Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to pass a bill that amends the states comprehensive planning network to improve salmon recovery.

Highlights:

• Defines "compensatory mitigation ratio" as a measurement of the size, temporal duration, or quality of mitigation required by a permitting agency to ensure that impacts to regulated aspects of the environment from an activity subject to a permit are fully mitigated over the life of the activity or project subject to the permit (Sec. 2-5).

• Alleges the legislature intends to support the protection of salmon through ensuring that proportional compensatory mitigation for direct and indirect impacts that are predicted to occur over the expected life of the project to wetlands, water, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and other elements of the environment that affect salmon habitat achieves its desired outcomes (Sec. 1-2.b).

• Requires salmon recovery will take the following form: Support the recovery and enhancement of salmon and steelhead stocks through the advancement of net ecological gain from planning to fulfill Washington's tribal treaty obligations, support nontribal commercial and recreational fisheries, and achieve the delisting and recovery of threatened or endangered salmon and steelhead runs under the federal Endangered Species Act (Sec. 3-14).

• Establishes state and local system needs includes a schedule for the elimination of all identified fish passage barriers, consistent with the prioritization schedule identified by the fish passage barrier removal board, identified on the local transportation system (Sec. 4.F).

• Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to facilitate an ongoing and collaborative process to identify gaps and targets related to salmon habitat and funding, to be informed by its monitoring work (Sec. 5-6).

• Specifies when using compensatory mitigation, regulations must ensure that measures to mitigate by compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments result in no net loss of ecological function under a range of compensatory mitigation implementation scenarios, including compensatory mitigation implementation scenarios in which (Sec. 6-2):

• The ecological functions and values provided by impacted elements of the environment are superior to the ecological functions  and values provided by the mitigation measures; and

• Mitigation measures do not function as successfully as designed, intended, or expected.

• Authorizes project proponents to use a mitigation plan to propose compensatory mitigation within a watershed. A mitigation plan will (Sec. 7-1):

• Contain provisions that guarantee the long-term viability of the created, restored, enhanced, or preserved habitat, including assurances for protecting any essential biological functions and values defined in the mitigation plan;

• Contain provisions for long-term monitoring of any created, restored, or enhanced mitigation site;

• Be consistent with the local comprehensive land-use plan and any other applicable planning process in effect for the development area, such as an adopted subbasin or watershed plan; and

• Apply the mitigation hierarchy requirement by requiring that projects avoid impacts where avoidance is reasonably attainable, minimize impacts where avoidance is not reasonably attainable, and use compensatory mitigation where avoidance and minimization are not reasonably attainable.

Full Bill Text