money is from sales and use tax, plus any donation. It, it suggests a a dollar donation with collar registrations or a percent of of money from hunting, uh, licenses. Uh, the Department of Transportation and other, uh, wildlife and other groups will decide, uh, where the, the, the crossings need to occur. And hopefully this is something that'll be able to continue on, uh, with a lot of, you know, there's a lot of opportunities that we should be able to, uh, take care of. $2 million will be non lapsing every year with 10% can be used in areas where there's, uh, a lot of livestock, uh, conflicts. It all deals with highway fencing, overpasses, culverts, and, and fish passages. I, uh, up in the area, um, I'm, I'm sure it's close to, to the, the Good Representatives ranch that, uh, when I I 84, I, uh, 80 interchange up there and, uh, close to the area of the, the, where the good representative from, uh, Provo was raised. There's a, uh, a good candidate for, for a wildlife crossing across those, those two interstates. Um, anyway, it's something that I think, uh, nobody likes to see a, uh, dead deer or a dead a elk, or even a dead cow on the side of the road. With our Olympics headed this way in a few years, we wanna make sure we have a lot of safe, uh, uh, wildlife, uh, passages across our highways. And that's basically what the, the bill does.

You, Mr. Speaker. I'm curious if the sponsor would yield to, to a very simple question, Representative Chew, will you yield to a simple Question? I appreciate a simple

question. Yes.

Perfect. I'm wondering how this bill will affect school buses where students are in the back mooning. I've got a sneaky, uh, feeling that probably won't affect that, because that might still happen in rural Utah.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, we have over 5,000 deer and 1000 elk killed annually on our, our highways. The emotional toll on a driver and the passenger, knowing they've, they've killed an animal without, uh, even the stress that they experience, uh, with a, uh, highway collision. You know, uh, not too many years ago, I was called out on Christmas Eve, and I'll tell you the, the stress that those folks that were in that car, uh, after hitting a, a cow elk and the Christmas packages laying on the, on the street, and every time a vehicle went wide, the, the kids, the eight and the 10-year-old kids that were in the highway, patrolman's car staying warm while family came from three hours away by it, uh, pretty, uh, dramatic. The every time a car went by that the, uh, the eye on that dead, uh, elk lay in there would shine. And I'm sure those kids probably still have nightmares from that. Anyway, I would appreciate your support on this. This is something we need to do to help keep our highway safe and keep those animals alive.

and Consultation with the division of, uh, wildlife Resources and other stakeholders to recommend projects for the Transportation Commission to prioritize. Then it creates an option for applicants for vehicle registration or hunting, fishing licenses to make voluntary contributions to support wildlife connectivity. Oftentimes, especially out in rural areas where you have major freeways or highways, um, the connectivity is you might have grazing allotments on each side of a busy freeway. And this would allow those animals, wildlife to cross, um, in a safe manner. That's what the bill does. I would be open to questions.

Thank you. I actually love this bill, and when I saw this come through, when I, when I drive into Nevada, I, we see him and something going on over here. I'm just going to, this is a great bill. Thank you.

Thanks, president. Uh, a couple years ago, my wife and I gotta go down to Central America to Chich, and I didn't know what these, like, there were cages that went across the road and I I had to ask the locals what that was. Well, these, and they were often along the highway and that was made for the monkeys to cross, uh, so they wouldn't be hit on the road. So this is, uh, along that same vein, but um, would be very few of them throughout the state. So with that, uh, I would move that first substitute house. Bill 4 31 pass.