16.55.250 Environmental Protection

16.55.250 Environmental Protection.

(a) Protect all shorelines of the state in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property so that there is no net loss of ecological functions from both individual permitted or exempt development.

(b) Protect and, where necessary, apply planning and land use measures to improve the quality and productivity of the City’s environmental resources (air, ground and surface waters, and indigenous biology).

(c) Sustain a diverse, productive, and high quality natural environment for the use, health and enjoyment of City residents.

(a) Ecological Functions. Uses and developments on the City’s shoreline must be designed, located, sized, constructed and maintained to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources. New uses and developments must not have an unmitigated adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by this SMP.

(b) Protection of Critical Areas and Buffers. Critical areas, critical areas buffers, and shoreline buffers must be protected in accordance with the provisions of SMP Part VII (Shoreline Critical Areas Policies and Regulations).

(c) Mitigation Requirement. If a proposed shoreline use or development is entirely addressed by specific, objective standards (such as setback distances, pier dimensions, or materials requirements) contained in this SMP, then the mitigation sequencing analysis described in Subsection 16.55.250(2)(d) is not required. In the following circumstances, the applicant must provide a mitigation sequencing analysis as described in Subsection 16.55.250(2)(d):

(i) If a proposed shoreline use or development is addressed in any part by discretionary standards (such as standards requiring a particular action “if feasible” or requiring the minimization of development size) contained in this Chapter, then the mitigation sequencing analysis is required for the discretionary standard(s); or

(ii) When an action requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Variance Permit; or

(iii) When specifically required by regulations contained in this SMP.

(d) Mitigation Sequence. In order to ensure that development activities contribute to meeting the no net loss provisions by avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating for adverse impacts to ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes, an applicant required to complete a mitigation analysis pursuant to Subsection 16.55.250(2)(c) must describe how the proposal will follow the sequence of mitigation as defined below:

(i) Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;

(ii) Minimize the impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;

(iii) Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project or activity;

(iv) Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action;

(v) Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and

(vi) Monitor the impact and the compensation projects and take appropriate corrective measures.

(e) Adverse Impacts. Example of common actions that may result in adverse ecological impacts include, but are not limited to, the following:

(i) Removal of native plant communities in shoreline jurisdiction,

(ii) Removal of native or non-native trees that overhang the water,

(iii) Removal of native or non-native vegetation on slopes if that vegetation supports maintenance of slope stability and prevents surface erosion,

(iv) Removal or alteration of priority habitats or habitat for priority species,

(v) Construction of new or expanded in – and over-water structures,

(vi) Construction of new or expanded shoreline stabilizations,

(vii) New discharges of water into shoreline waters that may introduce pollutants,

(viii) Construction of new impervious surfaces whose discharges are not infiltrated and thus may alter hydrologic conditions of shoreline waterbodies, and/or

(ix) Changes in grading or fill that reduce floodplain capacity.

(f) Mitigation Plan. All proposed alterations to shoreline jurisdiction that may have adverse effects on ecological functions require mitigation sufficient to provide for and maintain the functions and values of the shoreline area or to prevent risk from a critical areas hazard. The applicant must develop and implement a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional. Mitigation in excess of that necessary to ensure that development will result in no net loss of ecological functions will not be required by the City of Pullman, but may be voluntarily performed by an applicant. In addition to any requirements found in Part VII (Shoreline Critical Areas Policies and Regulations) a mitigation plan must include:

(i) An inventory and assessment of the existing shoreline environment including relevant physical, chemical and biological elements;

(ii) A discussion of any federal, state, or local management recommendations which have been developed for critical areas or other species or habitats located on the site;

(iii) A discussion of proposed measures which mitigate the adverse impacts of the project to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions;

(iv) A discussion of proposed management practices which will protect fish and wildlife habitat both during construction, and after the project site has been fully developed;

(v) Scaled drawings of existing and proposed conditions, materials specifications, and a minimum three-year maintenance and monitoring plan, including performance standards;

(vi) A contingency plan if mitigation fails to meet established success criteria; and

(vii) Any additional information necessary to determine the adverse impacts of a proposal and mitigation of the impacts.

(g) Alternative Mitigation. When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions on site and in kind. To provide for flexibility in the administration of the ecological protection provisions of this SMP, alternative mitigation approaches may be approved within shoreline jurisdiction where such approaches provide increased protection of shoreline ecological functions and processes over the standard provisions of this SMP and are scientifically supported, or are consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Plan or watershed-level management plans. Potential alternative mitigation tools include advance mitigation and mitigation banking. Authorization of alternative compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions, and may require approval by other state or federal agencies. (Ord. 16-3 §26, 2016).