Correspondence from D. Critchley Re: View Royal Park
Citizen feedback regarding the environmental aspects of the View Royal Park Master Plan, specifically concerning riparian buffers and native species.
View Royal Park
In reviewing the 2010 Master Plan I note that 66% of respondents at the charrettes were dog-walkers which results in biased conclusions. For instance on page 47 (table 2) is the quote “There was no support for keeping dogs out of the riparian area in the off-leash portion of the park”. We residents, who as a majority were underrepresented, opine “restricting access is fundamental to improving fish, wildlife and bird habitat”.
The entire creek length should be fenced to exclude dogs and humans. Viewing platforms with educational signage could be installed in one or two places but a bridge increases the risk of habitat damage. The width of such a buffer should allow for large trees such as Coastal Douglas Firs which have a 4-5 metre root radius. A list of suitable trees is supplied in the original plan. Shrubs are important for understory bird nests and for foraging. Restoration with Native plants is recommended but recent studies show that adding Northern hemisphere plants increases pollinators by 20%. Trees supply shade and woody debris and shrubs supply insects, both enhance fish habitat. Invasive plants should be removed. Scotch Broom is no longer pulled but can be cut at ground level and herbicide (e.g. glyphosate) applied to the cut surface in February before native plants erupt. This is very cost effective. Himalayan Blackberry, in particular, destroys the streamside ecosystem.
The original plan describes “no blue or red listed species identified”. The survey was performed from Nov. to mid-January so bird or plant counts impossible. This ignores CRD findings for the Craigflower watershed which list 18 blue or red listed plants, 52 birds including blue listed Western Screech Owl and Northern Pigmy Owl. There are 3-7 types of bats, as well as voles and mice which are the winter feed for Great Blue Herons (blue listed). The red-legged frog is blue listed. Prickly Sculpin are extirpated. A new baseline environmental assessment should be performed twice during the spring and early summer months to measure the presence of vascular plants and whether any are red or blue listed (COSEWIC & SARA).
DFO recommends a minimum 15 metre buffer set back from the top of the bank. This might require relocation of the raised gravel path away from the creek.
Storm-water detention with adequate storage ponds and vegetated bioswales may require geotechnical recommendations. The present central drainage channel may require reconfiguration because when it was a pond it was partially filled in with excavated clay when the sewer line crossing under Portage Inlet was installed. Don’t enclose the drainage ditch along the north side as some people want. Keeping it day-lighted contributes to biodiversity and mitigates pollution. The whole Park is a flood-plain and 1,000 years ago was a tsunami victim so will eventually become a salt marsh again with Sea Level Rise. Climate change temperature increase should be taken into account when selecting “native trees”. In 200 years View Royal will need trees that presently survive in the current San Francisco environment. Our current hundred year old trees are suffering drought, failure to thrive, disease, and will die in the decades to come.
Please include these environmental comments in your discussions related to the on-line survey which closes on Tuesday 14th January.
Doug Critchley
132 ST Giles Street.
2020/01/12