title: RCW 77.85.200

text:
(1) A program for salmon and steelhead recovery is established in Clark, Cowlitz, Lewis, Skamania, and Wahkiakum counties within the habitat areas classified as the lower Columbia evolutionarily significant units by the federal national marine fisheries service. The management board created under subsection (2) of this section is responsible for developing and overseeing the implementation of the habitat portion of the salmon and steelhead recovery plan and is empowered to receive and disburse funds for the salmon and steelhead recovery initiatives. The management board created pursuant to this section shall constitute the lead entity and the committee established under RCW 77.85.050 responsible for fulfilling the requirements and exercising powers under this chapter.
(2) A management board consisting of fifteen voting members is created within the lower Columbia evolutionarily significant units. The members shall consist of one county commissioner or designee from each of the five participating counties selected by each county legislative authority; one member representing the cities contained within the lower Columbia evolutionarily significant units as a voting member selected by the cities in the lower Columbia evolutionarily significant units; a representative of the Cowlitz Tribe appointed by the tribe; one state legislator elected from one of the legislative districts contained within the lower Columbia evolutionarily significant units selected by that group of state legislators representing the area; five representatives to include at least one member who represents private property interests appointed by the five county commissioners or designees; one hydro utility representative nominated by hydro utilities and appointed by the five county commissioners or designees; and one representative nominated from the environmental community who resides in the lower Columbia evolutionarily significant units appointed by the five county commissioners or designees. The board shall appoint and consult a technical advisory committee, which shall include four representatives of state agencies one each appointed by the directors of the departments of ecology, fish and wildlife, and transportation, and the commissioner of public lands. The board may also appoint additional persons to the technical advisory committee as needed. The chair of the board shall be selected from among the members of the management board by the five county commissioners or designees and the legislator on the board. In making appointments under this subsection, the county commissioners shall consider recommendations of interested parties. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointments were selected. No action may be brought or maintained against any management board member, the management board, or any of its agents, officers, or employees for any noncontractual acts or omissions in carrying out the purposes of this section.
(3)(a) The management board shall participate in the development of a habitat recovery plan to implement its responsibilities under (b) of this subsection. The management board shall consider local watershed efforts and activities as well as habitat conservation plans in the development and implementation of the recovery plan. Any of the participating counties may continue its own efforts for restoring steelhead habitat. Nothing in this section limits the authority of units of local government to enter into interlocal agreements under chapter 39.34 RCW or any other provision of law.
(b) The management board is responsible for the development of a lower Columbia salmon and steelhead habitat recovery plan and for coordinating and monitoring the implementation of the plan. The management board will submit all future plans and amendments to plans to the governor's salmon recovery office for the incorporation of hatchery, harvest, and hydropower components of the statewide salmon recovery strategy for all submissions to the national marine fisheries service. In developing and implementing the habitat recovery plan, the management board will work with appropriate federal and state agencies, tribal governments, local governments, and the public to make sure hatchery, harvest, and hydropower components receive consideration in context with the habitat component. The management board may work in cooperation with the state and the national marine fisheries service to modify the plan, or to address habitat for other aquatic species that may be subsequently listed under the federal endangered species act. The management board may not exercise authority over land or water within the individual counties or otherwise preempt the authority of any units of local government.
(c) The management board shall prioritize as appropriate and approve projects and programs related to the recovery of lower Columbia river salmon and steelhead runs, including the funding of those projects and programs, and coordinate local government efforts as prescribed in the recovery plan. The management board shall establish criteria for funding projects and programs based upon their likely value in salmon and steelhead recovery. The management board may consider local economic impact among the criteria, but jurisdictional boundaries and factors related to jurisdictional population may not be considered as part of the criteria.
(d) The management board shall assess the factors for decline along each tributary basin in the lower Columbia. The management board is encouraged to take a stream-by-stream approach in conducting the assessment which utilizes state and local expertise, including volunteer groups, interest groups, and affected units of local government.
(4) The management board has the authority to hire and fire staff, including an executive director, enter into contracts, accept grants and other moneys, disburse funds, make recommendations to cities and counties about potential code changes and the development of programs and incentives upon request, pay all necessary expenses, and may choose a fiduciary agent. The management board shall report on its progress on a biennial basis to the legislative bodies of the five participating counties and the state natural resource-related agencies. The management board shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of the program describing its efforts and successes in developing and implementing the lower Columbia salmon and steelhead recovery plan. The final report shall be transmitted to the appropriate committees of the legislature, the legislative bodies of the participating counties, and the state natural resource-related agencies.
(5) For purposes of this section, "evolutionarily significant unit" means the habitat area identified for an evolutionarily significant unit of an aquatic species listed or proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species under the federal endangered species act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.).
[ 2009 c 199 s 1; 2005 c 308 s 1; 2001 c 135 s 1; 2000 c 107 s 121; 1998 c 60 s 2. Formerly RCW 75.56.050.]
Notes:
Effective date—2001 c 135: "This act takes effect August 1, 2001." [ 2001 c 135 s 3.]
Finding—Intent—1998 c 60: "The legislature recognizes the need to address listings that are made under the federal endangered species act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.) in a way that will make the most efficient use of existing efforts. The legislature finds that the principle of adaptive management requires that different models should be tried so that the lessons learned from these models can be put to use throughout the state. It is the intent of the legislature to create a program for southwestern Washington to address the recent steelhead listings and which takes full advantage of all state and local efforts at habitat restoration in that area to date." [ 2001 c 135 s 2; 1998 c 60 s 1.]
Effective date—1998 c 60: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 19, 1998]." [ 1998 c 60 s 3.]

catchline: Salmon and steelhead recovery program—Management board—Duties.


doc_type: statute

jurisdiction: wa

title: RCW 77.85.220

text:
(1) If a limiting factors analysis has been conducted under this chapter for a specific geographic area and that analysis shows insufficient intertidal salmon habitat, the department of fish and wildlife and the county legislative authorities of the affected counties may jointly initiate a salmon intertidal habitat restoration planning process to develop a plan that addresses the intertidal habitat goals contained in the limiting factors analysis. The fish and wildlife commission and the county legislative authorities of the geographic area shall jointly appoint a task force composed of the following members:
(a) One representative of the fish and wildlife commission, appointed by the chair of the commission;
(b) Two representatives of the agricultural industry familiar with agricultural issues in the geographic area, one appointed by an organization active in the geographic area and one appointed by a statewide organization representing the industry;
(c) Two representatives of environmental interest organizations with familiarity and expertise of salmon habitat, one appointed by an organization in the geographic area and one appointed by a statewide organization representing environmental interests;
(d) One representative of a diking and drainage district, appointed by the individual districts in the geographic area or by an association of diking and drainage districts;
(e) One representative of the lead entity for salmon recovery in the geographic area, appointed by the lead entity;
(f) One representative of each county in the geographic area, appointed by the respective county legislative authorities; and
(g) One representative from the office of the governor.
(2) Representatives of the United States environmental protection agency, the United States natural resources conservation service, federal fishery agencies, as appointed by their regional director, and tribes with interests in the geographic area shall be invited and encouraged to participate as members of the task force.
(3) The task force shall elect a chair and adopt rules for conducting the business of the task force. Staff support for the task force shall be provided by the Washington state conservation commission.
(4) The task force shall:
(a) Review and analyze the limiting factors analysis for the geographic area;
(b) Initiate and oversee intertidal salmon habitat studies for enhancement of the intertidal area as provided in RCW 77.85.230;
(c) Review and analyze the completed assessments listed in RCW 77.85.230;
(d) Develop and draft an overall plan that addresses identified intertidal salmon habitat goals that has public support; and
(e) Identify appropriate demonstration projects and early implementation projects that are of high priority and should commence immediately within the geographic area.
(5) The task force may request briefings as needed on legal issues that may need to be considered when developing or implementing various plan options.
(6) Members of the task force shall be reimbursed by the conservation commission for travel expenses as provided in RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060.
(7) The task force shall provide annual reports that provide an update on its activities to the fish and wildlife commission, to the involved county legislative authorities, and to the lead entity formed under this chapter.
[ 2003 c 391 s 4.]
Notes:
Initiation of process—2003 c 391 ss 4 and 5: "The process established in sections 4 and 5 of this act shall be initiated as soon as practicable in Skagit county." [ 2003 c 391 s 7.]
Severability—Effective date—2003 c 391: See notes following RCW 77.57.030.

license: public-domain-government-work

rule_set: Revised Code of Washington

catchline: Salmon intertidal habitat restoration planning process—Task force—Reports.

code: rcw

unit: section

court: Washington State Legislature


title: RCW 77.85.230

text:
(1) In consultation with the appropriate task force formed under RCW 77.85.220, the conservation commission may contract with universities, private consultants, nonprofit groups, or other entities to assist it in developing a plan incorporating the following elements:
(a) An inventory of existing tide gates located on streams in the county. The inventory shall include location, age, type, and maintenance history of the tide gates and other factors as determined by the appropriate task force in consultation with the county and diking and drainage districts;
(b) An assessment of the role of tide gates located on streams in the county; the role of intertidal fish habitat for various life stages of salmon; the quantity and characterization of intertidal fish habitat currently accessible to fish; the quantity and characterization of the present intertidal fish habitat created at the time the dikes and outlets were constructed; the quantity of potential intertidal fish habitat on public lands and alternatives to enhance this habitat; the effects of saltwater intrusion on agricultural land, including the effects of backfeeding of salt water through the underground drainage system; the role of tide gates in drainage systems, including relieving excess water from saturated soil and providing reservoir functions between tides; the effect of saturated soils on production of crops; the characteristics of properly functioning intertidal fish habitat; a map of agricultural lands designated by the county as having long-term commercial significance and the effect of that designation; and the economic impacts to existing land uses for various alternatives for tide gate alteration; and
(c) A long-term plan for intertidal salmon habitat enhancement to meet the goals of salmon recovery and protection of agricultural lands. The proposal shall consider all other means to achieve salmon recovery without converting farmland. The proposal shall include methods to increase fish passage and otherwise enhance intertidal habitat on public lands pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, voluntary methods to increase fish passage on private lands, a priority list of intertidal salmon enhancement projects, and recommendations for funding of high priority projects. The task force also may propose pilot projects that will be designed to test and measure the success of various proposed strategies.
(2) In conjunction with other public landowners and the appropriate task force formed under RCW 77.85.220, the department shall develop an initial salmon intertidal habitat enhancement plan for public lands in the county. The initial plan shall include a list of public properties in the intertidal zone that could be enhanced for salmon, a description of how those properties could be altered to support salmon, a description of costs and sources of funds to enhance the property, and a strategy and schedule for prioritizing the enhancement of public lands for intertidal salmon habitat. This initial plan shall be submitted to the appropriate task force at least six months before the deadline established in subsection (3) of this section.
(3) The final intertidal salmon enhancement plan shall be completed within two years from the date the task force is formed under RCW 77.85.220 and funding has been secured. A final plan shall be submitted by the appropriate task force to the lead entity for the geographic area established under this chapter.
[ 2009 c 333 s 24; 2003 c 391 s 5.]
Notes:
Initiation of process—2003 c 391 ss 4 and 5: See note following RCW 77.85.220.
Severability—Effective date—2003 c 391: See notes following RCW 77.57.030.

catchline: Intertidal salmon enhancement plan—Elements—Initial and final plan.


title: RCW 77.85.240

text:
When administering funds under this chapter, the board shall give preference only to Puget Sound partners, as defined in RCW 90.71.010, in comparison to other entities that are eligible to be included in the definition of Puget Sound partner. Entities that are not eligible to be a Puget Sound partner due to geographic location, composition, exclusion from the scope of the Puget Sound action agenda developed by the Puget Sound partnership under RCW 90.71.310, or for any other reason, shall not be given less preferential treatment than Puget Sound partners.
[ 2007 c 341 s 37.]
Notes:
Effective date—2007 c 341: See RCW 90.71.907.

catchline: Puget Sound partners.


title: RCW 77.95.010

text:
Currently, many of the salmon stocks of Washington state are critically reduced from their sustainable level. The best interests of all fishing groups and the citizens as a whole are served by a stable and productive salmon resource. Immediate action is needed to reverse the severe decline of the resource and to insure its very survival. The legislature finds a state of emergency exists and that immediate action is required to restore its fishery.
Disagreement and strife have dominated the salmon fisheries for many years. Conflicts among the various fishing interests have only served to erode the resource. It is time for the state of Washington to make a major commitment to increasing productivity of the resource and to move forward with an effective rehabilitation and enhancement program. The commission is directed to dedicate its efforts and the efforts of the department to seek resolution to the many conflicts that involve the resource.
Success of the enhancement program can only occur if projects efficiently produce salmon or restore habitat. The expectation of the program is to optimize the efficient use of funding on projects that will increase artificially and naturally produced salmon, restore and improve habitat, or identify ways to increase the survival of salmon. The full utilization of state resources and cooperative efforts with interested groups are essential to the success of the program.
[ 1995 1st sp.s. c 2 s 33 (Referendum Bill No. 45, approved November 7, 1995); 1993 sp.s. c 2 s 45; 1985 c 458 s 1. Formerly RCW 75.50.010.]
Notes:
Referral to electorate—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 77.04.013.
Effective date—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 43.17.020.
Effective date—1993 sp.s. c 2 ss 1-6, 8-59, and 61-79: See RCW 43.300.900.

catchline: Legislative findings.


title: RCW 77.95.020

text:
(1) The commission shall develop long-term regional policy statements regarding the salmon fishery resources before December 1, 1985. The commission shall consider the following in formulating and updating regional policy statements:
(a) Existing resource needs;
(b) Potential for creation of new resources;
(c) Successful existing programs, both within and outside the state;
(d) Balanced utilization of natural and hatchery production;
(e) Desires of the fishing interest;
(f) Need for additional data or research;
(g) Federal court orders; and
(h) Salmon advisory council recommendations.
(2) The commission shall review and update each policy statement at least once each year.
[ 1995 1st sp.s. c 2 s 34 (Referendum Bill No. 45, approved November 7, 1995); 1985 c 458 s 2. Formerly RCW 75.50.020.]
Notes:
Referral to electorate—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 77.04.013.
Effective date—1995 1st sp.s c 2: See note following RCW 43.17.020.

catchline: Long-term regional policy statements.


title: RCW 77.95.030

text:
(1) The commission shall develop a detailed salmon enhancement plan with proposed enhancement projects. The plan and the regional policy statements shall be submitted to the secretary of the senate and chief clerk of the house of representatives for legislative distribution by June 30, 1986. The enhancement plan and regional policy statements shall be provided by June 30, 1986, to the natural resources committees of the house of representatives and the senate. The commission shall provide a maximum opportunity for the public to participate in the development of the salmon enhancement plan. To insure full participation by all interested parties, the commission shall solicit and consider enhancement project proposals from Indian tribes, sports fishers, commercial fishers, private aquaculturists, and other interested groups or individuals for potential inclusion in the salmon enhancement plan. Joint or cooperative enhancement projects shall be considered for funding.
(2) The following criteria shall be used by the commission in formulating the project proposals:
(a) Compatibility with the long-term policy statement;
(b) Benefit/cost analysis;
(c) Needs of all fishing interests;
(d) Compatibility with regional plans, including harvest management plans;
(e) Likely increase in resource productivity;
(f) Direct applicability of any research;
(g) Salmon advisory council recommendations;
(h) Compatibility with federal court orders;
(i) Coordination with the salmon and steelhead advisory commission program;
(j) Economic impact to the state;
(k) Technical feasibility; and
(l) Preservation of native salmon runs.
(3) The commission shall not approve projects that serve as replacement funding for projects that exist prior to May 21, 1985, unless no other sources of funds are available.
(4) The commission shall prioritize various projects and establish a recommended implementation time schedule.
[ 2013 c 23 s 246; 1995 1st sp.s. c 2 s 35 (Referendum Bill No. 45, approved November 7, 1995); 1985 c 458 s 3. Formerly RCW 75.50.030.]
Notes:
Referral to electorate—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 77.04.013.
Effective date—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 43.17.020.

catchline: Salmon enhancement plan—Enhancement projects.


title: RCW 77.95.040

text:
Upon approval by the legislature of funds for its implementation, the commission shall monitor the progress of projects detailed in the salmon enhancement plan.
The commission shall be responsible for establishing criteria which shall be used to measure the success of each project in the salmon enhancement plan.
[ 1995 1st sp.s. c 2 s 36 (Referendum Bill No. 45, approved November 7, 1995); 1985 c 458 s 4. Formerly RCW 75.50.040.]
Notes:
Referral to electorate—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 77.04.013.
Effective date—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 43.17.020.

catchline: Commission to monitor enhancement projects and enhancement plan.


title: RCW 77.95.050

text:
As used in this chapter, "enhancement project" means salmon propagation activities including, but not limited to, hatcheries, spawning channels, rearing ponds, egg boxes, fishways, fish screens, streambed clearing, erosion control, habitat restoration, net pens, applied research projects, and any equipment, real property, or other interest necessary to the proper operation thereof.
[ 1985 c 458 s 6. Formerly RCW 75.50.060.]

catchline: "Enhancement project" defined.


title: RCW 77.95.060

text:
The legislature finds that it is in the best interest of the salmon resource of the state to encourage the development of regional fisheries enhancement groups. The accomplishments of one existing group, the Grays Harbor fisheries enhancement task force, have been widely recognized as being exemplary. The legislature recognizes the potential benefits to the state that would occur if each region of the state had a similar group of dedicated citizens working to enhance the salmon resource.
The legislature authorizes the formation of regional fisheries enhancement groups. These groups shall be eligible for state financial support and shall be actively supported by the commission and the department. The regional groups shall be operated on a strictly nonprofit basis, and shall seek to maximize the efforts of volunteer and private donations to improve the salmon resource for all citizens of the state.
[ 1995 1st sp.s. c 2 s 38 (Referendum Bill No. 45, approved November 7, 1995); 1993 sp.s. c 2 s 46; 1989 c 426 s 1. Formerly RCW 75.50.070.]
Notes:
Referral to electorate—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 77.04.013.
Effective date—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 43.17.020.
Effective date—1993 sp.s. c 2 ss 1-6, 8-59, and 61-79: See RCW 43.300.900.
Severability—1989 c 426: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1989 c 426 s 10.]

catchline: Regional fisheries enhancement group authorized.


title: RCW 77.95.070

text:
Regional fisheries enhancement groups, consistent with the long-term regional policy statements developed under RCW 77.95.020, shall seek to:
(1) Enhance the salmon and steelhead resources of the state;
(2) Maximize volunteer efforts and private donations to improve the salmon and steelhead resources for all citizens;
(3) Assist the department in achieving the goal to double the statewide salmon and steelhead catch by the year 2000; and
(4) Develop projects designed to supplement the fishery enhancement capability of the department.
[ 2000 c 107 s 105; 1997 c 389 s 5; 1993 sp.s. c 2 s 47; 1989 c 426 s 4. Formerly RCW 75.50.080.]
Notes:
Findings—1997 c 389: See note following RCW 77.95.100.
Effective date—1993 sp.s. c 2 ss 1-6, 8-59, and 61-79: See RCW 43.300.900.
Severability—1989 c 426: See note following RCW 77.95.060.

catchline: Regional fisheries enhancement groups—Goals.


title: RCW 77.95.080

text:
Each regional fisheries enhancement group shall be incorporated pursuant to Title 24 RCW. Any interested person or group shall be permitted to join. It is desirable for the group to have representation from all categories of fishers and other parties that have interest in salmon within the region, as well as the general public.
[ 1990 c 58 s 2. Formerly RCW 75.50.090.]
Notes:
Findings—1990 c 58: "The legislature finds that: (1) It is in the best interest of the state to encourage nonprofit regional fisheries enhancement groups authorized in RCW 75.50.070 to participate in enhancing the state's salmon population including, but not limited to, salmon research, increased natural and artificial production, and through habitat improvement; (2) such regional fisheries enhancement groups interested in improving salmon habitat and rearing salmon shall be eligible for financial assistance; (3) such regional fisheries enhancement groups should seek to maximize the efforts of volunteer personnel and private donations; (4) this program will assist the state in its goal to double the salmon catch by the year 2000; (5) this program will benefit both commercial and recreational fisheries and improve cooperative efforts to increase salmon production through a coordinated approach with similar programs in other states and Canada; and (6) the Grays Harbor fisheries enhancement task force's exemplary performance in salmon enhancement provides a model for establishing regional fisheries enhancement groups by rule adopted under RCW 75.50.070, 75.50.080, and 75.50.090 through 75.50.110." [ 1990 c 58 s 1.]

catchline: Regional fisheries enhancement groups—Incorporation prerequisites.


title: RCW 77.95.090

text:
The dedicated regional fisheries enhancement group account is created in the custody of the state treasurer. Only the commission or the commission's designee may authorize expenditures from the account. The account is subject to allotment procedures under chapter 43.88 RCW, but no appropriation is required for expenditures.
A portion of each recreational fishing license fee shall be used as provided in RCW 77.32.440. A surcharge of one hundred dollars shall be collected on each commercial salmon fishery license, each salmon delivery license, and each salmon charter license sold in the state. All receipts shall be placed in the regional fisheries enhancement group account and shall be used exclusively for regional fisheries enhancement group projects for the purposes of *RCW 77.95.110. Except as provided in RCW 77.95.320, funds from the regional fisheries enhancement group account shall not serve as replacement funding for department operated salmon projects that exist on January 1, 1991.
All revenue from the department's sale of salmon carcasses and eggs that return to group facilities shall be deposited in the regional fisheries enhancement group account for use by the regional fisheries enhancement group that produced the surplus. The commission shall adopt rules to implement this section pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW.
[ 2009 c 340 s 4; 2000 c 107 s 106. Prior: 1998 c 245 s 155; 1998 c 191 s 27; 1995 1st sp.s. c 2 s 39 (Referendum Bill No. 45, approved November 7, 1995); prior: 1993 sp.s. c 17 s 11; 1993 c 340 s 53; 1990 c 58 s 3. Formerly RCW 75.50.100.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: RCW 77.95.110 was repealed by 2010 1st sp.s. c 7 s 81.
Findings—2009 c 340: See note following RCW 77.95.320.
Effective date—1998 c 191: See note following RCW 77.32.410.
Referral to electorate—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 77.04.013.
Effective date—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 43.17.020.
Finding—Contingent effective date—Severability—1993 sp.s. c 17: See notes following RCW 77.32.520.
Finding, intent—Captions not law—Effective date—Severability—1993 c 340: See notes following RCW 77.65.010.
Effective date—1990 c 58 s 3: "Section 3 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1991." [ 1990 c 58 s 6.]
Findings—1990 c 58: See note following RCW 77.95.080.

catchline: Regional fisheries enhancement group account—Revenue sources, uses, and limitations.


title: RCW 77.95.100

text:
The department may provide start-up funds to regional fisheries enhancement groups for costs associated with any enhancement project. The commission shall develop guidelines for providing funds to the regional fisheries enhancement groups.
[ 2010 1st sp.s. c 7 s 82; 2000 c 107 s 107; 1997 c 389 s 2. Formerly RCW 75.50.105.]
Notes:
Effective date—2010 1st sp.s. c 26; 2010 1st sp.s. c 7: See note following RCW 43.03.027.
Findings—1997 c 389: "(1) The legislature finds that:
(a) Currently, many of the salmon stocks on the Washington coast and in Puget Sound are severely depressed and may soon be listed under the federal endangered species act.
(b) Immediate action is needed to reverse the severe decline of this resource and ensure its very survival.
(c) The cooperation and participation of private landowners is crucial in efforts to restore and enhance salmon populations.
(d) Regional fisheries enhancement groups have been exceptionally successful in their efforts to work with private landowners to restore and enhance salmon habitat on private lands.
(e) State funding for regional fisheries enhancement groups has been declining and is a significant limitation to current fisheries enhancement and habitat restoration efforts.
(f) Therefore, a stable funding source is essential to the success of the regional enhancement groups and their efforts to work cooperatively with private landowners to restore salmon resources.
(2) The legislature further finds that:
(a) The increasing population and continued development throughout the state, and the transportation system needed to serve this growth, have exacerbated problems associated with culverts, creating barriers to fish passage.
(b) These barriers obstruct habitat and have resulted in reduced production and survival of anadromous and resident fish at a time when salmonid stocks continue to decline.
(c) Current state laws do not appropriately direct resources for the correction of fish passage obstructions related to transportation facilities.
(d) Current fish passage management efforts related to transportation projects lack necessary coordination on a watershed, regional, and statewide basis, have inadequate funding, and fail to maximize use of available resources.
(e) Therefore, the legislature finds that the department of transportation and the department of fish and wildlife should work with state, tribal, local government, and volunteer entities to develop a coordinated, watershed-based fish passage barrier removal program." [ 1997 c 389 s 1.]

catchline: Regional fisheries enhancement groups—Start-up funds.


title: RCW 77.95.130

text:
The regional fisheries enhancement salmonid recovery account is created in the state treasury. All receipts from federal sources and moneys from state sources specified by law must be deposited into the account. Moneys in the account may be spent only after appropriation. Expenditures from the account may be used for the sole purpose of fisheries enhancement and habitat restoration by regional fisheries enhancement groups.
[ 1997 c 389 s 3. Formerly RCW 75.50.125.]
Notes:
Findings—1997 c 389: See note following RCW 77.95.100.

catchline: Regional fisheries enhancement salmonid recovery account—Created.


title: RCW 77.95.140

text:
The commission shall prepare a salmon recovery plan for the Skagit river. The plan shall include strategies for employing displaced timber workers to conduct salmon restoration and other tasks identified in the plan. The plan shall incorporate the best available technology in order to achieve maximum restoration of depressed salmon stocks. The plan must encourage the restoration of natural spawning areas and natural rearing of salmon but must not preclude the development of an active hatchery program.
[ 1995 1st sp.s. c 2 s 41 (Referendum Bill No. 45, approved November 7, 1995); 1993 sp.s. c 2 s 48; 1992 c 88 s 1. Formerly RCW 75.50.130.]
Notes:
Referral to electorate—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 77.04.013.
Effective date—1995 1st sp.s. c 2: See note following RCW 43.17.020.
Effective date—1993 sp.s. c 2 ss 1-6, 8-59, and 61-79: See RCW 43.300.900.

catchline: Skagit river salmon recovery plan.


title: RCW 77.95.150

text:
The legislature finds that:
(1) Regional enhancement groups are a valuable resource for anadromous fish recovery. They improve critical fish habitat and directly contribute to anadromous fish populations through fish restoration technology.
(2) Due to a decrease in recreational and commercial salmon license sales, regional enhancement groups are receiving fewer financial resources at a time when recovery efforts are needed most.
(3) To maintain regional enhancement groups as an effective enhancement resource, technical assets of state agencies must be coordinated and utilized to maximize the financial resources of regional enhancement groups and overall fish recovery efforts.
[ 1995 c 367 s 1. Formerly RCW 75.50.150.]
Notes:
Severability—1995 c 367: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1995 c 367 s 12.]
Effective date—1995 c 367: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [May 16, 1995]." [ 1995 c 367 s 13.]

catchline: Coordination with regional enhancement groups—Findings.


title: RCW 77.95.160

text:
(1) The department shall maintain a fish passage barrier removal board. The board must be composed of a representative from the department, the department of transportation, cities, counties, the governor's salmon recovery office, tribal governments, and the department of natural resources. The representative of the department must serve as chair of the board and may expand the membership of the board to representatives of other governments, stakeholders, and interested entities.
(2)(a) The duty of the board is to identify and expedite the removal of human-made or caused impediments to anadromous fish passage in the most efficient manner practical through the development of a coordinated approach and schedule that identifies and prioritizes the projects necessary to eliminate fish passage barriers caused by state and local roads and highways and barriers owned by private parties.
(b) The coordinated approach must address fish passage barrier removals in all areas of the state in a manner that is consistent with a recognition that scheduling and prioritization is necessary.
(c) The board must coordinate and mutually share information, when appropriate, with:
(i) Other fish passage correction programs, including local salmon recovery plan implementation efforts through the governor's salmon recovery office;
(ii) The applicable conservation districts when developing schedules and priorities within set geographic areas or counties; and
(iii) The recreation and conservation office to ensure that barrier removal methodologies are consistent with, and maximizing the value of, other salmon recovery efforts and habitat improvements that are not primarily based on the removal of barriers.
(d) Recommendations must include proposed funding mechanisms and other necessary mechanisms and methodologies to coordinate state, tribal, local, and volunteer barrier removal efforts within each water resource inventory area and satisfy the principles of RCW 77.95.180. To the degree practicable, the board must utilize the database created in RCW 77.95.170 and information on fish barriers developed by conservation districts to guide methodology development. The board may consider recommendations by interested entities from the private sector and regional fisheries enhancement groups.
(e) When developing a prioritization methodology under this section, the board shall consider:
(i) Projects benefiting depressed, threatened, and endangered stocks;
(ii) Projects providing access to available and high quality spawning and rearing habitat;
(iii) Correcting the lowest barriers within the stream first;
(iv) Whether an existing culvert is a full or partial barrier;
(v) Projects that are coordinated with other adjacent barrier removal projects; and
(vi) Projects that address replacement of infrastructure associated with flooding, erosion, or other environmental damage.
(f) The board may not make decisions on fish passage standards or categorize as impassible culverts or other infrastructure developments that have been deemed passable by the department.
[ 2014 c 120 s 4; 2000 c 107 s 110; 1997 c 389 s 6; 1995 c 367 s 2. Formerly RCW 75.50.160.]
Notes:
Findings—1997 c 389: See note following RCW 77.95.100.
Severability—Effective date—1995 c 367: See notes following RCW 77.95.150.

catchline: Fish passage barrier removal board—Membership—Duties.


title: RCW 77.95.170

text:
(1) The department may coordinate with the recreation and conservation office in the administration of all state grant programs specifically designed to assist state agencies, private landowners, tribes, organizations, and volunteer groups in identifying and removing impediments to salmonid fish passage. The transportation improvement board may administer all grant programs specifically designed to assist cities, counties, and other units of local governments with fish passage barrier corrections associated with transportation projects. All grant programs must be administered and be consistent with the following:
(a) Salmonid-related corrective projects, inventory, assessment, and prioritization efforts;
(b) Salmonid projects subject to a competitive application process; and
(c) A minimum dollar match rate that is consistent with the funding authority's criteria. If no funding match is specified, a match amount of at least twenty-five percent per project is required. For local, private, and volunteer projects, in-kind contributions may be counted toward the match requirement.
(2) Priority shall be given to projects that match the principles provided in RCW 77.95.180.
(3) All projects subject to this section shall be reviewed and approved by the fish passage barrier removal board created in RCW 77.95.160 or an alternative oversight committee designated by the state legislature.
(4) Other agencies that administer natural resource-based grant programs shall use fish passage selection criteria that are consistent with this section when those programs are addressing fish passage barrier removal projects.
(5)(a) The department shall establish a centralized database directory of all fish passage barrier information. The database directory must include, but is not limited to, existing fish passage inventories, fish passage projects, grant program applications, and other databases. These data must be used to coordinate and assist in habitat recovery and project mitigation projects.
(b) The department must develop a barrier inventory training program that qualifies participants to perform barrier inventories and develop data that enhance the centralized database. The department may decide the qualifications for participation. However, employees and volunteers of conservation districts and regional salmon recovery groups must be given priority consideration.
[ 2014 c 120 s 3; 1999 c 242 s 4; 1998 c 249 s 16. Formerly RCW 75.50.165.]
Notes:
Findings—Purpose—Report—Effective date—1998 c 249: See notes following RCW 77.55.181.

catchline: Salmonid fish passage—Removing impediments—Grant program—Administration—Database directory.


title: RCW 77.95.180

text:
(1)(a) To maximize available state resources, the department and the department of transportation must work in partnership to identify and complete projects to eliminate fish passage barriers caused by state roads and highways.
(b) The partnership between the department and the department of transportation must be based on the principle of maximizing habitat recovery through a coordinated investment strategy that, to the maximum extent practical and allowable, prioritizes opportunities: To correct multiple fish barriers in whole streams rather than through individual, isolated projects; to coordinate with other entities sponsoring barrier removals, such as regional fisheries enhancement groups incorporated under this chapter, in a manner that achieves the greatest cost savings to all parties; and to correct barriers located furthest downstream in a stream system. Examples of this principle include:
(i) Coordinating with all relevant state agencies and local governments to maximize the habitat recovery value of the investments made by the state to correct fish passage barriers;
(ii) Maximizing the habitat recovery value of investments made by public and private forestland owners through the road maintenance and abandonment planning process outlined in the forest practices rules, as that term is defined in RCW 76.09.020;
(iii) Recognizing that many of the barriers owned by the state are located in the same stream systems as barriers that are owned by cities and counties with limited financial resources for correction and that state-local partnership opportunities should be sought to address these barriers; and
(iv) Recognizing the need to continue investments in the family forest fish passage program created pursuant to RCW 76.13.150 and other efforts to address fish passage barriers owned by private parties that are in the same stream systems as barriers owned by public entities.
(2) The department shall also provide engineering and other technical services to assist nonstate barrier owners with fish passage barrier removal projects, provided that the barrier removal projects have been identified as a priority by the department and the department has received an appropriation to continue that component of a fish barrier removal program.
(3) Nothing in this section is intended to:
(a) Alter the process and prioritization methods used in the implementation of the forest practices rules, as that term is defined in RCW 76.09.020, or the family forest fish passage program, created pursuant to RCW 76.13.150, that provides public cost assistance to small forestland owners associated with the road maintenance and abandonment processes; or
(b) Prohibit or delay fish barrier projects undertaken by the department of transportation or another state agency that are a component of an overall transportation improvement project or that are being undertaken as a direct result of state law, federal law, or a court order. However, the department of transportation or another state agency is required to work in partnership with the fish passage barrier removal board created in RCW 77.95.160 to ensure that the scheduling, staging, and implementation of these projects are, to [the] maximum extent practicable, consistent with the coordinated and prioritized approach adopted by the fish passage barrier removal board.
[ 2014 c 120 s 2; 2010 1st sp.s. c 7 s 83; 1995 c 367 s 3. Formerly RCW 75.50.170.]
Notes:
Effective date—2010 1st sp.s. c 26; 2010 1st sp.s. c 7: See note following RCW 43.03.027.
Severability—Effective date—1995 c 367: See notes following RCW 77.95.150.

catchline: Fish passage barrier removal program.


title: RCW 77.95.185

text:
(1) The department of transportation, the department of ecology, and the department of fish and wildlife must use their existing authorities and guidance to provide a preference for the removal of existing fish passage barriers owned by cities and counties as compensatory mitigation for environmental impacts of transportation projects where appropriate.
(2)(a) The department of transportation, the department of ecology, and the department of fish and wildlife must consult with other relevant entities to develop a framework for encouraging off-site and out-of-kind local fish passage barrier mitigation that provides results that are consistent with habitat protection priorities and are ecologically preferable to on-site mitigation.
(b) The implementation of this framework must:
(i) Not delay transportation project delivery;
(ii) Not be additive to the amount or cost of mitigation required under existing regulations;
(iii) Not preclude on-site or off-site and in-kind mitigation when that is the most ecologically appropriate means to address project impacts;
(iv) Not alter the mitigation sequencing principles of first avoidance and then minimization of impacts before compensatory mitigation;
(v) Provide for a mechanism that identifies whether environmental impacts from projects are appropriate for local fish passage barrier mitigation;
(vi) Provide a mechanism for affected parties, including tribes, to determine when and how to use off-site and out-of-kind mitigation to address fish passage barriers in particular watersheds;
(vii) Consult the statewide fish passage barrier removal strategy developed by the fish passage barrier removal board created in RCW 77.95.160 and information provided by affected tribes, salmon recovery regional organizations, and local entities to identify specific priority locations where removal of local barriers would provide a net resource gain; and
(viii) Consistent with existing mitigation regulations and guidelines, provide a preference, where appropriate, for investment in local fish passage barrier removal where greater environmental benefit can be achieved with off-site and out-of-kind mitigation.
(c) In addition to the framework developed in (b) of this subsection, the department of transportation, the department of ecology, and the department of fish and wildlife must develop and implement an umbrella statewide in lieu fee program or other formal means to provide a streamlined mechanism to undertake priority local fish passage barrier corrections throughout the watersheds of the state as a preferred means of compensatory mitigation where appropriate for state transportation that is consistent with the principles in (a) and (b) of this subsection.
(3) Nothing in this section is intended to create or expand the state's obligation for fish passage barrier correction according to existing law or court ruling. Nothing in this section is intended to decrease funding or otherwise impede the state's efforts to meet its obligation for fish passage barrier correction according to existing law or court ruling.
[ 2015 3rd sp.s. c 17 s 10.]
Notes:
Effective date—2015 3rd sp.s. c 17: See note following RCW 47.85.005.

catchline: Local fish passage barrier removal—Compensatory mitigation preference—Mitigation framework for off-site and out-of-kind barriers—In lieu fee program.


title: RCW 77.95.190

text:
The department shall field test coho and chinook salmon remote site incubators. The purpose of field testing efforts shall be to gather conclusive scientific data on the effectiveness of coho and chinook remote site incubators.
[ 2010 1st sp.s. c 7 s 84; 1995 c 367 s 10. Formerly RCW 75.50.180.]
Notes:
Effective date—2010 1st sp.s. c 26; 2010 1st sp.s. c 7: See note following RCW 43.03.027.
Severability—Effective date—1995 c 367: See notes following RCW 77.95.150.

catchline: Field testing of remote site incubators.


title: RCW 77.95.200

text:
(1) The department shall develop and implement a program utilizing remote site incubators in Washington state. The program shall identify sites in tributaries that are suitable for reestablishing self-sustaining, locally adapted populations of coho, chum, or chinook salmon. The initial selection of sites shall be updated annually.
(2) The department may only approve a remote site incubator project if the department deems it is consistent with the conservation of wild salmon and trout. The department shall only utilize appropriate salmonid eggs in remote site incubators, and may acquire eggs by gift or purchase.
(3) The department shall depend chiefly upon volunteer efforts to implement the remote site incubator program through volunteer cooperative projects and the regional fisheries enhancement groups. The department may prioritize remote site incubator projects within regional enhancement areas.
(4) The department may purchase remote site incubators and may use agency employees to construct remote site incubators.
(5) The department shall investigate the use of the remote site incubator technology for the production of warm water fish.
(6) Annual reports on the progress of the program shall be provided to the fish and wildlife commission.
[ 2009 c 333 s 29; 1998 c 251 s 2. Formerly RCW 75.50.190.]
Notes:
Finding—1998 c 251: "The legislature finds that trout and salmon populations are depleted in many state waters. Restoration of these populations to a healthy status requires improved protection of these species and their habitats. However, in some instances restoration of self-sustaining populations also requires the reintroduction of the fish into their native habitat.
Remote site incubators have been shown to be a cost-effective means of bypassing the early period of high mortality experienced by salmonid eggs that are naturally spawned in streams. In addition, remote site incubators provide an efficient method for reintroduction of fish into areas that are not seeded by natural spawning. The technology for remote site incubators is well developed, and their application is easily accomplished in a wide variety of habitat by persons with a moderate level of training.
It is a goal of the remote site incubator program to assist the reestablishment of wild salmon and trout populations that are self-sustaining through natural spawning. In other cases, where the habitat has been permanently damaged and natural populations cannot sustain themselves, the remote site incubator program may become a cost-effective long-term solution for supplementation of fish populations." [ 1998 c 251 s 1.]

catchline: Remote site incubator program—Reports to the fish and wildlife commission.


title: RCW 77.95.210

text:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the department may supply, at a reasonable charge, surplus salmon eggs to a person for use in the cultivation of salmon. The department shall not intentionally create a surplus of salmon to provide eggs for sale. The department shall only sell salmon eggs from stocks that are not suitable for salmon population rehabilitation or enhancement in state waters in Washington after the salmon harvest on surplus salmon has been first maximized by both commercial and recreational fishers.
(2) The department shall not destroy hatchery origin salmon for the purposes of destroying viable eggs that would otherwise be useful for propagation or salmon recovery purposes, as determined by the department and Indian tribes with treaty fishing rights in a collaborative manner, for replenishing fish runs. Eggs deemed surplus by the state must be provided, in the following order of priority, to:
(a) Voluntary cooperative salmon culture programs under the supervision of the department under chapter 77.100 RCW;
(b) Regional fisheries enhancement group salmon culture programs under the supervision of the department under this chapter;
(c) Salmon culture programs requested by lead entities and approved by the salmon funding recovery board under chapter 77.85 RCW;
(d) Hatcheries of federally approved tribes in Washington to whom eggs are moved, not sold, under the interlocal cooperation act, chapter 39.34 RCW; and
(e) Governmental hatcheries in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
The order of priority established in this subsection for distributing surplus eggs does not apply when there is a shortfall in the supply of eggs.
(3) All sales, provisions, distributions, or transfers shall be consistent with the department's egg transfer and aquaculture disease control regulations as now existing or hereafter amended. Prior to department determination that eggs of a salmon stock are surplus and available for sale, the department shall assess the productivity of each watershed that is suitable for receiving eggs.
[ 2001 c 337 s 1; 2000 c 107 s 11; 1988 c 115 s 1; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 s 25; 1974 ex.s. c 23 s 1; 1971 c 35 s 4. Formerly RCW 75.08.245, 75.16.120.]
Notes:
Sale of surplus salmon eggs and carcasses by volunteer cooperative fish projects: RCW 77.100.040.

catchline: Sale of surplus salmon eggs—Order of priority.


title: RCW 77.95.220

text:
The legislature finds that:
(1) The fishery resources of Washington are critical to the social and economic needs of the citizens of the state;
(2) Salmon production is dependent on both wild and artificial production;
(3) The department is directed to enhance Washington's salmon runs; and
(4) Full utilization of the state's salmon rearing facilities is necessary to enhance commercial and recreational fisheries.
[ 1993 sp.s. c 2 s 24; 1989 c 336 s 1. Formerly RCW 75.08.400.]
Notes:
Effective date—1993 sp.s. c 2 ss 1-6, 8-59, and 61-79: See RCW 43.300.900.
Severability—1989 c 336: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1989 c 336 s 7.]

catchline: Legislative finding.


title: RCW 77.95.230

text:
The director shall determine the cost of operating all state-funded salmon production facilities at full capacity and shall provide this information with the department's biennial budget request.
[ 1989 c 336 s 2. Formerly RCW 75.08.410.]
Notes:
Severability—1989 c 336: See note following RCW 77.95.220.

catchline: Director's determination of salmon production costs.


title: RCW 77.95.240

text:
The director may contract with cooperatives or private aquaculturists for the purchase of quality salmon smolts for release into public waters if all department fish rearing facilities are operating at full capacity. The intent of cooperative and private sector contracting is to explore the opportunities of cooperatively producing more salmon for the public fisheries without incurring additional capital expense for the department.
[ 1989 c 336 s 3. Formerly RCW 75.08.420.]
Notes:
Severability—1989 c 336: See note following RCW 77.95.220.

catchline: State purchase of private salmon smolts.


title: RCW 77.95.250

text:
If the director elects to contract with cooperatives or private aquaculturists for the purpose of purchasing quality salmon smolts, contracting shall be done by a competitive bid process. In awarding contracts to private contractors, the director shall give preference to nonprofit corporations. The director shall establish the criteria for the contract, which shall include but not be limited to species, size of smolt, stock composition, quantity, quality, rearing location, release location, and other pertinent factors.
[ 1989 c 336 s 4. Formerly RCW 75.08.430.]
Notes:
Severability—1989 c 336: See note following RCW 77.95.220.

catchline: State purchase of private salmon smolts—Bids.


title: RCW 77.95.260

text:
Nothing in chapter 336, Laws of 1989 shall authorize the practice of private ocean ranching. Privately contracted smolts become the property of the state at the time of release.
[ 1989 c 336 s 5. Formerly RCW 75.08.440.]
Notes:
Severability—1989 c 336: See note following RCW 77.95.220.

catchline: State purchase of private salmon smolts—Private ocean ranching not authorized.


title: RCW 77.95.270

text:
Except as provided in RCW 77.95.210, the department may make available to private contractors salmon eggs in excess of department hatchery needs for the purpose of contract rearing to release the smolts into public waters. However, providing salmon eggs as specified in RCW 77.95.210(2) has the highest priority. The priority of providing eggs surplus after meeting the requirements of RCW 77.95.210(2) to contract rearing is a higher priority than providing eggs to aquaculture purposes that are not destined for release into Washington public waters.
[ 2001 c 337 s 2; 1989 c 336 s 6. Formerly RCW 75.08.450.]
Notes:
Severability—1989 c 336: See note following RCW 77.95.220.

catchline: State purchase of private salmon smolts—Availability of excess salmon eggs.


title: RCW 77.95.280

text:
The legislature declares that the state has a vital interest in the continuation of recreational fisheries for chinook salmon and coho salmon in mixed stock areas, and that the harvest of hatchery origin salmon should be encouraged while wild salmon should be afforded additional protection when required. A program of selective harvest shall be developed utilizing hatchery salmon that are externally marked in a conspicuous manner, regulations that promote the unharmed release of unmarked fish, when and where appropriate, and a public information program that educates the public about the need to protect depressed stocks of wild salmon.
The legislature further declares that the establishment of other incentives for commercial fishing and fish processing in Washington will complement the program of selective harvest in mixed stock fisheries anticipated by this legislation [act].
[ 1995 c 372 s 1. Formerly RCW 75.08.500.]

catchline: Chinook and coho salmon—External marking of hatchery-produced fish—Findings.


title: RCW 77.95.290

text:
The department shall mark appropriate coho salmon that are released from department operated hatcheries and rearing ponds in such a manner that the fish are externally recognizable as hatchery origin salmon by fishers for the purpose of maximized catch while sustaining wild and hatchery reproduction.
The department shall mark all appropriate chinook salmon targeted for contribution to the Washington catch that are released from department operated hatcheries and rearing ponds in such a manner that the fish are externally recognizable as hatchery origin salmon by fishers.
The goal of the marking program is: (1) The annual marking by June 30, 1997, of all appropriate hatchery origin coho salmon produced by the department with marking to begin with the 1994 Puget Sound coho brood; and (2) the annual marking by June 30, 1999, of all appropriate hatchery origin chinook salmon produced by the department with marking to begin with the 1998 chinook brood. The department may experiment with different methods for marking hatchery salmon with the primary objective of maximum survival of hatchery marked fish, maximum contribution to fisheries, and minimum cost consistent with the other goals.
The department shall coordinate with other entities that are producing hatchery chinook and coho salmon for release into public waters to enable the broadest application of the marking program to all hatchery produced chinook and coho salmon. The department shall work with the treaty Indian tribes in order to reach mutual agreement on the implementation of the mass marking program. The ultimate goal of the program is the coast-wide marking of appropriate hatchery origin chinook and coho salmon, and the protection of all wild chinook and coho salmon, where appropriate.
[ 1999 c 372 s 15; 1998 c 250 s 2; 1995 c 372 s 2. Formerly RCW 75.08.510.]
Notes:
Findings—Intent—1998 c 250: "The legislature finds that mass marking of hatchery-raised salmon is an effective tool for implementing selective salmon fisheries in this state. Mass marking of coho salmon is currently underway and holds great promise for maintaining both recreational and commercial fishing opportunities while protecting wild stocks. In view of the anticipated listing of Puget Sound chinook salmon as endangered under the federal endangered species act, the legislature finds that it is essential to expeditiously proceed with implementing a mass marking program for chinook salmon in Puget Sound and elsewhere in the state.
Through a cooperative effort by state and federal agencies and private enterprise, appropriate technologies have been developed for marking chinook salmon. It is the intent of the legislature to use these newly developed tools to implement chinook salmon mass marking beginning in April 1999." [ 1998 c 250 s 1.]

catchline: Chinook and coho salmon—External marking of hatchery-produced fish—Program.


title: RCW 77.95.300

text:
The department shall adopt rules to control the mixed stock chinook and coho fisheries of the state so as to sustain healthy stocks of wild salmon, allow the maximum survival of wild salmon, allow for spatially separated fisheries that target on hatchery stocks, foster the best techniques for releasing wild chinook and coho salmon, and contribute to the economic viability of the fishing businesses of the state.
[ 1995 c 372 s 3. Formerly RCW 75.08.520.]

catchline: Chinook and coho salmon—External marking of hatchery-produced fish—Rules.


title: RCW 77.95.310

text:
(1) The department shall maintain a report identifying total salmon and steelhead harvest. This report shall include the final commercial harvests and recreational harvests. At a minimum, the report shall clearly identify:
(a) The total treaty tribal and nontribal harvests by species and by management unit;
(b) Where and why the nontribal harvest does not meet the full allocation allowed under United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (1974) (Boldt I) including a summary of the key policies within the management plan that result in a less than full nontribal allocation; and
(c) The location and quantity of salmon and steelhead harvested under the wastage provisions of United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (1974).
(2) Upon request, the department shall present the report required to be maintained under this section to the appropriate committees of the legislature.
[ 2009 c 333 s 30; 1997 c 414 s 1. Formerly RCW 75.08.530.]

catchline: Report identifying total salmon and steelhead harvest.


title: RCW 77.95.320

text:
(1) The department shall establish a program that utilizes department-partner agreements for the resumption or continued operation and management of state-owned salmonid hatcheries that are located in the Hood Canal basin. To implement the program, the department shall accept and review applications to determine the appropriateness of the partner to manage and operate selected salmonid hatcheries. The department shall accelerate the application process relating to any hatchery currently in operation to avoid cessation of ongoing salmon production.
(2)(a) To select a partner, the department shall develop and apply criteria identifying the appropriateness of a potential partner. The criteria must seek to ensure that the partner has a long-range business plan, which may include the sale of hatchery surplus salmon, including eggs and carcasses, to ensure the long-range future solvency of the partnership. The business plan may also allow the partner to harvest hatchery chum salmon in a designated area through persons under contract with the partner as provided under a permit from the department or by rule of the commission. All chum salmon harvested must be sold at prices commensurate with the current market and all funds must be utilized by the partner to operate the hatchery.
(b) Partners under this section must be:
(i) Qualified under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code;
(ii) A for-profit private entity; or
(iii) A federally recognized tribe.
(3) The department shall place a higher priority on applications from partners that provide for the maximum resumption or continuation of existing hatchery production in a manner consistent with the mandate contained in RCW 77.04.012 to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry.
(4)(a) Agreements entered into with partners under this section must be consistent with existing federally recognized tribal rights, state laws, agency rules, collective bargaining agreements, hatchery management policy involving species listed under the federal endangered species act, or, in the case of a tribal partner, any applicable tribal hatchery management policy or recreational and commercial harvest policy.
(b) Agreements under this section must also require that partners give preference to retaining classified employees whenever possible. In circumstances where it is not possible, partners conducting hatchery operations must maintain staff with comparable qualifications to those identified in the class specifications for the department's fish hatchery personnel.
(5) All partnership agreements entered into under this section must contain a provision that requires the partner to hold harmless the department and the state for any civil liability arising from the partner's participation in the agreement or activities at the subject hatchery or hatcheries.
(6) All partnership agreements entered into under this section must identify any maintenance or improvements to be made to the hatchery facility, and the source of funding for such maintenance or improvements. If funding for the maintenance or improvements is to come from state funds or revenue sources previously received by the department, the work must be performed either by employees in the classified service or in compliance with the contracting procedures set forth in RCW 41.06.142.
[ 2013 c 93 s 1; 2009 c 340 s 2.]
Notes:
Findings—2009 c 340: "The legislature finds: (1) The full utilization of state salmonid hatcheries is vital to the recreational and commercial fisheries and related economic development and employment; and (2) effective measures are necessary to maintain all hatchery operations that are consistent with conservation of wild salmon populations and support sustainable fisheries." [ 2009 c 340 s 1.]

catchline: Program utilizing department-partnership agreements to operate and manage certain hatcheries—Selection of partners—Partnership agreements.


title: RCW 77.95.330

text:
The powers and authority conferred by this chapter must be construed as in addition and supplemental to powers or authority conferred by any other law and nothing contained in this chapter may be construed as limiting any other powers or authority of the department.
[ 2009 c 340 s 3.]
Notes:
Findings—2009 c 340: See note following RCW 77.95.320.

catchline: Powers and authorities conferred by chapter to be construed as in addition and supplemental.


title: RCW 77.95.340

text:
The department may contract with cities and counties to assist in the identification and removal of impediments to fish passage.
[ 2014 c 120 s 6.]

catchline: Identification and removal of impediments to fish passage.


title: RCW 77.95.350

text:
(1) The Washington state department of transportation and every county, city, and town may accept any money or property donated, devised, or bequeathed to it that is donated for the purpose of fish barrier removal. The Washington state department of transportation and local governments may determine the value of any property donated, devised, or bequeathed for the purpose of recognizing fish barrier removal donations in this section.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, and upon completion of the related project, the Washington state department of transportation, counties, cities, and towns receiving donations for removing a fish barrier must install a clearly marked sign that acknowledges the individual donors and that is consistent with the requirements of RCW 47.40.105.
(3) Signs installed under subsection (2) of this section must be of a uniform design approved by the recreation and conservation office and may only include the words "adopt-a-fish passage," the names of project donors, and the species of fish affected by the project. Signage is also subject to the following limitations:
(a) The donor's name may not be displayed more predominantly than the remainder of the sign message.
(b) Trademarks or business logos may be displayed.
(c) To the extent that the Washington state department of transportation and local governments determine that the number of donors for individual projects would interfere with the signage requirements of subsection (2) of this section or the requirements of RCW 47.40.105, the Washington state department of transportation and local governments may determine the number of donors listed on signs but must endeavor to recognize the donors that provide the largest donations.
(d) The Washington state department of transportation and local governments receiving private donations under this section must only install signage pursuant to this section for individual donations that are equal in value to at least $10,000.
(e) Notwithstanding other provisions of this subsection, a donor is not eligible to have their name displayed on the sign if the applicant's name: (i) Endorses or opposes a particular candidate for public office; (ii) advocates a position on a specific political issue, initiative, referendum, or piece of legislation; (iii) includes a reference to a political party; or (iv) includes a reference to anything that may be considered or construed to be obscene or offensive to the general public.
(4) To the extent feasible and with the goal of expediting fish barrier removals, the Washington state department of transportation, counties, cities, and towns receiving donations under this section must coordinate donations with any grant applications made for state grant funding for fish barrier removal pursuant to RCW 77.95.170. The recreation and conservation office must publish and maintain a list of fish barrier removal projects that are suited to receiving private donations pursuant to this section. Donations received under this section are eligible for use as match for other funding sources, including state and federal grants.
(5) Upon completion of a project funded with private donations pursuant to this section, the Washington state department of transportation or local government that owns the completed project must notify the recreation and conservation office. Upon receiving such a notification, the recreation and conservation office must gather information regarding the project sponsors, location, fish species affected, and the amounts of individual donations that supported the project. The recreation and conservation office must publish and maintain this information with the project list under subsection (4) of this section.
(6) For each individual donation equal to at least $100,000 in value pursuant to this section, the recreation and conservation office must provide to the donor a recognition plaque that meets the following criteria: (a) The plaque must be signed by the governor; and (b) the plaque must include the name of the donor, the words "adopt-a-fish passage program," the location and name of the project funded, the amount and year of the donation, and the fish species affected.
[ 2024 c 227 s 2.]
Notes:
Findings—Intent—2024 c 227: "The legislature finds that fish barriers are a serious impediment to salmon and steelhead recovery. The legislature further finds that the state has limited financial resources to address its many challenges and that community members and businesses may want to offer their help in partnership with the state for the removal of fish barriers that are on lands owned by state or local governments. The legislature also finds that it is desirable to coordinate any such private donations with existing fish barrier removal projects on lands owned by state or local governments.
Therefore, the legislature intends to facilitate the removal of fish barriers on lands owned by state or local governments by creating the adopt-a-fish passage program through which state or local governments may receive such donations and to acknowledge project donors through appropriate public signage." [ 2024 c 227 s 1.]

catchline: Fish barrier removal.


title: RCW 78.04.010

text:
The right of eminent domain is hereby extended to all corporations incorporated or that may hereafter be incorporated under the laws of this state or any state or territory of the United States, and doing business in this state, for the purpose of acquiring, owning or operating mines, mills or reduction works, or mining or milling gold and silver or other minerals, which may desire to erect and operate surface tramways or elevated cable tramways for the purpose of carrying, conveying or transporting the products of such mines, mills or reduction works.
[ 1897 c 60 s 1; RRS s 8608. FORMER PART OF SECTION: 1897 c 60 s 2; RRS s 8609 now codified as RCW 78.04.015.]
Notes:
Water rights—Appropriation for industrial (mining) purposes: RCW 90.16.020 and 90.16.030.

catchline: Right of eminent domain.


title: RCW 78.04.015

text:
Every corporation incorporated or that may hereafter be incorporated under the laws of this state or any state or territory of the United States, and doing business in this state, for the purpose of acquiring, owning or operating mines, mills or reduction works, or mining or milling gold and silver or other minerals, which may desire to erect and operate surface tramways or elevated cable tramways for the purpose of carrying, conveying or transporting the products of such mines, mills or reduction works, shall have the right to enter upon any land between the termini of the proposed lines for the purpose of examining, locating and surveying such lines, doing no unnecessary damage thereby.
[ 1897 c 60 s 2; RRS s 8609. Formerly RCW 87.04.010, part.]

catchline: Right of entry.


title: RCW 78.04.020

text:
Every such corporation shall have the right to appropriate real estate or other property for right-of-way in the same manner and under the same procedure as now is or may be hereafter provided by the law in the case of other corporations authorized by the laws of this state to exercise the right of eminent domain.
[ 1897 c 60 s 3; RRS s 8610.]
Notes:
Eminent domain by corporations: Chapter 8.20 RCW.

catchline: Manner of exercising right of eminent domain.


title: RCW 78.04.030

text:
In incorporations already formed, or which may hereafter be formed under *this chapter, where the amount of the capital stock of such corporation consists of the aggregate valuation of the whole number of feet, shares, or interest in any mining claim in this state, for the working and development of which such corporation shall be or have been formed, no actual subscription to the capital stock of such corporation shall be necessary; but each owner in said mining claim shall be deemed to have subscribed such an amount to the capital stock of such corporation as under its bylaws will represent the value of so much of his or her interest in said mining claim, the legal title to which he or she may by deed, deed of trust, or other instrument vest, or have vested in such corporation for mining purposes; such subscription to be deemed to have been made on the execution and delivery to such corporation of such deed, deed of trust, or other instrument; nor shall the validity of any assessment levied by the board of trustees of such corporation be affected by the reason of the fact that the full amount of the capital stock of such corporation, as mentioned in its certificate of incorporation, shall not have been subscribed as provided in this section: PROVIDED, That the greater portion of said amount of capital stock shall have been so subscribed: AND, PROVIDED FURTHER, That this section shall not be so construed as to prohibit the stockholders of any corporation formed, or which may be formed, for mining purposes as provided in this section, from regulating the mode of making subscriptions to its capital stock and calling in the same by bylaws or express contract.
[ 2013 c 23 s 247; Code 1881 s 2446; 1873 p 407 s 26; 1869 p 339 s 28; 1866 p 65 s 28; RRS s 8611.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: The two remaining sections of "this chapter" (Code 1881 c CLXXXV) are codified in RCW 78.04.030 above and RCW 90.16.010.

catchline: No stock subscription necessary.


title: RCW 78.04.040

text:
Any owner of stock to the amount of one thousand shares, in any corporation doing business under the laws of the state of Washington for the purposes of mining, shall, at all hours of business or labor on or about the premises or property of such corporation, have the right to enter upon such property and examine the same, either on the surface or underground. And it is hereby made the duty of any and all officers, managers, agents, superintendents, or persons in charge, to allow any such stockholder to enter upon and examine any of the property of such corporation at any time during the hours of business or labor; and the presentation of certificates of stock in the corporation of the amount of one thousand shares, to the officer or person in charge, shall be prima facie evidence of ownership and right to enter upon or into, and make examinations of the property of the corporation.
[ 1901 c 120 s 1; RRS s 8612.]

catchline: Right of stockholder to enter and examine property.


title: RCW 78.04.050

text:
Any violation of any of the provisions of RCW 78.04.040 by any officer or agent of such corporation shall constitute a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof every such officer or agent shall be fined in a sum not greater than two hundred dollars for each offense.
[ 1901 c 120 s 2; RRS s 8613.]

catchline: Penalty for violations under RCW 78.04.040.


title: RCW 78.06.010

text:
Words or terms used herein have the following meanings:
(1) "Geological surveys" means surveys on the ground for mineral deposits by the proper application of the principles and techniques of the science of geology as they relate to the search for and discovery of mineral deposits.
(2) "Geochemical surveys" means surveys on the ground for mineral deposits by the proper application of the principles and techniques of the science of chemistry as they relate to the search for and discovery of mineral deposits.
(3) "Geophysical surveys" means surveys on the ground for mineral deposits through the employment of generally recognized equipment and methods for measuring physical differences between rock types or discontinuities in geological formations.
[ 1959 c 119 s 1.]

catchline: Definitions.


title: RCW 78.06.020

text:
All reports of geological, geophysical, or geochemical surveys on mining claims which may be filed with the auditor of any county in this state pursuant to United States Public Law 85-876 or amendments or revisions thereto shall be so filed in duplicate, and shall set forth fully:
(1) The location of the survey performed in relation to the point of discovery and boundaries of the claim.
(2) The nature, extent, and cost of the survey.
(3) The date the survey was commenced and the date completed.
(4) The basic findings therefrom.
(5) The name, address, and professional background of the person or persons performing or conducting the survey.
[ 1959 c 119 s 2.]

catchline: Duplicate survey reports to be filed with county auditor—Contents.


title: RCW 78.06.030

text:
All county auditors receiving for filing duplicate copies of geological, geochemical, and geophysical survey reports on mining claims shall forward, monthly, one copy of each report received to the department of natural resources.
[ 1988 c 127 s 31; 1959 c 119 s 3.]

catchline: Auditor to forward survey reports to department of natural resources.


title: RCW 78.08.005

text:
All mining claims upon veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place, bearing gold, silver or other valuable mineral deposits heretofore located, shall be governed as to length along the vein or lode by the customs, regulations and laws in force at the date of such location.
[ 1887 c 87 s 1; RRS s 8615.]
Notes:
For earlier acts on this subject, see: 1867 pp 146-147, 1869 pp 386-388, 1873 pp 444-446, 1875 pp 126-127, 1877 pp 335-336. See also, act of congress, May 10, 1872.

catchline: Prior claims, how governed.


title: RCW 78.08.020

text:
A mining claim located upon any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place, bearing gold, silver or other valuable mineral deposits, after the approval of *this act by the governor, whether located by one or more persons, may equal, but shall not exceed, one thousand five hundred feet in length along the vein or lode; but no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claims located. No claims shall extend more than three hundred feet on each side of the middle of the vein at the surface, nor shall any claims be limited by any mining regulation to less than fifty feet of surface on each side of the middle of such vein or lode at the surface, excepting where adverse rights, existing at the date of the approval of this act, shall make such limitation necessary. The end lines of each claim shall be parallel to each other.
[ 1887 c 87 s 2; RRS s 8616.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: "this act" [1887 c 87], is codified in RCW 78.08.005 through 78.08.040; "date of the approval of this act" was February 2, 1888.

catchline: Extent of lode claims.


title: RCW 78.08.030

text:
The locators of all mining locations heretofore made or hereafter made under the provisions of RCW 78.08.005 through 78.08.040, on any mineral vein, lode or ledge on the public domain, and their heirs and assigns so long as they comply with the laws of the United States and the state and local laws relating thereto, shall have the exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of all surface included within the lines of their location, and of all veins, lodes and ledges throughout their entire depth, and the top or apex of which lies within the surface lines of such location, extending downward vertically, although such veins, lodes or ledges may so far depart from the perpendicular in their course downward as to extend outside of the vertical side line of said surface location.
[ 1887 c 87 s 3; RRS s 8617.]

catchline: Rights of locators.


title: RCW 78.08.040

text:
All location notices, bonds, assignments and transfers of mining claims shall be recorded in the office of the county auditor of the county where the same is situated within thirty days after the execution thereof.
[ 1979 ex.s. c 30 s 15; 1887 c 87 s 7; RRS s 8621.]

catchline: Recording instruments affecting claim.


title: RCW 78.08.050

text:
The discoverer of a lode shall within ninety days from the date of discovery, record in the office of the auditor of the county in which such lode is found, a notice containing the name or names of the locators, the date of the location, the number of feet in length claimed on each side of the discovery, the general course of the lode and such a description of the claim or claims located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim.
[ 1899 c 45 s 1; RRS s 8622.]
Notes:
For earlier acts on this subject, see: 1867 pp 146-147, 1869 pp 386-388, 1873 pp 444-446, 1875 pp 126-127, 1877 pp 335-336, 1887 c 87; see also, act of congress, May 10, 1872.

catchline: Location notices—Contents—Recording.


title: RCW 78.08.060

text:
(1) Before filing such notice for record, the discoverer shall locate his or her claim by posting at the discovery at the time of discovery a notice containing the name of the lode, the name of the locator or locators, and the date of discovery, and marking the surface boundaries of the claim by placing substantial posts or stone monuments bearing the name of the lode and date of location; one post or monument must appear at each corner of such claim; such posts or monuments must be not less than three feet high; if posts are used they shall be not less than four inches in diameter and shall be set in the ground in a substantial manner. If any such claim be located on ground that is covered wholly or in part with brush or trees, such brush shall be cut and trees be marked or blazed along the lines of such claim to indicate the location of such lines.
(2) Prior to valid discovery the actual possession and right of possession of one diligently engaged in the search for minerals shall be exclusive as regards prospecting during continuance of such possession and diligent search. As used in this section, "diligently engaged" shall mean performing not less than one hundred dollars worth of annual assessment work on or for the benefit of the claim or paying any fee or fees in lieu of assessment work in such year or years it is required under federal law, or any larger amount that may be designated now or later by the federal government for annual assessment work.
[ 1995 c 114 s 1; 1965 c 151 s 1; 1963 c 64 s 1; 1949 c 12 s 1; 1899 c 45 s 2; RRS s 8623.]

catchline: Staking of claim—Requisites—Right of person diligently engaged in search.


title: RCW 78.08.070

text:
Any open cut, excavation or tunnel which cuts or exposes a lode and from which a total of two hundred cubic feet of material has been removed or in lieu thereof a test hole drilled on the lode to a minimum depth of twenty feet from the collar, shall hold the lode the same as if a discovery shaft were sunk thereon, and shall be equivalent thereto.
[ 1955 c 357 s 1; 1899 c 45 s 3; RRS s 8624.]

catchline: Cut, excavation, tunnel or test hole in lieu of discovery shaft.


title: RCW 78.08.072

text:
Any geological, geochemical, or geophysical survey which reasonably involves a direct expenditure on or for the benefit of each claim of not less than the one hundred dollars worth of annual assessment work required under federal statute or regulations shall hold such claim for not more than two consecutive years or more than a total of five years: PROVIDED, That a written report of such survey shall be filed with the county auditor at the time annual assessment work is recorded as required under federal statute, and said written report shall set forth fully:
(1) The location of the survey performed in relation to the point of discovery or location notice and boundaries of the claim.
(2) The nature, extent, and cost of the survey.
(3) The date the survey was commenced and the date completed.
(4) The basic findings therefrom.
(5) The name, address, and professional background of the person or persons performing or conducting the survey.
[ 1965 c 151 s 2; 1963 c 64 s 2; 1959 c 114 s 1.]
Notes:
Reports of geological, etc., surveys: Chapter 78.06 RCW.

catchline: Holding claim by geological, etc., survey—Report of survey.


title: RCW 78.08.075

text:
The term "lode" as used in RCW 78.08.050 through 78.08.115 shall be construed to mean ledge, vein or deposit.
[ 1983 c 3 s 197; 1899 c 45 s 4; RRS s 8625. Formerly RCW 78.08.010.]

catchline: "Lode" defined.


title: RCW 78.08.080

text:
If at any time the locator of any quartz or lode mining claim heretofore or hereafter located, or his or her assigns, shall learn that his or her original certificate was defective or that the requirements of the law had not been complied with before filing, or shall be desirous of changing his or her surface boundaries or of taking in any additional ground which is subject to location, or in any case the original certificate was made prior to the *passage of this law, and he or she shall be desirous of securing the benefits of RCW 78.08.050 through 78.08.115, such locator or his or her assigns may file an amended certificate of location, subject to the provisions of RCW 78.08.050 through 78.08.115, regarding the making of new locations.
[ 2013 c 23 s 248; 1983 c 3 s 198; 1899 c 45 s 5; RRS s 8626.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: "passage of this law": 1899 c 45 (H.B. 272) passed the house, February 27, 1899; passed the senate, March 7, 1899, and was approved by the governor March 8, 1899.

catchline: Amended certificate of location.


title: RCW 78.08.081

text:
Within thirty days after the expiration of the period of time fixed for the performance of annual labor or the making of improvements upon any quartz or lode mining claim or premises, the person in whose behalf such work or improvement was made or some person for him or her knowing the facts, shall make and record in the office of the county auditor of the county wherein such claims are situate either an affidavit or oath of labor performed on such claim, or affidavit or oath of fee or fees paid to the federal government in lieu of the annual labor requirement. Such affidavit shall state the exact amount of fee or fees paid, or the kind of labor, including the number of feet of shaft, tunnel or open cut made on such claim, or any other kind of improvements allowed by law made thereon. When both fee and labor requirements have been waived by the federal government, such affidavit will contain a statement to that effect and the state shall not require labor to be performed. Such affidavit shall contain the section, township and range in which such lode is located if the location be in a surveyed area.
[ 1995 c 114 s 2; 1979 ex.s. c 30 s 16; 1955 c 357 s 3; 1899 c 45 s 6; RRS s 8627.]

catchline: Assessment work, affidavit of work performed or affidavit of fees paid.


title: RCW 78.08.082

text:
Such affidavit when so recorded shall be prima facie evidence of the performance of such labor or the making of such improvements, and such original affidavit after it has been recorded, or a certified copy of record of same, shall be received as evidence accordingly by all the courts of this state.
[ 1899 c 45 s 7; RRS s 8628.]

catchline: Affidavit is prima facie evidence.


title: RCW 78.08.090

text:
The relocation of a forfeited or abandoned quartz or lode claim shall only be made by sinking a new discovery shaft, or in lieu thereof performing at least an equal amount of development work within the borders of the claim, and fixing new boundaries in the same manner and to the same extent as is required in making a new location, or the relocator may sink the original discovery shaft ten feet deeper than it was at the date of commencement of such relocation, and shall erect new, or make the old monuments the same as originally required; in either case a new location monument shall be erected.
[ 1949 c 12 s 2; 1899 c 45 s 8; RRS s 8629.]

catchline: Relocating abandoned claim.


title: RCW 78.08.100

text:
The discoverer of placers or other forms of deposits subject to location and appropriation under mining laws applicable to placers shall locate his or her claim in the following manner:
First. He or she must immediately post in a conspicuous place at the point of discovery thereon, a notice or certificate of location thereof, containing (1) the name of the claim; (2) the name of the locator or locators; (3) the date of discovery and posting of the notice hereinbefore provided for, which shall be considered as the date of the location; (4) a description of the claim by reference to legal subdivisions of sections, if the location is made in conformity with the public surveys, otherwise, a description with reference to some natural object or permanent monuments as will identify the claim; and where such claim is located by legal subdivisions of the public surveys, such location shall, notwithstanding that fact, be marked by the locator upon the ground the same as other locations.
Second. Within thirty days from the date of such discovery, he or she must record such notice or certificate of location in the office of the auditor of the county in which such discovery is made, and so distinctly mark his or her location on the ground that its boundaries may be readily traced.
Third. Within sixty days from the date of discovery, the discoverer shall perform labor upon such location or claim in developing the same to an amount which shall be equivalent in the aggregate to at least ten dollars worth of such labor for each twenty acres, or fractional part thereof, contained in such location or claim: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That nothing in this subdivision shall be held to apply to lands located under the laws of the United States as placer claims for the purpose of the development of petroleum and natural gas and other natural oil products.
Fourth. Such locator shall, upon the performance of such labor, file with the auditor of the county an affidavit showing such performance and generally the nature and kind of work so done.
[ 2013 c 23 s 249; 1901 c 137 s 1; 1899 c 45 s 10; RRS s 8631.]

catchline: Location of placer claims.


title: RCW 78.08.110

text:
The affidavit provided for in the last section, and the aforesaid placer notice or certificate of location when filed for record, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein recited. A copy of such certificate, notice or affidavit certified by the county auditor shall be admitted in evidence in all actions or proceeding with the same effect as the original and the provisions of RCW 78.08.081 and 78.08.082 shall apply to placer claims as well as lode claims.
[ 1899 c 45 s 11; RRS s 8632.]

catchline: Affidavit as proof.


title: RCW 78.08.115

text:
All locations of quartz or placer formations or deposits hereafter made shall conform to the requirements of RCW 78.08.050 through 78.08.115 insofar as the same are respectively applicable thereto.
[ 1983 c 3 s 199; 1899 c 45 s 12; RRS s 8633.]

catchline: Application of RCW 78.08.050 through 78.08.115.


title: RCW 78.12.010

text:
Any person or persons, company, or corporation who shall hereafter dig, sink or excavate, or cause the same to be done, or being the owner or owners, or in the possession, under any lease or contract, of any shaft, excavation or hole, whether used for mining or otherwise, or whether dug, sunk or excavated for the purpose of mining, to obtain water, or for any other purpose, within this state, shall, during the time they may be employed in digging, sinking or excavating, or after they have ceased work upon or abandoned the same, erect, or cause to be erected, good and substantial fences or other safeguards, and keep the same in good repair around such works or shafts sufficient to securely guard against danger to persons and animals from falling into such shafts or excavations.
[ 1890 p 121 s 1; RRS s 8857.]

catchline: Shafts, excavations to be fenced.


title: RCW 78.12.020

text:
Three persons being residents of the county, and knowing or having reason to believe that the provisions of RCW 78.12.010 are being or have been violated within such county, may file a notice with any district or municipal court therein, which notice shall be in writing, and shall state—First, the location, as near as may be, of the hole, excavation or shaft. Second, that the same is dangerous to persons or animals, and has been left or is being worked contrary to the provisions of this chapter. Third, the name of the person or persons, company or corporation who is or are the owners of the same, if known, or if unknown, the persons who were known to be employed therein. Fourth, if abandoned and no claimant; and Fifth, the estimated cost of fencing or otherwise securing the same against any avoidable accidents.
[ 1987 c 202 s 231; 1987 c 3 s 19; 1890 p 121 s 2; RRS s 8858.]
Notes:
Severability—1987 c 3: See note following RCW 3.70.010.
Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.

catchline: Complaint—Contents.


title: RCW 78.12.030

text:
Upon the filing of the notice, as provided in RCW 78.12.020, the district or municipal court shall issue an order, directed to the sheriff of the county or to any constable or city marshal therein, directing such officer to serve a notice in manner and form as is prescribed by law for service of summons upon any person or persons or the authorized agent or agents of any company or corporation named in the notice on file, as provided in RCW 78.12.020.
[ 1984 c 258 s 139; 1890 p 121 s 3; RRS 8859.]
Notes:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Application—1984 c 258 ss 101-139: See note following RCW 3.50.005.

catchline: Order to serve notice.


title: RCW 78.12.040

text:
The notice thus served shall require the said persons to appear before the judge issuing the same, at a time to be stated therein, not more than ten nor less than three days from the service of said notice, and show to the satisfaction of the court that the provisions of this chapter have been complied with; or if said person or persons fail to appear, judgment will be entered against said person or persons for double the amount stated in the notice on file; and all proceedings had therein shall be as prescribed by law in civil cases; and such persons, in addition to any judgment that may be rendered against them, shall be liable and subject to a fine not exceeding the sum of one hundred dollars for each and every violation of the provisions of this chapter, which judgments and fines shall be adjudged and collected as provided for by law.
[ 1987 c 202 s 232; 1890 p 122 s 4; RRS s 8860.]
Notes:
Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.

catchline: Notice—Contents—Civil and criminal penalties.


title: RCW 78.12.050

text:
Suits commenced under the provisions of this chapter shall be in the name of the state of Washington, and all judgments and fines collected shall be paid into the county treasury for county purposes: PROVIDED, That all fees, fines, forfeitures and penalties collected or assessed by a district court because of the violation of a state law shall be remitted as provided in chapter 3.62 RCW as now exists or is later amended.
[ 1987 c 202 s 233; 1969 ex.s. c 199 s 34; 1890 p 122 s 5; RRS s 8861.]
Notes:
Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
Disposition of costs, fines, fees, penalties, and forfeitures: RCW 10.82.070.

catchline: Suit in name of state—Disposition of proceeds.