This bill adds a new legislative finding and amends RCW 79A.15.060 to change how the habitat conservation account is governed. It authorizes the (unnamed) board to adopt rules establishing acquisition policies and priorities for distributions from the account, prescribes minimum criteria the board must consider for different kinds of projects (critical habitat and natural areas, urban wildlife habitat, and riparian protection), and requires the board to recommend a prioritized list of projects to the governor before November 1st of every even-numbered year. The governor may remove projects from that list and must submit the amended list in the capital budget request to the legislature; each project entry must include a description, any match requirement, and any anticipated restrictions on recreational activities. The amendment restricts how moneys appropriated under the chapter may be used: generally they may not be used by the board for staff or overhead, nor by state, regional, or local agencies for operation or maintenance of areas acquired under the chapter, except as provided in RCW 79A.15.030(8). Grant recipients may use funds for incidental acquisition costs such as surveying, fencing, noxious weed control, mitigation costs, and signing. The board may not approve a local project when the local agency share (including fees from private permit applicants) is less than the amount to be awarded from the habitat conservation account. The bill creates eligibility rules and programmatic conditions: the account must be available for grants to landowners when mitigation requirements exceed typical regional mitigation fees or when mitigation requirements deprive a landowner of beneficial use of property to the extent of losing more than 50 percent of the financial benefit from the property’s current use. It requires most riparian enhancement or restoration projects to include acquisition of a real property interest to be eligible, allows continuation of the conservation reserve enhancement program (CREP) and makes applications that extend CREP leases eligible for conservation lease extensions of at least 25 years. The document repeatedly refers to terms and provisions not defined or included here (for example, the identity of "the board," the definitions and details of the habitat conservation account, "this chapter," the conservation reserve enhancement program, and the content of RCW 79A.15.030(8) and RCW 79A.15.040). The new legislative finding refers to compensation when state regulations cause loss of beneficial use, but specific compensation mechanisms or procedures are not provided in the extracted text.

If enacted, the law would make state grant money from the habitat conservation account more explicitly available to private landowners and local projects when regulatory mitigation costs are unusually high or when mitigation removes more than half of a property's current financial benefit, and it allows those grants to be used for incidental acquisition costs like surveying, fencing, noxious weed control, mitigation costs, and signing. It also tightens how riparian and other habitat projects are funded: most enhancement or restoration projects must include buying a real property interest (rather than only paying for work), riparian leases already in the conservation reserve program can be extended for at least 25 years, and the board will set acquisition priorities using specified criteria (including pollinator and urban habitat considerations). The practical effects are that landowners who face costly mitigation may get financial relief, but local governments and project sponsors will generally need to provide an equal or greater local match to receive funds and may face higher up‑front costs because projects will more often need to acquire land interests rather than only fund on‑site work. State agencies and the board will have new rulemaking and prioritization responsibilities, and state grant funds will largely not cover staffing or ongoing operation and maintenance. Key details are unclear from the text provided — notably which specific "board" is responsible, exactly how compensation to landowners would be administered, and how exceptions cited in other RCWs will apply — so implementation and budget impacts are uncertain.