Relating to the creation of credits for the restoration of salmon habitat; prescribing an effective date.
HB 3352 directs the Department of State Lands (DSL), in consultation with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, to create a pilot “salmon credit” program for the Coquille and Coos watershed basins. The program is intended to encourage voluntary restoration of salmonid habitat on agricultural land and forestland by allowing landowners to generate credits from approved restoration projects and sell those credits to parties that need them to satisfy certain mitigation or permit-related obligations. The bill defines key terms such as credit generator, credit purchaser, salmon credit project, and salmon credit dividend, and it sets out a framework for project approval, certification, inspection, pricing, and ongoing compliance.
The bill also creates the Salmon Credit Trust Fund, into which a portion of credit-sale proceeds would be deposited to support future dividend payments to project owners. DSL would be required to establish rules for project eligibility, prioritize projects with the greatest habitat benefit, and coordinate with other state agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to secure or identify a programmatic general permit for restoration work in navigable waters. The pilot would become operative only once that federal permit is in place, and DSL could not approve new projects after January 2 of the sixth year following establishment of the permit.
In terms of state-law impact, HB 3352 would add new sections to Oregon’s existing removal-fill and wetlands mitigation framework in ORS 196.600 to 196.921. It would authorize a new habitat-credit mechanism tied to compensatory mitigation, require permanent easements on project sites, and specify that project areas on qualifying farm or forest parcels retain their special tax-use treatment. It also limits the use of these credits to projects in the two named watershed basins and bars approval of wetlands already certified as mitigation banks as salmon credit projects.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed as a conservation-and-incentives proposal that could appeal to landowners, habitat restoration advocates, and entities seeking mitigation options. The structure suggests an effort to balance environmental restoration with private-property and agricultural/forestland interests, while also imposing oversight and compliance requirements.
Potential points of contention include the requirement for a permanent easement on restored land, the extent of state oversight and inspection, the limitation of the pilot to two watershed basins, and the need to coordinate with federal permitting before the program can operate. Landowners may also scrutinize how credit prices and dividend payments are set, while environmental or regulatory stakeholders may focus on whether the program sufficiently protects habitat integrity and avoids conflicts with existing mitigation systems.
HB 3352 would create a new statutory pilot program within Oregon’s removal-fill and wetlands mitigation laws, authorizing DSL to certify and manage salmon habitat restoration credits for use as compensatory mitigation in the Coquille and Coos basins. It would also establish the Salmon Credit Trust Fund, require permanent conservation easements on project sites, preserve farm and forest special assessment treatment for qualifying parcels, and set rules for project approval, inspection, pricing, and dividend payments to participating landowners.
No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition in the available history. The bill’s design suggests generally positive policy intent around habitat restoration and voluntary landowner participation, with a pragmatic emphasis on incentives, federal coordination, and administrative controls. Overall, the measure appears to be framed as a collaborative conservation pilot rather than a regulatory mandate.
The main likely areas of disagreement are the permanent easement requirement, the use of restored habitat credits to satisfy mitigation obligations, and the degree of state and federal oversight needed before projects can proceed. Agricultural and forestland owners may be concerned about long-term land-use restrictions and administrative burden, while regulators and conservation interests may debate whether the pilot is sufficiently protective, whether credit pricing and dividends are fair, and whether limiting the program to the Coquille and Coos basins is too narrow or appropriately targeted.