This bill amends RCW 77.55.021 to revise permit application, review, and emergency procedures for hydraulic projects. It specifies required contents of a complete written application, allows the department to set up direct billing and multi-site permits, requires applications (except emergencies) be filed at the Olympia headquarters, and provides that protection of fish life is the sole ground for denying or conditioning a permit. The department generally has 45 calendar days to grant or deny a complete application (with listed suspensions and possible extensions), permit approvals are generally valid up to five years, permittees must show substantial progress within two years, permits and modifications are appealable, and modifications by the department or requested by a permittee follow specified timelines and fee rules. The amendment adds and clarifies emergency, imminent danger, chronic danger, and expedited-permit procedures. During emergencies the department must provide immediate verbal approval for certain urgent work, reduce conditions to writing within 30 days, and may not require SEPA or charge authorized fees until after the written permit is issued. For imminent danger the department must issue an expedited written permit within 15 days of a complete application, valid up to 60 days; the department may also issue expedited permits when normal processing would cause significant hardship or unacceptable environmental damage, subject to the same 15-day issuance and 60-day validity rules. Projects addressing a chronic danger that meet the description in RCW 77.55.181(1)(a)(ii) are not subject to SEPA and are reviewed as fish habitat improvement projects under RCW 77.55.181(3). The bill also allows, for certain emergency culvert replacements that do not provide substantial fish habitat benefits, a local government to apply to invest equivalent resources in upgrading an alternative fish passage barrier within its prioritized watershed strategy. The text references other statutes and agencies (for example RCW 77.55.181, RCW 77.55.321, the Department of Ecology for Clean Water Act compliance, and appeal procedures under RCW 43.21B.230). Important portions are not included in the extracted material: the remainder of subsection (15) and subsection (16) are missing, the statute’s defined name of “the department” and full statutory definitions for terms such as “hydraulic project,” “complete written application,” and “chronic danger” are not provided here, so some specifics and applicability cannot be determined from the available text.

If enacted, people and governments proposing work in or near Washington waters will need to submit more detailed, fee-backed permit applications and be prepared for faster deadlines or immediate approvals in emergencies. Routine permits are expected to be decided within about 45 days if applicants are available for inspection, but emergencies or imminent threats can trigger immediate verbal approvals or 15-day expedited written permits that must be formalized within 30 days; applicants must still pay fees before non‑emergency reviews begin, though emergency fees are not charged until a verbal permit is put in writing. Local governments get a practical option after emergency culvert fixes to spend equivalent resources upgrading fish passage elsewhere when the emergency site offers little habitat benefit, and projects qualifying as a “chronic danger” under the referenced rule can avoid SEPA and be processed like fish habitat improvement projects, which will likely shorten review time and reduce environmental review costs. These changes shift workload and timing pressure onto the permitting department and other agencies, increase the importance of having complete applications and being available for timely inspections, and make appeals more likely where applicants disagree. Important details needed to know who exactly benefits or is exempt—such as the full definition of “chronic danger,” the exact project description in RCW 77.55.181(1)(a)(ii), and the formal identity of “the department”—are missing from the provided text, so the precise scope and some implementation mechanics remain unclear.