This bill amends the existing salmon recovery funding law (RCW 77.85.130) to set statewide procedures and criteria for how the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) allocates funds for salmon habitat projects and recovery activities. It authorizes the board to adopt an annual allocation, partially fund or phase projects, and set an annual maximum per project. Projects required solely as mitigation or as a permitting condition are ineligible. The amendment creates detailed preference and consideration criteria (referencing limiting factors analyses, SASSI, SSHIAP, regional recovery plans, Puget Sound partnership references, cost-effectiveness, matching funds, sponsor track record, involvement of conservation corps, and plans for ongoing maintenance). The board may reject but not add projects from lead entity lists, may establish and award block grants to lead entities or regional recovery organizations (including for ongoing maintenance), require annual reporting on expenditures and outcomes, and may waive or modify allocation procedures to conform to legislative appropriations or federal funding conditions. The bill also makes several procedural and administrative changes: it permits grants or loans for projects on land where the landowner has a legal obligation under law to perform the project (excluding obligations that are only mitigation or permit conditions) when expedited action provides a clear benefit; it allows property acquired or improved with SRFB funds to be conveyed to a federal agency under specified conditions; and it requires SRFB-funded project sponsors who are not otherwise subject to public disclosure law to contractually agree to disclose expenditure information as if they were subject to chapter 42.56 RCW. It further limits Puget Sound restoration projects funded under this chapter after January 1, 2010, to those not in conflict with the Puget Sound partnership action agenda. The bill also adds a new section creating the "salmon recovery project maintenance account" in the state treasury to hold legislative funds dedicated to long-term maintenance of salmon recovery projects; receipts must be deposited in that account and moneys spent only after appropriation. The legislature states an intent to provide an amount equal to one percent of total salmon recovery project funds for long-term maintenance, but the extracted text does not include specific appropriation language, timing, or an enforcement mechanism. Several referenced statutes, definitions, and specific text of cited RCWs (including RCW 77.85.050, 77.85.060, 77.85.240, 90.71.010, and 90.71.310) are cited but not included in the provided excerpts.

If enacted, the most immediate practical change will be that the state will steer salmon recovery money toward projects that show the strongest science-based benefit, that are part of high-priority regional plans, and that include plans and funding for long-term maintenance. Lead entities and regional recovery organizations will have a new route to receive block grants and will face new reporting and disclosure requirements on how they spend money and the outcomes they achieve, while projects required solely as regulatory mitigation or permit conditions will generally no longer be eligible for these funds. Project sponsors, including private landowners with legal obligations, may still get grants or loans in limited expedited situations, and conservation corps programs are more likely to be used on funded projects; county and city legislative bodies must approve certain property transfers to federal agencies if those transfers are tied to funded projects. There is a declared legislative intent to set aside an amount equal to 1% of total salmon recovery project funds for a new maintenance account, which would raise the likelihood of dedicated long-term maintenance money, but the bill does not include a clear appropriation schedule or an enforcement mechanism for that 1% so the timing and size of that funding remain uncertain. Several implementation details depend on other statutes and agency rules referenced but not included here, so how strictly priorities and exceptions are applied in practice could vary.