BILL REQ. #:  S-3716.1 

Read first time 01/14/2004.   Referred to Committee on Land Use & Planning.

     AN ACT Relating to requiring storm water and wetland mitigation for public-use airports to be compatible with safe airport operations; amending RCW 90.74.020; adding a new section to chapter 14.08 RCW; and creating a new section.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1   The legislature finds that most public-use airports have large tracts of open, unimproved land that are desirable for added margins of safety and noise mitigation. These areas can present potential hazards to aviation because they often attract wildlife. Wildlife use of areas within an airport's approach or departure airspace, aircraft movement areas, loading ramps, or aircraft parking areas may cause safety hazards resulting from collisions between wildlife and aircraft.
     The legislature further finds that new public-use airport development projects may result in unavoidable impacts to storm water runoff or wetlands that require mitigation. Storm water and wetland mitigation that attracts or sustains hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports can significantly increase the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions. The legislature concludes that storm water and wetland mitigation resulting from public-use airport development projects should be compatible with safe airport operations.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 2   A new section is added to chapter 14.08 RCW to read as follows:
     Storm water and wetland mitigation plans for public-use airport infrastructure improvement projects shall be consistent with the federal aviation administration's recommended land use practices related to compatibility with safe airport operations. The departments of ecology and fish and wildlife may not require a municipality to implement any storm water or wetland mitigation plan that is incompatible with safe airport operations.

Sec. 3   RCW 90.74.020 and 1997 c 424 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:
     (1) Project proponents may use a mitigation plan to propose compensatory mitigation within a watershed. A mitigation plan shall:
     (a) Contain provisions that guarantee the long-term viability of the created, restored, enhanced, or preserved habitat, including assurances for protecting any essential biological functions and values defined in the mitigation plan;
     (b) Contain provisions for long-term monitoring of any created, restored, or enhanced mitigation site; ((and))
     (c) Be consistent with the local comprehensive land use plan and any other applicable planning process in effect for the development area, such as an adopted subbasin or watershed plan; and
     (d) For infrastructure development involving public-use airports, be consistent with the federal aviation administration's recommended land use practices related to compatibility with safe airport operations.
     (2) The departments of ecology and fish and wildlife may not limit the scope of options in a mitigation plan to areas on or near the project site, or to habitat types of the same type as contained on the project site. The departments of ecology and fish and wildlife shall fully review and give due consideration to compensatory mitigation proposals that improve the overall biological functions and values of the watershed or bay and accommodate the mitigation needs of infrastructure development. The mitigation needs of infrastructure development involving public-use airports include the need for compatibility with safe airport operations.
     The departments of ecology and fish and wildlife are not required to grant approval to a mitigation plan that the departments find does not provide equal or better biological functions and values within the watershed or bay.
     (3) When making a permit or other regulatory decision under the guidance of this chapter, the departments of ecology and fish and wildlife shall consider whether the mitigation plan provides equal or better biological functions and values, compared to the existing conditions, for the target resources or species identified in the mitigation plan. This consideration shall be based upon the following factors:
     (a) The relative value of the mitigation for the target resources, in terms of the quality and quantity of biological functions and values provided;
     (b) The compatibility of the proposal with the intent of broader resource management and habitat management objectives and plans, such as existing resource management plans, watershed plans, critical areas ordinances, and shoreline master programs;
     (c) The ability of the mitigation to address scarce functions or values within a watershed;
     (d) The benefits of the proposal to broader watershed landscape, including the benefits of connecting various habitat units or providing population-limiting habitats or functions for target species;
     (e) The benefits of early implementation of habitat mitigation for projects that provide compensatory mitigation in advance of the project's planned impacts; and
     (f) The significance of any negative impacts to nontarget species or resources.
     (4) A mitigation plan may be approved through a memorandum of agreement between the project proponent and either the department of ecology or the department of fish and wildlife, or both.