SB 6075

S-3713.2
  SENATE BILL 6075
State of Washington  69th Legislature       2026 Regular Session
By Senators Wagoner and Short
Read first time 01/13/26.       Referred to Committee on Agriculture &
Natural Resources.
1      AN ACT Relating to requiring fairness in mitigation requirements;
2  amending RCW 79A.15.060; and creating a new section.
3  BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4      NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1.   The preservation of critical species and
5  habitats is important in this state. However, it should not be done
6  at the cost of private landowners. When state regulations result in
7  the loss of the beneficial use of property, the legislature finds
8  that the state should provide compensation in order to preserve
9  habitats.
10     Sec. 2. RCW 79A.15.060 and 2019 c 353 s 12 are each amended to
11 read as follows:
12     (1) The board may adopt rules establishing acquisition policies
13 and priorities for distributions from the habitat conservation
14 account.
15     (2) Except as provided in RCW 79A.15.030(8), moneys appropriated
16 for this chapter may not be used by the board to fund staff positions
17 or other overhead expenses, or by a state, regional, or local agency
18 to fund operation or maintenance of areas acquired under this
19 chapter.
  p. 1  SB 6075
1     (3) Moneys appropriated for this chapter may be used by grant
2 recipients for costs incidental to acquisition, including, but not
3 limited to, surveying expenses, fencing, noxious weed control,
4 mitigation costs, and signing.
5     (4) The board may not approve a local project where the local
6 agency share, including any fees received by the local agency from
7 private project permit applicants, is less than the amount to be
8 awarded from the habitat conservation account.
9     (5)(a) The habitat conservation account must also be available
10 for grants to landowners when the cost of mitigation requirements
11 required by the department of fish and wildlife or the department of
12 ecology exceeds the costs of a typical mitigation fee or of a
13 mitigation fee for an equivalent impact in the same region.
14     (b) The account must also be available when mitigation
15 requirements deprive the landowner of the beneficial use of the real
16 property to such an extent that the deprivation results in the loss
17 of more than 50 percent of the financial benefit from the current use
18 of the property.
19     (6) In determining acquisition priorities with respect to the
20 habitat conservation account, the board shall consider, at a minimum,
21 the following criteria:
22     (a) For critical habitat and natural areas proposals:
23     (i) Multiple benefits for the project;
24     (ii) Whether, and the extent to which, a conservation easement
25 can be used to meet the purposes for the project;
26     (iii) Community support for the project based on input from, but
27 not limited to, local citizens, local organizations, and local
28 elected officials;
29     (iv) The project proposal's ongoing stewardship program that
30 includes estimated costs of maintaining and operating the project
31 including, but not limited to, control of noxious weeds and
32 detrimental invasive species, and that identifies the source of the
33 funds from which the stewardship program will be funded;
34     (v) Recommendations as part of a watershed plan or habitat
35 conservation plan, or a coordinated regionwide prioritization effort,
36 and for projects primarily intended to benefit salmon, limiting
37 factors, or critical pathways analysis;
38     (vi) Immediacy of threat to the site;
39     (vii) Uniqueness of the site;
40     (viii) Diversity of species using the site;
  p. 2  SB 6075
1     (ix) Quality of the habitat;
2     (x) Long-term viability of the site;
3     (xi) Presence of endangered, threatened, or sensitive species;
4     (xii) Enhancement of existing public property;
5     (xiii) Consistency with a local land use plan, or a regional or
6 statewide recreational or resource plan, including projects that
7 assist in the implementation of local shoreline master plans updated
8 according to RCW 90.58.080 or local comprehensive plans updated
9 according to RCW 36.70A.130;
10     (xiv) Educational and scientific value of the site;
11     (xv)   Integration   with   recovery   efforts   for    endangered,
12 threatened, or sensitive species;
13     (xvi) The statewide significance of the site;
14     (xvii)   Habitat   benefits   for  the   feeding,    nesting,   and
15 reproduction of all pollinators, including honey bees.
16     (b) For urban wildlife habitat proposals, in addition to the
17 criteria of (a) of this subsection:
18     (i) Population of, and distance from, the nearest urban area;
19     (ii) Proximity to other wildlife habitat;
20     (iii) Potential for public use; and
21     (iv) Potential for use by special needs populations.
22     (c) For riparian protection proposals, the board must consider,
23 at a minimum, the following criteria:
24     (i) Whether the project continues the conservation reserve
25 enhancement program. Applications that extend the duration of leases
26 of riparian areas that are currently enrolled in the conservation
27 reserve enhancement program are eligible. These applications are
28 eligible for a conservation lease extension of at least twenty-five
29 years of duration;
30     (ii) Whether the projects are identified or recommended in a
31 watershed plan, salmon recovery plan, or other local plans, such as
32 habitat conservation plans, and these must be highly considered in
33 the process;
34     (iii) Whether there is community support for the project;
35     (iv) Whether the proposal includes an ongoing stewardship program
36 that includes control of noxious weeds, detrimental invasive species,
37 and that identifies the source of the funds from which the
38 stewardship program will be funded;
39     (v) Whether there is an immediate threat to the site;
  p. 3  SB 6075
1     (vi) Whether the quality of the habitat is improved or, for
2 projects including restoration or enhancement, the potential for
3 restoring quality habitat including linkage of the site to other high
4 quality habitat;
5     (vii) Whether the project is consistent with a local land use
6 plan or a regional or statewide recreational or resource plan. The
7 projects that assist in the implementation of local shoreline master
8 plans updated according to RCW 90.58.080 or local comprehensive plans
9 updated according to RCW 36.70A.130 must be highly considered in the
10 process;
11     (viii) Whether the site has educational or scientific value;
12     (ix) Whether the site has passive recreational values for walking
13 trails, wildlife viewing, the observation of natural settings, or
14 other multiple benefits; and
15     (x) Whether the project provides habitat benefits for the
16 feeding, nesting, and reproduction of all pollinators, including
17 honey bees.
18     (d) Moneys appropriated for this chapter to riparian protection
19 projects must be distributed for the acquisition or enhancement or
20 restoration of riparian habitat. All enhancement or restoration
21 projects, except those qualifying under (c)(i) of this subsection,
22 must include the acquisition of a real property interest in order to
23 be eligible.
24     (((6))) (7) Before November 1st of each even-numbered year, the
25 board shall recommend to the governor a prioritized list of all
26 projects to be funded under RCW 79A.15.040. The governor may remove
27 projects from the list recommended by the board and shall submit this
28 amended list in the capital budget request to the legislature. The
29 list shall include, but not be limited to, a description of each
30 project and any particular match requirement, and describe for each
31 project any anticipated restrictions upon recreational activities
32 allowed prior to the project.
  --- END ---
  p. 4  SB 6075