Environmental Review for 275 Kerwood Avenue, Victoria, BC – Shoreline DPA

ASSESSMENT and REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Areas Development Permit Area, Bylaw No. 811

According to the View Royal Official Community Plan (OCP 2011) Bylaw No. 811, the Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Areas DPA was developed for the purpose of protecting the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity from development and includes all those upland and foreshore areas above and below and within 15 metres of the natural boundary of the sea.

Riparian areas and shorelines are important for their ecological value and contribution to the physical and cultural identity of View Royal. These areas support a rich diversity of flora and fauna and are integral elements of greater local and regional environmental systems. Unnecessarily disturbing these sensitive environments may harm their vitality and the ecological services they provide. This Development Permit Area has been established to ensure that the ecological values of sensitive watercourse and shoreline areas have been considered prior to development, and that measures will be taken to limit or avoid damage to these ecosystems. To the fullest extent possible all shorelines and riparian zones should be kept in a natural state and restored if they have been disturbed by development intrusions or public activity (View Royal OCP 2011).

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Online searches of the CRD Natural Areas Atlas and Harbours Atlas, Conservation Data Centre (CDC) database and the Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI) were conducted prior to the initial site visit for listings of environmentally sensitive ecosystems, sensitive habitat inventory mapping, rare species, red or blue-listed flora and fauna, wildlife trees, or any other pertinent environmental features. Online sources also included a review of aerial photography and locally available information for the area, including Wildlife Tree Stewardship Program (WiTS) occurrences.

With two exceptions, no other land-based environmental data points were listed within 500 m the property. Occurrences of the following two species were listed in online databases:

• Purple martin (Progne subis) are cavity-dwelling swallows provincially Blue-listed (Species of Special Concern) whose habitat has been lost due to urban development. There are no nesting Purple Martins on the subject site. Under the BC Purple Martin Stewardship and Recovery Program, populations have been aided by the installation of species-specific nesting boxes, ideally located on shoreline features, such as pilings and docks. There are suitable locations for nesting boxes on the shoreline structures at the site, if the owners would like to pursue the installation of a nesting box.
• Macoun’s meadow-foam (Limnanthes macounii) is a rare vascular plant that is provincially Red-listed (Endangered/Threatened) and federally listed as Threatened under the Species At Risk Act (SARA). The location of the nearest species occurrence is approximately 400 m away and the occurrence was destroyed by sewer construction. As the species requires specialised habitat (ephemeral pools on shallow soils), which do not occur on the property, it is highly unlikely to be found on the subject site.

Survey transects from the CRD Harbours Atlas (Figure 4) list the following organisms or complexes as of the last survey (March and May 2000) within 30 metres of the property shoreline: plumose anemones, bryozoan complex, filamentous and foliose red algae, foliose green algae, bladed kelp, burrowing sea cucumbers. The closest survey locations were slightly greater than 15 metres offshore. No threatened species are indicated and the organisms noted occur commonly in the marine environment of this bay (personal communications with World Fisheries Trust 2016).

SITE ASSESSMENT

Site visits conducted for the previous proposal (2016) were made by Sara Stallard, BSc, AScT, Dipl.Env.Tech. on 26 November 2015, 23 February 2016, 29 March 2016 and 3 May 2016. The site was most recently visited on 6 December 2018, where Sara Stallard met with the current owner and contractors for the proposed project. Lehna Malmkvist, MSc, RPBio, of Swell Environmental Consulting Ltd also attended the 3 May 2016 site visit, in addition to 3 June 2018 with the new owner.

The property boundaries have changed since the previous report, which was for two adjacent lots that were previously managed as one lot. A residential house spanning both lots had been demolished before the first 2016 site visit. As far as possible, elements of the previous site description have been edited to include only those known to have occurred on the western (current site) lot. Reliance on these observations in necessary, in part, due to the lack of vegetation features observable during the December 2018 site visit. The Present Natural Boundary was reviewed by the Surveyor General’s office at the request of the current owner and a change was approved in April 2019 (Figures 5 & 6), which places the 15-m Shoreline DPA farther south than previously noted.

The majority of this approximately 733 m² residential lot has been impacted by previous buildings, driveways and yard maintenance (Photos 1-3). The southwest-facing site generally slopes to the exposed bedrock on this rocky shoreline type where it drops steeply to the foreshore. The adjacent lot to the east has steeply exposed bedrock from the top of the bank down to the foreshore and is currently undeveloped (from previous house demolition). The adjacent lot to the west is a developed residential lot with a lesser slope and landscaping to the modified foreshore. There is an exposed bedrock outcrop at the upper (north) end of the property that straddles the property boundary with the Kerwood Avenue right-of-way (Photo 4).

The 15-m DPA setback consists of a small rocky pocket cove with a wooden boathouse structure (approximately 36 m²) and shoreline deck (west side) (Photos 5-8). Legal plans show a pre-existing water lease for a wharf extending out into the water and the current owner has obtained a new water lease from the Department of National Defence. The plans and assessment for a new ramp and floating dock are contained in a separate Marine Environment Assessment report prepared by Corvidae Environmental Consulting (November 2019). Those marine works are not addressed in this report. The small pocket cove is composed of a base of bedrock (not sediment) with historical fill at the north slope. This slope experienced a small-scale failure sometime between November 2015 and February 2016 site visits (Photos 9-12). Ryzuk Geotechnical estimated the slip volume to be 3-4 m² and the overall slope to be 30 degrees from horizontal and locally subvertical within the crest of the slope failure (report dated April 2016). A number of perforated drainage pipes could be seen within the failed slope. Small chunks of concrete slab were also noted at the top of this slope within the topsoil. As of December 2018 this slope has self re-vegetated with mostly non-native, invasive species. A narrow concrete stairway is located next to the west property line along this slope failure and has suffered damage.

VEGETATION

Much of the central and north portions of the site outside the 15-m DPA are gravel or exposed soil and bedrock, and are devoid of vegetation other than weedy species and overgrown lawn, with the exception of common camas (Camassia quamash), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza), broad-leaved stonecrop (Sedum spathulifolium), juvenile Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii ssp. menziesii) and perhaps Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) on the vegetated rocky outcrop at the north end of the site, (Photos 13-15). The northern bedrock outcrop is also vegetated with numerous non-native species, as is the shoreline. There are no mature trees on the upper portion of the property.

The 15-m DPA contains scattered pockets of native vegetation mixed with extensive non-native species, particularly non-native bulbs. Native vegetation includes a krummholtz (sea-side stunted form) Garry oak (Quercus garryana) along the east property line, common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), clustered wild rose (Rosa pisocarpa) or baldhip rose (Rosa gymnocarpa), and perhaps wild lilies or native onions: Brodiaea or Allium species. The site contains a number of invasive, non-native species including Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), English ivy (Hedera helix), English holly (Ilex aquifolium), spurge laurel (Daphne laureola), morning glory (family Convolvulaceae), common vetch (Vicia sativa), periwinkle (Vinca sp.), trailing buttercup (Ranunculus repens), ornamental bulbs (English bluebells, grape hyacinth, daffodils), thistles and non-native grasses (vegetation visible in Photo 3-12). The soils of the pocket cove that did not slump are thickly vegetated with snowberry and rose shrubs (possibly ornamental or hybrid), while the slumped area was vegetated mainly with non-natives species, including Himalayan blackberry. A raised-bed garden (presumably a kitchen garden) was located immediately adjacent to the slump at the top of the slope and a small fruit tree (Prunus sp.) was adjacent to the deck stairs.

FAUNA

No current obvious nesting activity in or near the 15-m DPA was observed and the site generally lacks thick shrub cover favoured by songbirds. No mature trees are located in the DPA. The dock and decks show evidence of frequent use by river otters (Lontra canadensis) and geese (Photo 5). A small, rocky islet south of the site is heavily used by seabirds.

MARINE

The shoreline is classified as rocky shoreline type, including the pocket cove. The lower intertidal zone of the pocket cove includes a zone of sand/shell fragments. There is very little attached algae or invertebrates, other than barnacles, in the upper intertidal zone as viewed during the three site visits. Purple seastars (Pisaster ochraceus) and attached kelp were noted in the lower intertidal zone (Photos 16-19). No sub-tidal surveys were conducted by Fish-KW (see Corvidae report dated November 2019).

SURROUNDING AREA

The property is surrounded by single-family residences (west and north) and the right-of-way for a small road-end parklet and stormwater discharge (CRD#870), heavily impacted by invasive species (east). The shoreline portion of the property adjacent (west) has recently been extensively modified. The three properties to the west all have docks perpendicular to the shoreline.

SITE SUMMARY

The site inspections did not reveal any environmentally sensitive ecosystems, red or blue-listed species, wildlife trees or significant environmental features of this type, beyond the typical sensitivity of shoreline habitats. The historically heavily impacted nature of the site makes the presence of rare and uncommon species unlikely. Non-native vegetation dominates in the 15-m DPA.

PROPOSED PROJECT AND POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF WORK ON THE EXISTING NATURAL CONDITIONS

The 2-3-storey, single-family residence proposed for this site would be built into the slope of the lot, reducing the above-ground height equivalent to 2 stories and has a footprint of approximately 247 m² (Figure 5). The location concentrates the building outside of vegetated areas for the most part, with the parking area extending into the north rocky bedrock adjacent to the Kerwood Avenue right-of-way. The structure is located outside of the 15-m Shoreline DPA.

Within the 15-m DPA, two repair projects are proposed: repairs to the existing boathouse, decks, and stairs and the stabilisation of the small slope failure. The proposed repairs to the existing structure include replacing some of the deck surface materials. Changes are proposed for pier support structures of the boathouse within the intertidal zone and are covered by the Corvidae report (November 2019). Renovations to the boathouse include new roofing and interior repairs; no change to the size of the boathouse is proposed. The wooden staircase to the eastern lot will be removed. Replacement of the concrete stairs along the west property line is addressed in the stabilisation recommendation below. Provided that Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction are followed (see RECOMMENDATIONS), the replacement of surface materials and interior renovations on existing structures with no increase in footprint would have no expected impacts on the existing ecological condition of the DPA backshore and foreshore. Impacts due to pier and float works are discussed in the Corvidae report (November 2019).

An engineered repair of the slope failure in the pocket cove has been proposed by Ryzuk Geotechnical and details are contained in a separate report (originally dated April 2016 with additional letter on 1 October 2019) and summarised as follows [square brackets indicate additions/edits from the original report] (Figures 7 & 8):

[From Oct 2019 letter] As shown on the conceptual plans, the proposed landscaping would comprise a concrete staircase with an adjacent retaining wall being less than 2.5 m high, as well as small terraces of boulders/concrete walls, and interspaced planting areas. Based on our previous site reconnaissance, bedrock is known to be present along the shore and is expected to be relatively shallow within the area. We also note that fills were present within the slope and very stiff to hard native clay soils may be encountered.

[From April 2016 letter report] This construction would require excavation along the slope toe to create a base for the lower terrace. In conjunction with this work, we recommend that the existing boathouse timber foundation frame be repaired by incorporating a cast concrete pony wall (designed by others) [above the Present Natural Boundary Photo 21)]. This would provide a proper foundation wall along the structures as well as allowing for the retention of soils along the toe of the slope. The terrace walls and benches would generally be backfilled with select free draining granular materials and include a surface veneer of planting soil for garden beds.

The proposed cast concrete pony wall has been designed by Skyline Engineering and is shown in Figure 9. The slope stabilisation proposed above has been modified (May 2019) to allow for the existing concrete stairs on the western property line to be relocated, crossing the slope with a combination of boulder and concrete retaining walls (Concept Drawings in Figures 10 & 11). Fish-KW recommends working with the builder during construction to ensure that planting space for native vegetation in the slope stabilisation is maximised and impervious surfaces and concrete is minimised where structurally allowed.

The current slope of the pocket cove consists of fill materials and much of the vegetative cover in the failed section consists of invasive or other non-native species. The thicket of native snowberry and rose on the stable east side of the slope is expected to be removed to expose all previous, and potentially unstable, fill material. The boulder stacked wall and pony wall will have limited impact on the functioning condition of this rocky shoreline because of its positioning within the back of the cove and above the high water mark. In addition, because the erosional material is not native and likely originally more closely resembled the surrounding bedrock cliffs with shallow overburden, there is no loss of natural sediment transport or beach nourishment to the remainder of this steep rocky shoreline. The impact of the height of the lifts on the current wildlife use of this small cove is unknown, however much of the evidence of use appears on the decks themselves, as opposed to the small surface area of the slope. Shoreline access for wildlife is available on the property east of the cove and continues east along the Beaumont Avenue road end parklet and larger cove adjacent. The existing western concrete staircase will be relocated to cross the slope with the combination of boulder and concrete retaining walls, which wildlife may also utilize. The retaining walls will be south facing and the spaces between boulders may provide increased habitat for small mammals or reptiles, where boulders are used in place of concrete (to be determined during construction). Generally speaking, boulder lifts would be preferred over concrete retaining walls where the design has indicated choice between the two styles.

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL GUIDELINES for NATURAL WATERCOURSE AND SHORELINE AREAS DPA

The following Guidelines for the Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Areas DPA would be applicable to the site:

General Guidelines

• Development of riparian and shoreline areas should be limited and not negatively impact the ecological health of the immediate area or impede public access.
• Retention of existing healthy riparian and shoreline vegetation should be maximized with any paths, structures or other constructed areas sited to minimize impact on trees and sensitive areas.
• Restoration of riparian and shoreline vegetation and habitat, including removal of invasive species, is encouraged for all properties within this Development Permit Area.
• Development should result in a net increase in native vegetation in almost all circumstances including trees, shrubs and grasses.
• For shoreline areas heavily impacted by previous development, target the restoration of ecologically appropriate vegetation for an average 15m wide (minimum 5 m) shoreline zone over 50% of the shore length.
• Riparian and shoreline area development should sensitively manage storm water, focusing on infiltration and release of storm water in ways and quantities that mimics natural patterns, avoids scouring and erosion and results in storm water free from pollutants.
• Shoreline protection measures should be limited to those necessary to prevent damage to existing structures or established uses on adjacent upland.
• In the design of new developments or re-development, the use of soft engineered and innovative alternatives to stabilizing shorelines and preventing erosion, such as bioengineering rather than traditional hard engineered measures should be used. In general, the harder the construction measure, the greater the impact on shoreline process, including sediment transport, geomorphology and biological functions. Hard" measures refer to those with solid, hard surfaces, such as concrete bulkheads, while "soft" structural measures rely on less rigid materials, such as biotechnical vegetation measures or beach enhancement. There is a range of measures varying from soft to hard that include:
  • Vegetation enhancement.
  • Upland drainage control.
  • Biotechnical measures.
  • Beach enhancement.
  • Anchor trees.
  • Gravel placement.
  • Rock (rip rap) revetments.
  • Gabions.
  • Concrete groins.
  • Retaining walls or bulkheads.
• Where hard measures can conclusively be shown to be the only means of effectively preventing erosion, they should be designed in consultation with a registered professional biologist, qualified environmental professionals and professional engineers, as appropriate.
• The preservation and enhancement of native trees and shrub clusters that overhang the waters edge is strongly encouraged as these provide shade, protection and feeding habitat for fish and wildlife.

Guidelines for new and replacement of existing docks and boat launch facilities (project-relevant guidelines only, see Appendix 1 for full list)

• Docks should be constructed of stable materials that will not degrade over time. The use of unenclosed plastic foam or the use of creosote treated pilings is strongly discouraged.

Guidelines - Specific Ocean Shoreline Types

Rocky Shores consist primarily of rock platform, and may include steep cliffs or shelves overlain with beach veneer of boulders, gravel or rubble. While shore protection measures are generally not required on rocky shores as the bedrock provides adequate protection from erosion the following guidelines apply:

• Ensure that a minimum 15-metre setback for new buildings and structures, additions to existing buildings and structures or the placement and removal of fill is maintained.
• A setback of less than 15-metres may be considered if it is supported by a report by a qualified coastal professional (for geotechnical and coastal process considerations) and a registered professional biologist (for biological/environmental considerations) and satisfies all of the guidelines associated with this development permit area.
• Due to the inherently stable nature of this type of shoreline, applications for shore protection measures will generally not be accepted unless evidence is provided by a qualified coastal professional that there is a substantial risk of damage or loss of structures.

Exemptions

The following exemptions (in bold) may apply to the subject site and do not require a development permit:

• Repair, maintenance, alteration or reconstruction of existing legally or legally nonconforming sited buildings, structures or utilities provided there is no alteration of undisturbed land or vegetation.
• Emergency repairs to existing structures and public walkways where a potential safety hazard exists.
• Removal of trees deemed to be hazardous by a qualified arborist that threaten the immediate safety of life and buildings.
• Removal of hazardous trees with a valid Tree Alteration and Cutting Permit.
• Small-scale removal by hand (10m² or less) of invasive species or noxious weeds.
• Larger-scale removal of invasive species or noxious weeds in accordance with a vegetation management plan prepared by a Registered Professional Biologist or other qualified professional.
• The construction of a small accessory building, such as a pump house, gazebo, garden shed or playhouse, if all the following apply:
  • The building is located within an existing landscaped area;
  • No native trees are removed;
  • The building is located outside of a Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area, or a minimum of 10 metres from the high water mark of the ocean; and
  • The total area of small accessory buildings is less than 10m².
• Emergency actions required to prevent, control or reduce an immediate threat to human life, the natural environment or public or private property including:
  • Forest fire, flood, and erosion protection works;
  • Clearing of an obstruction from a bridge, culvert, dock, wharf or stream; and
  • Removal of hazardous trees.

RECOMMENDATIONS

While the currently proposed project activities for 275 Kerwood fall within the listed exemptions to the Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Areas DPA, the owner has requested documented support of this and further suggestions for environmental improvement to the shoreline.

The current state of the DPA is a residential landscape historically modified by shoreline structures (decks, stairs and boathouse), fill material (in the pocket cove and in raised beds) and ornamental, non-native species, some of which are now considered invasive (including bulbs). The neighbouring property to the west consists of a heavily modified shoreline. The neighbouring lot to the east was previously developed, but with no current house, and has a mix of lawn, shrubs and mature trees, but has significant coverage of invasive species, including ivy impacted trees.

The following actions and recommendations show compliance with the Guidelines for the Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Areas DPA:

• Development of riparian and shoreline areas should be limited and not negatively impact the ecological health of the immediate area or impede public access. The proposed house is outside of the 15-m DPA, as defined by the approved Present Natural Boundary (April 2019). Repairs to the surface materials of the decks and renovations planned within the boathouse building are within the current footprint of existing structures. Development planned in the 15-m DPA includes the proposed shoreline stabilisation and replacement of a previously existing ramp and dock (addressed by Corvidae in a separate report). The proposed boathouse renovations alone are not expected to have a detrimental impact to the current ecological condition of the shoreline, and the proposed slope protection works would have limited impact on the shoreline and current wildlife use, provided BMPs regarding building materials and construction practices are followed. Fish-KW and the contractor should work together during the shore stabilisation works to ensure that native planting areas in the stabilisation works will be maximised and impervious surfaces and concrete will be minimised where structurally allowed. Public access to the shoreline is limited by existing terrain.
• Retention of existing healthy riparian and shoreline vegetation should be maximized with any paths, structures or other constructed areas sited to minimize impact on trees and sensitive areas. No increased development footprint within the DPA is proposed, other than the proposed shoreline stabilisation. This slide area is predominantly fill and invasive vegetation. Coastal native vegetation removed during shore stabilisation will be replanted and augmented with new coastal native plantings.
• Restoration of riparian and shoreline vegetation and habitat, including removal of invasive species, is encouraged for all properties within this Development Permit Area. Removal of invasive species is proposed throughout the DPA and would also occur with the repair of the slide area. The targeted invasive species would include Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, English holly, spurge laurel, morning glory, and periwinkle and would require a concerted effort over a period of years. Vetch and ornamental bulbs could be additionally targeted, however the level of effort required can be greater than the limited ecological benefit.
• Development should result in a net increase in native vegetation in almost all circumstances including trees, shrubs and grasses. For shoreline areas heavily impacted by previous development, target the restoration of ecologically appropriate vegetation for an average 15m wide (minimum 5 m) shoreline zone over 50% of the shore length. The preservation and enhancement of native trees and shrub clusters that overhang the waters edge is strongly encouraged as these provide shade, protection and feeding habitat for fish and wildlife. Restoration of tree cover within the DPA is somewhat limited due to shallow soils adjacent to the water’s edge. However, in addition to the proposed efforts for invasive species removal, an increase of coastal native groundcover, shrubs and selected plantings of native trees would increase the ecological value of the shoreline. [Vegetated coastal habitats are important breeding habitats for songbirds and they are frequently used as wintering habitats by a number of sparrow species. Shoreline trees, Douglas-firs in particular, have the potential to mature and become suitable for additional wildlife such as eagles, herons, and ospreys for nesting and perching for feeding on ocean prey including fish and water fowl. Thick vegetation overhanging the marine environment provides an important ecological function as wildlife habitat, shading and as a food source for fish. The supralittoral (marine backshore) is an important trophic link in supplying terrestrial carbon to nearshore food webs (Romanuk and Levings 2010). The shading and protection offered by the nearshore vegetation are utilised by juvenile fish and terrestrial invertebrates are a significant food source for rearing/juvenile salmonids. Terrestrial invertebrates can make up over 50% of the stomach contents in salmonid smolts.]
  • A partial list of appropriate species is provided in Table 1. Considerations for coastal native plant selection and specific locations are based on aesthetics, moisture and sunlight, as well as for plant groupings to enhance habitat for birds and wildlife. Generally, the planting plan could include:
    • increasing shrub cover, particularly along the shoreline, including Garry oaks which tend toward low growing krummholtz forms when in shallow soils;
    • planting coastal native species, especially those that would grow over the boulder walls; and,
    • the addition of trees where soil depth allows (Photo 20).
  • A planting plan was prepared by Lombard North Group (28 August 2019, Figure 12) for the owners and reviewed by Fish-KW. The plan proposes the use of thick planting of native plant species throughout the site. The following amendments are suggested in order to conform to the DPA Guidance:
    • The species composition of the ‘Wildflower Mix’ on the upper terrace is not specified. This mix should be composed of coastal native species. Custom plant mixes should be planned for in advance to accommodate seed collection. In particular, species that would do well on this coastal spot are nodding onion (Allium cernuum), coastal sagewort (Artemisia suksdorfii), sea blush (Plectritis congesta), woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum), Roemer’s fescue (Festuca roemeri), tufted hair grass (Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. beringensis), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), California oat grass (Danthonia californica). Coastal native pollinator mixes would do well here.
    • The species listed on the landscape proposal for the planting benches are Ocean Spray (Holodiscus discolour), Rosa woodsii (Interior species) and Potentilla fruticosa abbotswood (Interior species). The two Interior species are not native to this area and would not be expected to thrive in this location. The owner has expressed her preference for the flower of the R. woodsii over R. nutkana (Nootka rose). Given the thick planting of native plants being used elsewhere on the site, one suggestion is to try the R. woodsii, but use a coastal native combination for the third species (or combinations) such as entire-leaved gumweed (Grindelia integrifolia – super pollinator, salt tolerant, late blooms), yarrow (Achillea millefolium – binds soil), coastal sagewort (Artemisia suksdorfii), and/or mock orange (coastal variety Philadelphus lewisii var. gordonianus).
    • The planting benches would also benefit from ground cover that would hang over the boulders, such as yerba beuna (Clinopodium douglasii) and native strawberries (Fragaria chiloensis, F. vesca, F. virginiana) that would create a green wall and reduce latent heat effects. Lyngby’s sedge (Carex lyngbyei) may grow well at the water line, depending on the conditions created by the pony wall.
    • The southeastern slope potentially remains untouched by the slope repair, but has a mix of native and invasive plants. During slope repair this disturbed area may be found to be unstable and re-planting should adhere to the original plan of native species with no additional pathways, boulders etc. Suggest snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) and Nootka rose for ease of planting and spread, with strawberries and wildflowers or other native ground cover. Garry oaks which tend toward low growing krummholtz could be added here.
  • A free local source of native plants is periodically available to the public through the District of Saanich Native Plant Salvage Program. The program requires registration and an orientation session, but is open to all members of the public. More information can be obtained through Darren Copley at the District of Saanich. Alternatively, native species can be purchased from local nurseries, such as Saanich Native Plants, and through Swan Lake Nature Sanctuary Native Plant sales (spring and fall).
• Riparian and shoreline area development should sensitively manage storm water, focusing on infiltration and release of storm water in ways and quantities that mimics natural patterns, avoids scouring and erosion and results in storm water free from pollutants. The structures within the DPA are located with direct drainage over the foreshore. The proposed residence uphill from the DPA could utilise native species with designed raingardens. Literature suggests rain garden areas of approximately 10-20% of the upstream impervious area. Depending on final housing footprint and design, the degree of sun/shade available and owner preference for high/low vegetation, there is a very wide variety of native emergent and wet-loving species available. Some common species are common rush, slough sedge, and dagger-leaved rush (Table 1 includes native emergent plant suggestions and an expanded list can be provided upon request).
• Shoreline protection measures should be limited to those necessary to prevent damage to existing structures or established uses on adjacent upland. [See previous section for full design guidelines.] Where hard measures can conclusively be shown to be the only means of effectively preventing erosion, they should be designed in consultation with a registered professional biologist, qualified environmental professionals and professional engineers, as appropriate. The proposed shoreline protection measure has been designed to address the current slope failure. The reduced slope angle likely more closely mimics the historical slope in this area of fill materials. The degree of ‘hardening’ (boulder lifts) would be partially mitigated by the proposed planting of the terraces. A QEP and the contractor should work together during the shore stabilisation works to ensure that native planting areas in the stabilisation works will be maximised and impervious surfaces and concrete will be minimised where structurally allowed. The boulder lifts will be south-facing and the spaces between boulders may provide increased habitat for small mammals or reptiles. Because of the location of the terraces behind an existing shoreline structure, there is limited ecological benefit to the foreshore for overhanging vegetation; however, the use of native groundcover and shrubs in the lower lifts would provide an ecological benefit, especially to songbirds. By situating vegetation at the top of the boulder lifts, overhanging groundcover (such as yerba beuna and native strawberries) can grown down over the boulders, creating a green wall and reducing latent heat effects. There are a number of berry-producing shrubs and native edible plants that could be used to supplement kitchen gardens and provide nectar for bees and hummingbirds (Table 1 is annotated with food species). These include coastal, woodland and wild strawberry, wild ginger, salmonberry, thimbleberry, Saskatoon berry, black huckleberry, evergreen huckleberry and red huckleberry. Sedges planted adjacent to the pony wall at the base of the slope stabilisation may also provide habitat. Some of these plants have specialised requirements and habits. Additional information can be provided upon request.

Regulatory permissions from DFO are not required for the works described above, as the works are above the natural boundary. However, any release of deleterious substances into the marine environment could be considered a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. Recommended BMPs (see below) and environmental monitoring would reduce inadvertent negative impacts to marine life.

Environmental monitoring is recommended in order to reduce inadvertent negative impacts to the environment, especially during concrete pouring and slope stabilisation. Environmental monitoring from the start of the project would be necessary if a completion report and statement of BMP compliance is required. Otherwise, monitoring is at the owners’ discretion. Monitoring typically includes a pre-construction meeting, presence during concrete work adjacent to the shoreline, particularly during the shore stabilisation works, periodic site checks during major stages of construction and heavy rainfall, a final site inspection and a completion letter. Photographs from on-site contractors during development can reduce overall monitoring costs.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) for CONSTRUCTION

The following general Best Management Practices (BMPs) are recommended for work around water. BMPs specific to the final construction timelines, methods and materials may differ slightly. The BMPs for in-water work (pilings, dock, pier) are contained in the Corvidae report.

BMPs for construction are recommended as follows:

• Work will be completed during dry weather (no work in heavy rainfall).
• Work will proceed from the upland side of the high water mark. No access for heavy equipment should occur on the shoreline.
• Exposed excavations and soil piles are to be covered with tarps or poly sheeting during precipitation and grass-seeded or planted as soon as possible.
• Sediment fences or other measures will be installed as needed, to prevent sediment from migrating into the marine environment.
• Existing native vegetation to be retained will be marked with highly visible flagging or snow fence and care will be taken when working around trees, including during painting (Photo 22 Garry oak).
• Materials, paints, and wood treatments for decks, wharves and over-water structures should be non-toxic for aquatic life. Creosote and unenclosed plastic foam are discouraged.
• Remove all wastes associated with repairs from the shoreline area and ensure open containers of paints, stains, thinners, glues, etc. are not left on docks.
• Ensure the materials at the dock work site have been secured at end of day and in rough weather.
• An Environmental Monitor should be present for a pre-construction site meeting, during concrete work adjacent to the shoreline, and periodically throughout the construction period to ensure BMPs are followed.

Spill Prevention Measures will be implemented to minimize the potential for contaminants to enter the marine environment:

• Equipment will be inspected prior to working adjacent to water bodies. Hydraulic fittings on equipment working near the water’s edge may require absorbent wrapping if not using inherently biodegradable hydraulic fluid.
• Fuelling of any machinery or generators will occur in a designated area away from water bodies (30 m) and catchbasins. Portable generators or fuelled equipment should be placed in spill-proof containers sized to contain a volume greater than the fuel capacity of the equipment.
• Spill kits will accompany all equipment and operators will be trained in their use.
• Ensure concrete wastes are contained: wet concrete is not deposited into surrounding water, remove excess concrete, and do not allow water from equipment and tool cleaning to enter the environment. Concrete pouring from the upper slope should be carefully monitored with no concrete to enter the marine environment. Wet cement is highly alkaline and can have severely adverse effects on aquatic life. Cast in place concrete will not come in contact with fish-bearing waters for at least 48 hrs.

In summary, the proposed work will not disturb any rare or endangered species or ecosystems. Provided the measures and BMPs described in this review are followed, the proposed construction activities are not expected to have significant negative impacts to the current ecosystems of the 15-m DPA setback from Esquimalt Harbour. If implemented, the suggested restoration activities would provide improvement over the current conditions for this coastal bedrock bluff, in particular for songbirds.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Sara Stallard, BSc., AscT (#22338), Envr.Tech. Fish-KW Environmental

Reviewed by: Lehna Malmkvist, MSc, RPBio (#1613) Swell Environmental Consulting Ltd.

REFERENCES

Romanuk, Tamara N., and Colin D. Levings. (2010). Reciprocal Subsidies and Food Web Pathways Leading to Chum Salmon Fry in a Temperate Marine-Terrestrial Ecotone. PloS ONE, 5(4), e10073. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010073