This bill creates a new chapter in Title 77 RCW establishing procedures for identifying and responding to ungulate populations that fall "at-risk" and directing predator mitigation in a defined portion of the state where gray wolves are federally delisted. It sets legislative findings and intent, defines key terms (including "at-risk population," "federal delisting area," "predator," "predator mitigation," "sportsmen," and "ungulate"), and requires action when an ungulate population in the delisting area drops 25 percent or more below its 10-year rolling average. The bill requires the unspecified department to begin predator mitigation within 60 days of an at-risk designation using existing department resources. Authorized mitigation measures include seasonal or geographic predator reductions around sensitive ranges, translocation of gray wolves within Washington, targeted removal, and nonlethal measures such as diversionary feeding or hazing. Mitigation must continue until mule deer and white-tailed deer both meet or exceed 2004 harvest levels for two consecutive years and each exceed their 10-year rolling average; the department must monitor population increases over time. The bill also requires the department to conduct and resume annual white-tailed deer population counts in partnership with licensed hunters and recognized wildlife associations, design surveys collaboratively and transparently, publish population counts and deer season harvest reports annually by March 31 (or two weeks before seasons can be set), and report to the legislature annually by March 31 on trends, at-risk designations, mitigation actions, and progress toward 2004 benchmarks. The department is authorized to adopt rules to implement these provisions. The Fish and Wildlife Commission and rural stakeholders are referenced in the findings. Several details are not specified in the provided text: which specific agency is meant by "the department"; precise maps or further locational context for the "federal delisting area" and referenced wolf management zones; how the 10-year rolling average is calculated; numeric 2004 harvest benchmarks; and how existing resources will be allocated for these duties. The extracted facts do not show any new crimes or penalty changes.

If enacted, the state wildlife department would be required to resume and run annual white-tailed deer counts with licensed hunters and recognized hunting groups, publish those counts and deer harvest reports each year by March 31 (or two weeks before seasons are set), and send an annual report to the legislature on ungulate trends and any at‑risk designations. The department must also designate a herd as "at‑risk" when it drops 25% below its 10‑year rolling average in the defined federal delisting area and begin predator‑mitigation actions within 60 days using existing resources; those actions can include seasonal or geographic predator reductions, wolf translocation within Washington, targeted removal, and nonlethal measures and must continue until mule and white‑tailed deer meet two benchmarks tied to 2004 harvest levels and their 10‑year averages. The most directly affected party is the unnamed wildlife department, which gains new monitoring, reporting, rulemaking, and predator‑management duties that it must absorb with current resources, likely forcing reprioritization or hidden costs. Licensed hunters and hunting organizations will take on formal partnership roles in surveys and public reporting. Rural economies and hunters could see potential improvements in ungulate numbers if mitigation is effective, but predator control actions—especially wolf translocation or removal—could create operational costs, legal or tribal conflicts, and public controversy. Important practical details remain unclear here, including which specific department is responsible, the exact geographic boundaries and numeric benchmarks (2004 harvest levels and how the 10‑year average is calculated), and whether existing resources are sufficient to carry out these new duties.