Senator Solomon, chair of the Senate Local Government Committee, introduced legislation to rename the Habitat Recovery Pilot Program as the Habitat Restoration Permit Pathway and make it permanent after a work session that featured state agency staff, tribes and regional restoration partners.

The bill would continue a multi‑agency, streamlined permitting pathway used by salmon restoration projects. "The pilot was a success in achieving the legislative intent," Don Gourley, legislative policy director for the Puget Sound Partnership, told the committee, citing reduced delays and reported savings for project sponsors.

Why it matters: Sponsors and project proponents said HRPP cuts months or more from permitting timelines that otherwise can push in‑water construction out of narrow seasonal work windows, raising costs and risking redesigns. Matt Curtis, protection division manager in the habitat program at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the multi‑agency permitting (MAP) team is the mechanism that lets the program consider a broader range of restoration project types than existing streamlined pathways.

Proponents provided program results and examples. Curtis told senators the pilot had permitted about 45 projects across 16 counties and that 26 projects had completed construction, with more than half finishing the same year their permit was issued. Project sponsors surveyed by Fish and Wildlife reported time savings of roughly three to 12 months and cost savings ranging from about $1,000 to $80,000 per project. Paul Cole (Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership) and Morgan Morris (Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group) said the pathway reduced staff time and local fees and helped keep large projects on track to reach construction in 2025.

Tribal and local restoration leaders described on‑the‑ground benefits and urgent need for timely work. Lindsay Thomas, restoration project manager for the Nooksack Indian Tribe, described engineered log jams and other actions that create holding pools and side channels; she said permitting delays have in some cases added years to project timelines and that in 2021 more than 2,400 Chinook died in the South Fork Nooksack before they could spawn. Devin Smith, representing the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, said HRPP "conserves public dollars, increases the pace of salmon recovery, and does not diminish the needed engineering review for habitat restoration projects." He added that projects remain subject to floodplain and other local reviews and to land‑use permissions.

Local governments in the Skagit basin urged exceptions for their watershed. Peter Browning, Skagit County commissioner, and other Skagit elected officials and tribal representatives said much of the Skagit Delta work involves major infrastructure and privately owned farmland; they asked that the bill exclude the upper and lower Skagit watersheds (wire 3 and 4 in testimony) so local and tribal governments can coordinate land acquisition, engineering and long‑term infrastructure outcomes in advance. Will O'Honey (representing Skagit interests) said the county learned of some HRPP projects after work began and warned the program could leave local governments and infrastructure managers with outcomes they must remediate.

Staff summary and bill details: Committee staff summarized the bill as renaming the pilot, removing the pilot expiration, and expanding eligible project lists to include work funded by specific grant programs. The staff briefing noted applicants would be required to provide project descriptions and areas of potential effect to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected federally recognized tribes; for projects needing Department of Natural Resources land‑use authorization, applicants may submit a completed permit to Fish and Wildlife either 30 days after providing a copy to DNR or upon receipt of DNR approval, whichever comes first. The staff summary said a fiscal note had been requested but was not yet available.

Dissent and next steps: Senators heard broad support from restoration groups, ports and tribes but also heard repeated requests from Skagit County, Upper Skagit and related local organizations for a carve‑out. Chair Solomon asked Skagit representatives to submit specific language; several witnesses urged retaining local floodplain and public‑safety review rights in statute. No formal vote was held; the committee closed the public hearing after noting 36 pro and 3 con individuals had registered to testify.

Proponents and opponents asked lawmakers to weigh statewide streamlining gains against locally specific infrastructure and land‑use coordination needs as the committee considers amendments and next steps.