House Bill 2316 amends RCW 36.70A.110 and creates an additional section. It includes legislative findings saying shrubsteppe vegetation within urban growth areas (UGAs) should not be treated as functional ecosystem that blocks development, that shrubsteppe can be wildfire fuel, and that removing such vegetation in UGAs has negligible environmental impact and helps housing goals. The bill reproduces and modifies existing urban growth area planning rules, including consultation, density and adoption timelines, and criteria for revising UGA boundaries. Substantive changes in the extracted text require counties to engage in meaningful consultation with potentially affected federally recognized tribes for proposed UGA revisions, notify tribes by at least two methods including mail, and, if consultation does not produce agreement, enter mediation under RCW 36.70A.040. The bill generally prohibits expanding UGAs into the 100-year floodplain of specified large rivers west of the Cascade crest, with several listed exceptions and conditions for lands with development rights permanently extinguished. It also provides that jurisdictions and utilities are not obligated to install sanitary sewer systems within UGAs during the 20-year planning period for certain properties with functioning nonpolluting on-site systems or where sewer is not required due to environmental constraints. Importantly, the bill states that property within UGAs with shrubs and plants “associated with shrubsteppe” may not be treated as wildlife habitat, critical areas, conservation areas, or otherwise protected in ways that restrict development; state and local agencies may not require replacement, mitigation, protection, or restoration of such shrubsteppe within UGAs. The text lists specific plant and invasive species that are considered “shrubs and plants associated with shrubsteppe” for this purpose and defines “one hundred year floodplain” by reference to WAC 173-158-040 as of July 26, 2009. This is a land use and procedural change to existing law, not a criminal or penalty statute: it alters planning criteria, consultation and notification procedures, definitions, and limits regulatory mitigation or restoration obligations related to shrubsteppe in urban growth areas. The extracted material is incomplete: the bill text is cut off in places (including a mid-sentence subsection and the new section text), the identity of “the department” referenced is not given, and any additional provisions or implementation details outside the provided excerpts are not available here.

If enacted, counties and cities will face new planning constraints and duties: they must notify and meaningfully consult federally recognized tribes (using at least two methods, including mail) about proposed urban growth area revisions, with mediation if no agreement is reached, and they generally cannot expand urban growth areas into the 100‑year floodplain of larger rivers west of the Cascades (mean annual flow ≥1,000 cfs) except in narrow, enumerated situations. Local governments and utilities also are not automatically required to build sewer lines to every property inside an urban growth area if on‑site sewage systems are functioning without pollution and under periodic public inspection, or if densities are limited by wetlands, floodplains, habitat, or geologic hazards, which can reduce infrastructure costs but may leave some properties dependent on existing septic systems. Landowners and developers inside urban growth boundaries will find it easier to remove or alter shrubsteppe vegetation without being treated as damaging wildlife habitat or triggering mitigation, restoration, replacement, penalties, or other environmental enhancement requirements; a specific list of shrubs, grasses, and common invasive mixes is identified for this carve‑out. Counties and cities will likely see lower regulatory costs and fewer environmental constraints on development in those urban areas, but they gain additional tribal consultation responsibilities and face limits on locating new urban land in large floodplains; some implementation details and timing are missing from the provided text, so how agencies will apply the exceptions and coordinate these changes is uncertain.