VIEW ROYAL PARK MASTER PLAN 2010

VIEW ROYAL PARK – MASTER PLAN

July 2010

Prepared by: LADR Landscape Architects Inc. Project Managers

In association with: CEI Architecture Planning Interiors Charrette Consultant

SWELL Environmental Consulting Vegetation & Aquatic Ecologists

For: Town of View Royal Client Representatives Lindsay Chase, Director of Development Services

In association with: Ian Scott, Senior Planner Emmet McCusker, Director of Engineering David Screech, Councillor

Table of Contents

• 1.0 Introduction — 3
  • 1.1 Context — 3
  • 1.2 Objective — 3
  • 1.3 Methodology — 4
    • 1.3.1 Research and Field Reviews — 4
    • 1.3.2 Client Consultation — 4
    • 1.3.3 Public Consultation — 5
  • 1.4 Reference Documents — 7
• 2.0 Site History — 8
• 3.0 Site Analysis — 8
  • 3.1 Site Ecology — 9
  • 3.2 Soils and Hydrology — 11
• 4.0 Existing Site Features — 12
  • 4.1 Play Equipment and Site Furniture — 12
  • 4.2 Trails, Parking and Signage — 12
• 5.0 Zoning, Bylaws and Development Restrictions — 13
  • 5.1 Zoning — 13
  • 5.2 Bylaws — 14
  • 5.3 Development Restrictions — 14
• 6.0 Health and Safety — 15
  • 6.1 Law Enforcement — 15
  • 6.2 West Nile Virus — 15
• 7.0 The Master Plan — 16
  • 7.1 Design Synopsis — 16
    • 7.1.1 Organizing Principles — 17
  • 7.2 Design Concepts — 19
    • 7.2.1 On-Site Drainage/Stormwater Management — 19
    • 7.2.2 Non-Motorized (Pedestrian/Bicycle) Circulation — 20
    • 7.2.3 Vehicular Circulation — 24
    • 7.2.4 Signage — 24
    • 7.2.5 Grass Areas — 25
    • 7.2.6 Play Environment — 25
    • 7.2.7 Services — 26
• 8.0 Vegetation Management — 27
  • 8.1 Vegetation Protection and Enhancement — 27
    • 8.1.1 Environmental Stewardship Area (Includes Riparian Zone) — 27
    • 8.1.2 Tree and Shrub Pockets — 27
    • 8.1.3 Invasive Species Management — 28
  • 8.2 Recommended Wetland and Riparian Species — 29
    • 8.2.1 Recommended Wetland and Riparian Species — 29
    • 8.2.2 West Nile Virus — 30
• 9.0 Implementation — 30
  • 9.1 Phasing — 30
  • 9.2 Order of Magnitude — 34

Key Words — 38

List of Appendices

• Appendix 1: Web-Based Public Survey Results — 40
• Appendix 2: Charrette Summary — 44
• Appendix 3: OCP Children and Youth Comments — 51

List of Maps

• Map 1: Context Plan — 4
• Map 2: Site Ecology — 10
• Map 3: Existing Conditions — 12
• Map 4: Aerial Photo 2007 — 16
• Map 5: The 15 Year Vision — 17
• Map 6: Organizing Principles: Three Zones — 18
• Map 7: Primary Trails — 22
• Map 8: Secondary Trails — 23

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Context

View Royal Park is a community park adjacent the estuary at the mouth of Craigflower Creek and immediately north of View Royal Elementary School. It is valued by residents throughout the municipality, especially by those who live within 1 km, for its un-structured ambiance and sense of openness. The park is particularly popular with walkers and dog owners who regularly use the walking trails and the off-leash dog area. At this time there are approximately 1032 linear metres (0.6 miles) of walking trails and 2.23 hectares (5.5 acres) of off-leash field enclosed by the north trail loop. The total park area is 6.6 hectares (16.3 acres).

The park was included in the 2007 draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan and is identified as a potential community gathering space in the Official Community Plan (OCP) Vision Statement approved by Council January 12, 2010.

In November, 2009, The Town of View Royal contracted LADR Landscape Architects to prepare a 10-15 year Park Plan based on site review, review of available documents, and public consultation.

Location and General Description of View Royal Park View Royal Park is located in View Royal's Helmcken Neighbourhood, between Craigflower Creek, the Trans Canada Highway, and the back gardens of residences along Pheasant Lane and Paddock Place. The park has 4 public access points; the primary access point and the only one with associated parking is off Pheasant Lane near Helmcken Road. Two pedestrian/bicycle access points are on the east side of the park off Peacock Place, and the fourth access point is from the MacLennan Trail at the north end of the park.

1.2 Objective

The objective of the Plan as identified in LADR's View Royal Park - Park Plan RFQ submission, is to develop a Park Plan that comprises a Masterplan (a 15 year vision articulated in drawings and supporting documentation) and a 10-15 year capital project implementation plan.

The Park Plan will be a document which the Town of View Royal can reference when making future decisions about long range capital projects related to Parks within the Town, as well as when making design and management decisions related to day to day and short term activities within, or impacting on, View Royal Park.

1.3 Methodology

1.3.1 Research and Field Reviews

From November 2009 to mid-January 2010 the project Consultants reviewed and consolidated background information related to View Royal Park, and made no less than five field reviews to gain information about site conditions and park use, and to ascertain opportunities and constraints. This information was used to prepare background information plans which were presented to the public during the public consultation process.

1.3.2 Client Consultation

The Consultants worked closely with the Client representatives (hereafter referred to as the Client) throughout the Park Plan process. The Client provided relevant background documents prepared by or for the Town, arranged and attended the pre-charrette information evening and the charrette workshop, and posted and advertised a web based park user survey which they assisted in preparing. A preliminary draft Master Plan was reviewed with the Client in mid-February. The draft Masterplan including the graphic plan, report and recommended phasing, was presented to the Client representatives on March 5, 2010 and to View Royal's Committee of the Whole on April 13, 2010.

Client Representatives (the Client)

• Ms. Lindsay Chase, Director of Development Services

In association with

• Mr. Ian Scott, Senior Planner
• Mr. Emmet McCusker, Director of Engineering
• Mr. David Screech, Councillor

1.3.3 Public Consultation

The public had two direct opportunities to participate in the early planning process: an online survey and a design charrette. A public open house held June 29, 2010, provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft Masterplan.

Additionally, LADR asked CitySpaces Consulting to share the results of their recent OCP Review related discussions with grade seven and eight students from Shoreline Community School, regarding Recreation and Entertainment improvements to the Town as a whole.

Survey A web-based survey was posted by the Town of View Royal Planning Department on the Town website and simultaneously advertised on signs placed in View Royal Park from December 18, 2009 to January 15, 2010. The notification signs were placed at the main entrance off the parking lot and at the start of the MacLennan Trail. The survey was self selected and not random; there was no control over the number of times the survey could be filled out by an individual.

A summary of the survey responses indicates that, of those that responded (percentages have been rounded off to the nearest whole number):

• 2/3 respondents were female and 1/3 male
• 50% use the park on their own, 43% with family, 5% with a group
• 58% were adults (12% of those were seniors), 12% were elementary school children and 9% were preschoolers
• 80% walk to the park and 10% bike (less than 0.5% of respondents indicated they came by car).
• 73% live within 1km of the park and 50% indicated they access the park via the MacLennan trail
• 16% have family members with disabilities; of these 1/3 indicated the family member with a disability had trouble accessing the park
• 85% use the park during the week, (even distribution between morning, afternoon and evening), and 15% on weekends
• 96% use the park for walking (with or without a dog); of these 50% use the park at least 5 times per week and 50% use the park 1-4 times per week
• 2/3 use the off leash dog area and half of these use it daily
• 20% use the playground; of these 70% use it once or twice a week and 30% use it more often
• 20% use the park as an opportunity to socialize, 15% use it as an opportunity to enjoy nature and 13% use it as an opportunity for children's play
• the most serious park issues are considered to be:
  • poor drainage (46%)
  • poor lighting (12%)
  • poor trail maintenance (6%)
  • possibility of change (5%)
• all other comments represented less than 5% of the respondents
• the most desirable park improvement would be to:
  • do nothing (28%)
  • improve drainage and the condition of the existing path (18%)
  • improve the play environment to accommodate all park visitors (12%)
  • create community or allotment gardens (11%)
  • increase picnicking opportunities – create a group picnic area, add more picnic tables and a picnic shelter or something similar (10%)
  • add more dog related amenities (7%)
  • add washrooms (7%)
  • improve the overall quality of landscaping (7%)
  • create more seating areas (7%)
  • install path lighting (6%)
  • build a bridge to the adjacent neighbourhood (6%)
  • plant more trees and native species, enhance the riparian area (5%)
  • build a viewing platform or two (5%)
  • add more garbage receptacles (5%)
• all other comments represented less than 5% of the respondents

A sample survey can be found in Appendix 1.

Charrette In January 2010 the general public was invited to participate in a design charrette that was advertised on the Town website, in the Goldstream Gazette and on public notices placed in the park. The charrette consisted of an introductory evening on January 21st, and a working session on January 23rd. Not including View Royal staff and consultants, 33 people attended Thursday evening's presentation and 32 attended Saturday's charrette (numbers taken from sign-in sheets). At the Thursday evening session consultants reviewed the context, history and environmental significance of the park, and the intent and format of the charrette; during the follow-up discussion period many residents voiced their appreciation of the park in its current state and expressed concerns about any kind of development. Many were particularly vocal about not wanting a skate park and/or field improvements geared towards organized sport, and wanting to maintain the full extent of the current off-leash area.

The Saturday working session began with a power point presentation on the context, history and environmental significance of the park and a review of the results of the web based survey. This was followed by a facilitated design session where participants broke into three groups to develop their broad vision for the park. The vision plans created by each group were consolidated into one concept plan by the consultants who then presented the plan to the participants. Comments during the follow-up discussion indicated the majority of vocal participants supported, in principal, the design concept as expressed in the consolidated plan.

A charrette summary, including the consolidated vision plan, can be found in Appendix 2.

Children & Youth – OCP Feedback As children and youth were under-represented in both the charrette process and the web based survey, LADR asked CitySpaces Consulting to share the results of their recent OCP Review related discussions with the grade seven and eight students from Shoreline Community School, regarding Recreation and Entertainment improvements to the Town as a whole. Their results indicated that the most prevalent requests were for highly structured activity/social space such as a teen centre, a swimming pool, a water park, and a BMX track with jumps. The students also expressed an interest in planning parks for teens (not just children), in the creation of additional sports fields, a zoo, an amusement centre, and a skate park, and in the creation of more trails, improved water access, and more dog walking opportunities.

A summary of the results can be found in Appendix 3.

1.4 Reference Documents

The following View Royal documents were reviewed in preparation of the View Royal Park Master Plan:

CitySpaces Consulting. January 6, 2010. Town of View Royal Community Vision Statement.

Bunt & Associates. March 2008. Town of view Royal Transportation Master Plan Appendices.

Lanarc Consultants Ltd. with Professional Environment Recreation Consultants (PERC). April 2007. Draft Town of View Royal Parks and Trails Master Plan.

Town of View Royal. January 2009. Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 361, 1991.

Town of View Royal. November 19, 2009 (received). AutoCad site plan of View Royal Park.

Additional References Capital Regional District. Natural Areas Atlas, Harbours Atlas & 2007 aerial photo.

Capital Regional District. Website: www.crd.ca/watersheds

Duffus, Maureen. 1993. Craigflower Country: A History of View Royal 1850-1950.

Forsyth & Musacchio. 2005. Designing Small Parks: A Manual for Addressing Social & Ecological Concerns.

Lanarc Consultants Ltd., Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd., and Ngan, Goya. April 2005. Stormwater Source Control Design Guidelines 2005. Report Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD).

Lewis, Megan, ed. January 2008. From Recreation to Re-creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space System Planning.

Personal correspondence with Brenda Grice, former principal of Lanarc Consultants Ltd., regarding the history of landscape design/works in the park.

Gorge Waterway Initiative. Website: www.gorgewaterway.ca

SHIP Environmental Consultants Ltd. April 1997. The Craigflower Creek Watershed Assessment. Report Prepared for the Capital Regional District (CRD).

2.0 Site History

The site was originally inhabited by the Saanich, Songhees and Esquimalt nations, collectively known as the Lekwammen. The Lekwammen called Craigflower Creek Pulkwutsang, "the place of Ghost" or "haunted by Ghosts". It was later referred to as 'Deadman's Creek' or Deadman's River (as noted on Pemberton's 1855 map). The land was settled by Dr. John Helmcken in the 1850's, and leased as two dairy farms, one of which may have been the Stewart's. Although no longer farmed, the land is still within the Agricultural Land Reserve, and represents just under half of the Town's total ALR inventory.

Significant changes to the site and the adjacent riparian area and creek bed began in the 1960's when the Electoral Area Director (View Royal was not yet incorporated) arranged for removal of topsoil from the site, the filling of swampy areas, and the creation of a drainage ditch (channel). This continued into the 1970's when road building in the area created additional environmental degradation ultimately wiping out the salmon run in the creek.

In the 1980's environmental improvements and restoration began to be addressed. Creek obstructions were removed and the Esquimalt Anglers Association and the Department of Ocean and Fisheries began restocking the creek with coho and chum salmon transplanted from Goldstream Creek. At the same time, successive Electoral Area Directors arranged for bringing in topsoil, seeding, constructing a trail and installing benches on park land. Park improvements including trail extensions and upgrading, planting throughout the park and along the creek edge, field-regrading and installation of play equipment continued after the Town of View Royal was incorporated as a municipality in December 1988. In fact the majority of the riparian vegetation that we see today was planted in the early 1990's and is not part of a naturally occurring eco-system.

Today the salmon run is self sustaining and thrives alongside healthy populations of trout, steelhead, catfish, bass and stickleback. The estuary habitat is being restored and its environmental importance in the broader ecosystem is receiving increased recognition. A mix of multi and single family housing has been built around the park and on the east side of the creek, directly opposite the park, the last parcel of undeveloped private land is currently under construction.

3.0 Site Analysis

Detailed information on the ecology, soils and hydrology, topography, and condition and exact location of underground services is limited. All geotechnical, topographical and underground service information must be verified prior to doing any work on site. The digital drawing received from View Royal in November 2009 as background information does not include park amenities such as trails, benches, play equipment, and parking, nor limits of vegetation or locations of individual trees, and does not accurately depict current topography (grades/contours/watercourses) which has been altered in recent years as part of ongoing park improvements. The drawing includes right-of-ways, main storm lines, storm outfalls (to creek), property lines, ditch locations (centre line), culvert locations (centre line), and contours (not current).

3.1 Site Ecology

In their Craigflower Creek Watershed Assessment, SHIP Environmental Consulting identifies View Royal Park as one of twelve sites within the watershed where, in 1997, less than 40% of the riparian vegetation remained intact. Given that a significant amount of the riparian vegetation we see today was planted in the early 1990's, it seems reasonable to assume that little of the existing riparian vegetation is part of the original riparian eco-system.

Vegetation in the current riparian zone is a mix of native, ornamental and invasive species, traversed by numerous rogue trails leading to the creek. Tidal marshes, tidal meadows, shore line shrubs, and one small shoreline meadow are located along the water's edge (see Map 2). Prevalent invasive species in this area include reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, and Scotch broom; other less prevalent invasives are also apparent.

Vegetation elsewhere in the park includes a buffer of mixed trees and shrubs (primarily native) along a significant drainage channel just north of the playground, a native cottonwood grove immediately north-west of the playground, an ecological demonstration area in the north-east corner of the park (municipal initiative now over grown), and a mix of single firs, and non-native pines and cedars, scattered along the full length of the west edge of the park. An area of new tree planting in irrigated grass lawn is located at the park entrance off Pheasant Lane and extends to the park gate at the north end of the parking lot. This highly groomed space creates a transition between the recently completed and equally highly groomed Helmcken Road landscaping and the less well groomed and non-serviced park.

Currently, 11.8 acres (approximately 3/4) of the park consists of large areas of mown grass, much of which is wet from late fall to mid spring. Approximately 5.5 acres of this (nearly half) is a designated off-leash dog area.

The existing riparian vegetation and stands of shrubs and trees along the drainage channel and north of the playground provide habitat and food for birds, small mammals and beneficial insects, however, the unlimited dog access to many of these areas decreases their habitat value and potentially the health of the estuary.

A comprehensive vegetation survey has not been completed.

Results from the on-line survey and comments made during the charrette indicate that many residents are interested in expanding and/or improving the riparian buffer, increasing the amount of native planting throughout the park, and planting additional trees. Suggestions were varied and included: removing invasive species; controlling pedestrian and dog access to the water's edge, possibly by creating one or two viewing platforms (note: some residents indicated they did not want dog access to the water's edge restricted); expanding the width of the riparian fringe and infilling with native plants where vegetation is thin; planting existing grassed drainage channels with native plants; planting large shade trees at various locations within the park; planting a vegetative buffer on the slope at the north end of the park near the Trans Canada Highway.

3.2 Soils and Hydrology

There is no available geotechnical information for this park and information about soils and hydrology is subjective. It is known that in a 1986 OCP when the CRD had jurisdiction over the park land, the park was identified as a 'natural hazard area' due to flooding. Furthermore, in the 1997 Craigflower Creek Watershed Assessment, SHIP Environmental Consulting identified the park as a floodplain and noted that it had a history of flooding, especially when precipitation combined with high winter tides and winds from offshore. SHIP also noted that modifications to the creek channel and changes to culverts as part of the Vancouver Island Highway Project (both in the mid 1990's), would have altered flooding patterns, but they did not identify the new patterns.

Today, super saturated soils impact park accessibility and use for up to 4-5 months per year, during which times fields become inaccessible and portions of the trails are flooded. This in turn contributes to high and repetitive maintenance costs, and limits the standard to which fields and landscaped areas can be maintained. Additionally, there is potential for small pools of water to become stagnant and potential breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Because these pools are not proper wetlands, they have no ecological attributes to support predators of mosquito larvae. There is no evidence of settling (that we are aware of) and erosion along the creek bank seems limited to areas where there is currently pedestrian and dog access.

There are likely several reasons for flooding. The combination of high precipitation mixed with high tides and offshore winds as noted by SHIP Consulting, high groundwater conditions, non-porous soils, low elevation, sub-surface flow and high surficial run-off from adjacent higher lands (especially after development) are potential variables. Additionally, the effects of climate change – rising sea levels and higher tides - may contribute to increased flooding in future years.

Research indicates that the local sea level has been static for 2200 years with some evidence of a tsunami event approximately 1000 years ago. However, it is expected that flooding will increase as the average ocean level rises due to global climate change. The Provincial Government estimates Victoria could experience a range in sea level increases by 2100, from a low of 4-18cm to a high of 89-103cm.

Strategies for mitigating drainage issues in the park are, to some extent, dependant on understanding the underlying causes of the problem. Further hydrological investigation is required and should be completed prior to detail design or construction of park improvements.

4.0 Existing Site Features

4.1 Play Equipment and Site Furniture

A playground, 8 benches, 2 picnic tables, 6 garbage receptacles and 3 dog bag dispensers (in only 2 locations) are located in the park. The playground includes 3 commercial components all geared towards young children: a climbing structure installed approximately seven years ago, and an older swing set and slide.

4.2 Trails, Parking and Signage

Significant park entry signs are located at the Pheasant Lane entrance, near Helmcken Road and at the Paddock Place entrance near the playground. Simple metal park signs on posts are located at the MacLennan Trail and Peacock Place entrances. Signs describing off-leash areas are located at the gate off Pheasant Lane and at the south side of the pedestrian footbridge. One sign providing information on park hours is located at the parking lot. There are approximately 1032 linear metres of trails, ranging in width from about 1.5 – 3.0m (5 -10 feet) throughout the park; all but a short section that connects the play area to the adjacent residential community are gravel and subject to seasonal flooding. The path connecting the play area to the adjacent residential community is concrete. The widest trails are located in the south half of the park and are as wide as 4.5m (15 feet) near the parking lot narrowing as it approaches the footbridge. The off leash trail in the north half is, on average, 1.5m (5 feet) wide.

The park is maintained with a maintenance vehicle that has a wheel base of approximately 2m. Because the wheelbase is wider than the trail, parks maintenance itself causes field and trail edge damage. To accommodate the service vehicle, trails will need to be expanded to a minimum width of 2.6m (this allows 300mm outside each wheel).

A gravel parking lot that accommodates approximately 8 vehicles is located at the south end of the park off Pheasant Lane, within the 15m riparian zone setback typically required by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) along salmon bearing water courses. During an on-site discussion, View Royal's parks maintenance staff indicated that the gravel lot is an on-going maintenance concern that requires regular re-filling of pot holes and occasional re-grading. Residents indicated through the on-line survey and charrette process that the size of the parking lot is sufficient for current levels of activity in the park. Residents expressed concern, however, that the parking lot may not be adequate if there is significant development in the park.

5.0 Zoning, Bylaws and Development Restrictions

5.1 Zoning

The land is zoned P-3, Park and Recreational, within the Helmcken Planning Area (2009). Uses permitted in this zone include: golf course, park, playfield, recreational facility, buildings and structures for storage of parks maintenance equipment and materials.

The View Royal OCP (consolidated January 2009) identifies View Royal Park as a City Park intended to serve the entire Municipality and be large enough to contain a mix of active and passive recreational opportunities, along with special natural features. Several Town-wide Objectives and Policies identified in the OCP, generally directed to developers, are equally applicable to this Masterplan. They include:

Section 3.3.2 Policies 15. Interaction between residents of View Royal and the Town’s natural environment will be encouraged by conserving the Town’s natural landscapes, viewscapes and scenic vistas; providing access to public green/blue spaces, greenways and trailways; providing access to Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA’s), watercourse leavestrips and public rights-of-way; and providing interpretation and education regarding ESA’s and their ecological significance. 16. Standards for construction of trails and access installation will be developed to ensure avoidance and mitigation of harmful impacts on the natural environment. 18. Hedgerows and groves of trees along roadways will be planted to absorb noise and the effects of auto emission pollution. 20. A setback of 30 metres will be encouraged from the natural boundary of the sea or any natural watercourse. 21. The Town shall work cooperatively with other municipalities and organizations in implementing the goals of watershed plans established for Millstream Creek and Craigflower Creek.

The Craigflower Creek foreshore north of the Helmcken Road bridge, including the foreshore adjacent View Royal Park, is not specifically identified in the current OCP as an Environmental Protection or Natural Hazard Development Permit Area, and, therefore, there are no OCP guidelines that specifically address these lands.

5.2 Bylaws

The current Town of View Royal Animal Control Bylaw states that dogs when in public must be kept under control at all times and in all places, and be on a leash except in the following five off-leash areas:

• Aldersmith Park (except the Garry Oak Meadow)
• Centennial Park (October 1st – March 31st only)
• Knockan Hill Park
• Portage Park
• View Royal Park (north west of foot bridge only)

Thetis Park and Mill Park fall under the jurisdiction of the CRD and are therefore not addressed in the View Royal Bylaw.

As noted by View Royal staff, the consultants and members of the public during the charrette process, off-leash signage in View Royal Park is not clear and effective, and results in many dogs being off-leash throughout the park as a whole. For example, the sign near the south entrance adjacent the parking lot depicts a dog with a green circle around it and large text that reads "off leash area". The message is that one is entering an off-leash area. However, the small text at the bottom of the sign reads "Northwest of Foot Bridge, Town of View Royal Bylaw 504".

5.3 Development Restrictions

A recent study (December 2009) commissioned by the Town of View Royal identified the full length of Craigflower Creek adjacent View Royal Park as tidal; therefore, the Provincial Riparian Areas Regulation Act does not apply. (Note: it would not have technically applied in any event because the land is municipally owned and therefore exempt; however, many municipalities chose to show their support of the RAR by complying with the requirements).

Development in the park that will potentially impact the creek foreshore or creek bed, such as construction of a viewing platform, canoe launch or pedestrian bridge, will require approval from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to ensure that creek flow, fish migration and/or existing riparian vegetation will not be impacted; a bridge will require additional approval from the Navigable Waters Protection Program at Transport Canada. DFO recommends, but does not legislate, a 15m invasive species free vegetated buffer on marine areas, and encourages providing controlled access to the water's edge through creation of strategically placed and elevated viewpoints, and removal of rogue trails.

6.0 Health and Safety

6.1 Law Enforcement

View Royal Park is considered a very safe place by the West Shore RCMP detachment. Over the past three years the RCMP recorded only three calls for service in the park, one of which, upon investigation, did not require police intervention. This scenario is not supported by some residents with homes that back on to the park who, during the charrette process, indicated they regularly call police regarding youth parties and, on occasion, campers in the park. When questioned about the residents' comments, the RCMP advised the consultants that they are unaware of such events.

6.2 West Nile Virus

West Nile virus (WNv) is a bird-borne disease that is spread by some species of mosquitoes, in particular, for this region, Culex pipiens and C. tarsalis. It is important to remember that there are many other species of mosquitoes common to this region that do not carry WNv. In the summer of 2009 WNv was identified for the first time in British Columbia.

The risk of serious illness or death from WNv is quite low. In areas where WNv is present, only about 1% of mosquitoes are infected and only about one in five persons bitten by an infected mosquito will develop any symptoms. Of the people with symptoms only about one percent will require hospitalization (BCCDC, 2007; BCPSA, 2004). Nevertheless, provincial and local government health authorities are implementing surveillance and control programs in many areas to protect public health.

There are many strategies that can be used to minimize the risk of WNv, including surveillance, public education, and personal behaviour such as wearing insect repellent and loose clothing, pesticide treatment and habitat modification of mosquito breeding areas. Habitat attributes should be considered in the design of a wetland complex as they relate to urban aquatic ecosystems. Several characteristics of WNv mosquito ecology that are relevant to this issue include:

• Mosquitoes thrive in nutrient-rich, warm, stagnant water, and are quite pollution tolerant
• Most WNv mosquitoes travel only 1 or 2 km from where they hatch.
• Mosquitoes prefer habitats with little or no vegetation, but are more common in ponds with grasses and cattails (Typha spp.) compared with floating aquatic plants such as pond lily (Nuphar spp.) and pondweed (Potamogeton spp.).
• Healthy wetlands host a wide variety of species that feed on mosquito larvae and adults, including dragonfly nymphs, water boatmen, fish, amphibians, birds and bats. Wetlands can in fact contribute to mosquito control by producing such predators
• Mosquitoes avoid laying eggs in agitated or flowing water.
• Ideal habitats for WNv mosquitoes include storm drain catch basins, rain gutters, and backyard receptacles such as planters, old tires, children's wading pools and any bit of rubbish that holds a few tablespoons of water.
• Irwin et al. (2008) found that manmade ponds which resembled natural, permanent water bodies produced few Culex mosquitoes. The authors speculated that the more artificial sites, including ditches, bare detention ponds, and catch basins allowed few predators to survive due to habitat conditions (e.g. little vegetation) as well as to impermanent water.

7.0 The Master Plan

7.1 Design Synopsis

The Masterplan focuses on maintaining the fundamental character of View Royal Park while improving maintenance and enhancing environmental stewardship. It also provides opportunities for increased recreational activity (not organized sport), and addresses anticipated climate changes. There are no recommendations for grand gardening schemes or for areas of intensive development; rather, the Masterplan celebrates the existing ecosystems and long sight lines, and balances areas of potential vitality with areas of calm. It is people and events that will bring the park to life

7.1.1 Organizing Principles

The Masterplan divides the 6.6 hectare (16.3 acres) park into three zones:

• area of environmental stewardship;
• flexible community space (on-leash dog areas);
• dedicated community space (off-leash dog areas).

The area of environmental stewardship (ESA) has 5 components: 1) a 15.0m wide riparian area adjacent Craigflower Creek; 2) a 4.5m wide riparian area on both sides of the central drainage channel north of the playground; 3) vegetated swales (transformed grass ditches); 4) constructed wetlands; 5) an existing mature cottonwood grove and understory. The ESA is approximately 2.1 hectares (5.2 acres) in size.

The flexible community space is intended for use by all sectors of the municipality and includes on-leash trails, fitness stations, a play environment, picnic areas, an amphitheatre or small multi-use pavilion, community/demonstration gardens, and open fields. The flexible community space is approximately 3.1 hectares (7.6 acres) in size.

The dedicated community space is an off-leash dog area and includes a closed trail around a large open field, and the field itself. It is approximately 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres) in size.

7.2 Design Concepts

7.2.1 On-Site Drainage/Stormwater Management

Prior to any work beginning on site a detailed grading plan and on-site stormwater management strategy should be prepared. The grading plan, based on the hydrological and soil study and the master plan concept, will guide the detail design of components within the master plan and along with the on-site stormwater management strategy will provide a framework for all development on the site. Addressing drainage/stormwater management in the first phase of the master plan implementation is important for several reasons:

1. it is sequentially logical in terms of construction phasing
2. it responds to the primary issue identified by residents in the park planning process,
3. it is environmentally responsible,
4. it minimizes park maintenance
5. it is forward thinking.

Recommended components of the on-site stormwater management plan include:

• Plant predominantly native and adaptive trees and shrubs, which are well suited to the local climate and, consequentially, require less care to survive.
• Increase Absorbent Landscape
  • Minimize lawn and permeable surfaces.
    • Bio-retention is an important stormwater management tool. All vegetation, but tree crowns especially, intercept anywhere between 15% and 27% of precipitation that falls on them. (never reaches the ground). Trees and shrubs also detain rainfall, i.e. slow it down before it reaches the ground, which in turn reduces surface flow volumes and mitigates erosion at outfalls and along the creek edge. Finally, all plants draw water from the soil to their leaves where evapo-transpiration occurs.
  • Where new lawns are being prepared (except for the off-leash field) cultivate a minimum 8% organic material into the sod or seed bed to improve infiltration rates and increase the soil's rainfall storage capacity. Where new planting beds are being prepared, cultivate a minimum 15% organic material into the planting bed for the same reasons.
    • According to the GVRD Stormwater Source Control Design Guidelines 2005 a minimum depth of 300mm growing medium for lawns is required to store 60mm of rainfall. Note that increased rainfall storage capacity is not be desirable in high traffic lawn areas unless the subgrade drains adequately
• Create constructed wetlands
  • Construct three wetland ecosystems in the park. One in the northern half of the park where there is currently a drainage ditch, one in an existing low lying area in the southern half of the park adjacent a tidal meadow and tidal marsh, and one at the existing storm pipe discharge adjacent a mudflat midway along the Creek edge. The northern system consists of two wetland/ponds, connected by a vegetated swale (the existing ditch improved by planting with appropriate native vegetation), the southern system consists of a vegetated swale and one wetland/pond, and the system at the storm pipe discharge consists of one small wetland (created by daylighting the existing outlet) and a new outlet channel or culvert for directing wetland overflow to the creek. The wetlands and vegetated swales will improve the park by:
    • filtering and slowing storm runoff before it reaches the creek
    • providing increased recreational opportunities (e.g. bird watching)
    • providing increased opportunities to interact with nature
    • providing increased habitat for birds, small mammals and amphibians and by providing ecological attributes to support food, nesting and resting requirements
    • reducing maintenance requirements by removing grass and its associated maintenance requirements from the wetland ecosystem area
    • potentially mitigating poor drainage issues by providing a catchment for surface run off which will, in turn, facilitate earlier drying of other park areas and more efficient conveyance of storm water to the creek. Note that the wetland's value as a stormwater management tool will be dependent on the existing water table being lower than the bottom of the wetland. If the water table is higher than the bottom of the wetland, the wetland will simply fill during excavation (it will still provide habitat, an educational opportunity, bio-diversity and an attractive aesthetic).
  • The wetland design should include physical attributes to create habitat diversity including:
    • Elevation variation (terracing) in the wetland excavation
    • Variety of water depths (a portion to be 1.5m deep)
    • Low gradient slopes (minimum 4:1)
    • Habitat complexity (including large wood and rocks)
    • If size allows, islands to provide inaccessible refugia (protection from people and pets)

See Section 8.2 Wetland Complex for specific wetland plant recommendations.

• Crown the north off-leash field
  • Crown the field to shed surface water, and then convey that water to the creek through a constructed drainage channel (rain garden or wetland), so the field can remain usable in all but the most inclement weather. To ensure success, the sub-grade and surface soils (both existing and new) must be graded to slope towards the preferred drainage channel. In this way surface water that infiltrates will be directed to a drainage channel and will not pond on a sub-surface layer. Surface soils (new and existing, not subgrade) should have similar properties with a maximum 5% organic content. Note that crowning the field is dependent on the patterns established by the grading/drainage plan.

7.2.2 Non-motorized (Pedestrian/Bicycle) Circulation

Proposed non-motorized circulation within the park responds to locations of existing trails as determined from the aerial photograph, maintenance concerns expressed by staff and park users, comments received through the on-line survey and during the charrette process, an anticipated increase in pedestrian and cycle traffic due to increasing density and creation of the E&N recreational trail, and DFO recommendations regarding protection of marine environments. The concept design uses circulation to divide the park into the three distinct zones identified above:

• area of environmental stewardship,
• flexible community space
• dedicated community space.

The new trails should be constructed over existing trails where possible, even when this falls within the designated 15m riparian area setback. New trails not built over existing trails should be constructed outside the 15m setback. The trails should be engineered to assure they will remain dry and accessible throughout the year and not, under existing and/or anticipated conditions (climate change related conditions as identified in this report), contribute to flooding or poor drainage. The design load of the trails should be determined by comparing the weight of the park maintenance vehicles (assuming they will be the trails' maximum carrying weight) against the combined structural support properties of the subgrade, sub-base and surface.

A site survey is required to accurately identify where the existing trails are located, a hydrological and soil investigation is required to properly design the trails and a grading/drainage plan is required to ensure that trail improvements do not negatively impact water flow through the park. In areas where trail locations might cause damming or creation of small stagnant pools, appropriate measures must be taken to ensure water keeps flowing.

The trails are the most significant constructed element in the park. They create spatial structure, contribute to neighbourhood integration, are the foundation for diverse recreational activity, play a role in site drainage and stormwater management, and are integral to park maintenance. To safeguard new trails from damage during site re-grading and wetland construction, they should be constructed after all significant earth works are complete.

Primary Trails The primary trail system comprises 2.6m wide asphalt trails with maximum 5% slopes to provide all-weather barrier free access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with mobility challenges, and to accommodate park maintenance vehicles. Primary trails are designated 'on-leash' trails and should be designed/laid out to allow for trail widening when future increased demand requires it. Note that the commonly accepted minimum width for a multiple tread non-motorized use trail is 3.0m (pedestrians and bicycles only).

Primary trails should be designed to provide a variety of sensory experiences and should include a range of site furniture/amenities such as benches, garbage receptacles, dog bag dispensers, fitness stations and/or distance markers, interpretive signs, and water fountains. All of these items can be purchased from recreation equipment distributors such as Rec Tec Industries Inc. (1-800-667-8141, www.rectechindustries.com), Mark Suttle Agencies Ltd. (1-800-668-5221, www.marksuttleagencies.com), Habitat Systems Inc. (1-866-422-4828, www.habitat-systems.com), and Canadian Playsystems Ltd. (1-877-969-7529, www.playgrounds.ca).

Installation of low level vandal resistant lighting should be considered for the southern half of the park and at major trail intersections throughout the park; lighting must not be disruptive to neighbours or interfere with stargazing in the northern half of the park. The use of solar powered and/or LED lights is recommended.

Secondary Trails Secondary circulation routes should be a mix of 2.0m wide crushed gravel and 1.5m and 2.0m wide wood chip trails. The 2.0m wide gravel trails include a closed loop in the off-leash area, links between the off-leash loop and the paved primary trail, and 'on-leash' links across open sections of the park. The 1.5m wide wood chip trail is located along the riparian edge in the north-east corner of the park and the 2.0m wide wood chip trail creates a link through the existing cottonwood grove. The secondary trails are not intended for use by park maintenance vehicles or cyclists but should be designed for wheelchair access. Wood chip trails are to be designated as 'on-leash'.

As with the primary trails, consideration should be given to incorporating site furniture such as benches, garbage receptacles, dog bag dispensers and interpretive signs along secondary trails, however, it must be remembered that secondary trails will not be accessible by park maintenance vehicles. Fitness stations, distance markers and drinking water fountains should not be incorporated into the secondary trail system, and interpretive signs are not recommended for along the off-leash trail.

Viewing Platforms Access into the riparian area adjacent Craigflower Creek should be restricted to three elevated viewing platforms, one of which is to be located in the preferred location for a pedestrian bridge should funds become available. Restricting access is fundamental to improving fish, wildlife and bird habitat and the riparian environment.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) encourages the use of raised viewing platforms as a means of limiting or eliminating impacts to existing fish habitats and sensitive marine environments, including riparian and estuary vegetation, tidal meadows and tidal marshes. The platforms and potential future bridge must be constructed in such a way as to not interfere with creek flow or require removal of existing riparian vegetation. Approval from the DFO is required prior to construction of both the viewing platforms and pedestrian bridge; construction of a pedestrian bridge would require additional approval from the Navigable Waters Protection Program at Transport Canada. After reviewing the application TCES would advise if an environmental assessment was necessary.

The pedestrian bridge and viewing platforms may be excluded from environmental assessment if their proposed construction is:

• no more than 30m long and 20m wide
• does not involve the installation of any supporting structures in Craigflower Creek
• not carried out in Craigflower Creek
• does not involve the likely release of a polluting substance into Craigflower Creek.

If the viewing platforms and pedestrian bridge are excluded from assessment, the response from Transport Canada will be quick. If, however, an environmental assessment is required, the approval process can take 3-9 months and will include obtaining approval from DFO, First Nations and other applicable agencies (such as funding agencies). Time required to complete the environmental assessment for the application itself would be additional.

7.2.3 Vehicular Circulation

The existing gravel parking lot is located within the designated 15m riparian area setback recommended by DFO. It is of sufficient size to meet current demands on the park and its low levels of use and close proximity to the creek make its permeable nature appropriate. Best management practices should be followed in this area and all vegetation within the 15m setback should be native and appropriate to its riparian location. This approach will underscore the importance of the creek and the setback, and create a more environmentally sound entry statement for the park, one that reflects View Royal's goal to be an "environmentally conscious and responsible community" (View Royal OCP 1990).

7.2.4 Signage

Signs should be used throughout the park as identity enhancers and communication tools. Locate signature entry signs at each of the 3 primary public accesses and place smaller general information, wayfinding, interpretive, educational and recreational (e.g. distance markers) signs along trails throughout the park.

Establish a communication hub at the centrally located trail confluence, which is also the intersection of the 3 principle park zones (environmental stewardship area, flexible community space and dedicated community space). The hub should be a landmark easily described to others and should be designed as a small gathering place. It should include, at a minimum, an information kiosk/community notice board, seating, a water fountain, and summer shade.

7.2.5 Grass Areas

Fields Retain the existing fields, except those in the dedicated off-leash area, as grassy areas subject to periodic flooding. Grassy areas in the northern half of the site, north of the pedestrian footbridge and play area should be maintained as Level 4 "Open Space/Play" areas as outlined in the BC Landscape Standard 7th edition. Grassy areas in the southern half of the site, south of the pedestrian footbridge, should be maintained as Level 3 "Moderate" areas as outlined in the BC Landscape Standard 7th edition. The Landscape Standard states that in Level 4 areas "a high standard of maintenance is neither anticipated nor required – the main objective is to maintain an orderly appearance, well adapted to play and heavy traffic", and that in Level 3 areas "a moderate standard of maintenance is anticipated – the main objective is to maintain a generally neat and moderately groomed appearance, with some tolerance for the effects of 'wear and tear'".

Fields should be framed with raised trails (with culverts appropriately located) to allow dry access through the park during the wettest times of the year. It is anticipated that improved drainage through re-grading and creation of constructed wetlands will mitigate flooding and poor drainage, and extend the season of field usability, however, it is unlikely that the fields will ever become usable for 12 months of the year.

The option to crown the dedicated off-leash area should be explored during development of the drainage/stormwater management plan. Assuming that crowning is viable, the dedicated off-leash field should be re-graded to slope towards constructed wetlands to the north-east and south-west of the field.

Understanding that there are no sure-fire dog resistant grasses, the re-graded off-leash field, should be seeded with a low maintenance mix of white or Dutch clover (Trifolium repens), Kentucky bluegrass and perennial ryegrasses. This seed mix has proven to withstand a broad range of dog activity more than the standard seed mixes used in the Greater Victoria area.

Picnic Areas Picnic and group use opportunities in the park should be increased by establishing three specific group activity areas easily accessed from the trails. To maximise their diversity and allow for concurrent use by different groups, the areas should be located in different sections of the park: one in the north, one in the south, and one centrally located north of the existing play area. Shelters should be provided at the south and central locations. The shelter at the central location should be fully serviced and designed to support a variety of small scale functions (e.g. small musical events, community plays, receptions). Note that to differentiate the serviced from un-serviced shelter on the master plan, the serviced shelter is referred to as a pavilion.

At least 4 picnic tables should be located in each picnic area, and bicycle parking should be provided at each shelter.

7.2.6 Play Environment

Play opportunities in the park should be improved and expanded by developing a non-traditional innovative and creative play environment immediately south of the existing playground. Research indicates that non-traditional play environments designed to engage all the senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell) and constructed with a significant amount of natural materials, encourage children to interact with their environment and engage in imaginative play in a way that traditional static play equipment does not. Research also indicates that because natural elements have no prescribed performance criteria, non-traditional play environments promote the type of 'all-round' and imaginative play that brings together children with differing levels of physical competence and results in increased motor fitness and social skill development.

Since non-traditional play environments inherently attract children and teens of all abilities the new play area would be a distinct municipal wide amenity that, as a bonus, could be easily accessed by View Royal Elementary School students and staff on a regular basis.

To be successful, the new play environment should provide a diverse range of opportunities in all seasons and be designed with distinctive spaces for different ages – preschool, elementary and teens, as well as with special spaces for small group gatherings within these categories. The play area should be highly identifiable, easily accessible, equipped with bike racks, seating, child friendly plantings (low shrubs that don't obscure site lines and trees for some shade), a water source (at least for maintenance), and be buffered from off-leash dog areas.

To accommodate year round use, the installation of subsurface drain pipes to direct subsurface water to one or more proposed constructed wetlands is recommended. Existing play equipment could be retained or relocated (depending on the play environment design).

7.2.7 Services

There are currently no services in the park and the lack of power and water is extremely limiting for a park of this stature. Site services should be provided as follows:

• power and water should be provided to the proposed picnic shelter (pavilion) north of the play area
• a people/pet drinking fountain should be installed in the central communication hub
• water for irrigation purposes should be provided to the southern portion of the park
  • irrigation should be provided o grassy areas that are to be maintained as Level 3 'Moderate' and to flexible community space that could include demonstration or community gardens
  • potable water is not required for irrigation
  • a water source (hose bib) should be provided near the play environment for maintenance purposes.
• a washroom should be installed near the south entrance to the park, close to the View Royal pump station.
  • for security/anti-vandalism reasons and ease of maintenance the washroom should be visible from Pheasant Lane and easily accessible from the parking lot.
  • the possibility of using composting toilets in the park was considered however, the combination of flat terrain, low elevation, creek proximity and relatively high maintenance requirement made their use impractical.
  • A temporary portable washroom (e.g. port-a-potty or Johnny-on-the-spot) could be installed until such time as funds become available for a permanent structure (the provision of washrooms is an appreciated park amenity that increases recreational opportunities for many)
• low level lighting should be provided along the section of primary trail that links the parking lot to the residential community west of the park, and at all major trail intersections
  • light fixtures could be either hard wired or solar powered, and must be installed in such a way as to prevent spill over into neighbouring properties and to limit intrusion on the night sky.
  • star gazing opportunities in the northern half of the park should be protected.

8.0 Vegetation Management

8.1 Vegetation Protection and Enhancement

Existing areas of primarily native vegetation are located along the Craigflower Creek shoreline and the central drainage channel north of the play area. These areas also include a number of non-native plants such as strawberry bush (Arbutus unedo) and invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, English ivy and Scotch broom. Other areas of vegetation, excepting the native cottonwood stand north of the play area, consist of primarily non-native species, also mixed with invasives. There are no known red or blue-listed plant species within the park.

8.1.1 Environmental Stewardship Area (includes Riparian Zone)

The existing riparian vegetation should be expanded to create a 15m wide riparian zone adjacent Craigflower Creek and a 4.5m wide riparian zone on either side of the central drainage channel north of the play area. These dedicated riparian zones will comprise the bulk of the proposed Environmental Stewardship Area (ESA). New vegetated swales (transformed existing grass ditches), two proposed wetland eco-systems and the existing cottonwood grove make up the remainder of the ESA. Wetland ecosystems should be constructed in both the north and south halves of the park.

Existing trees and non-invasive shrubs (both native and ornamental) currently growing within the riparian fringe should be retained and all invasive species should be removed. Non-native trees within the proposed riparian setbacks but not within the existing fringe of vegetation, i.e. non-native single trees in lawn, should be removed or, if healthy, transplanted to areas outside the ESA but within the park. All new plantings within the ESA should be native and suited to the park's site conditions.

See Section 8.2 Wetland Complex for specific wetland and riparian plant recommendations

8.1.2 Tree and Shrub Pockets

Existing conifers randomly located throughout the park, many in marginal health, should be replaced over a period of 10 years with a mix of groupings of native or adaptive trees, and with single trees strategically located to become signature shade trees in years ahead. Existing clusters of healthy conifers should be retained. Additionally, low level (no more than 1 metre height) native and/or adaptive vegetation should be planted as a buffer between the primary trail and the dedicated off-leash trail. Planting throughout the park is intended to look naturalistic and 'Naturescape' principles should be applied. (see The Stewardship Series : Naturescape British Columbia - Caring for Wildlife Habitat at Home).

Commercially available species that have been identified by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and the Invasive Plant Council of BC and/or the CRD as undesirable include:

• Aegopodium podagraria: Bishop's Weed aka Goutweed
• Buddleia davidii: Butterfly Bush
• Cotoneaster sp.: Cotoneaster
• Crataegus monogyna: English Hawthorn
• Daphne laureola: Spurge Laurel
• Gypsophila paniculata: Baby's-breath
• Hedera helix: English Ivy
• Ilex aquifolium: English Holly
• Lamiastrum galeobdolon: Dead Nettle
• Luthrum salicaria: Purple Loosestrife
• Hypericum perforatum: St. Johns-Wort
• Prunus laurocerasus: English Laurel
• Vinca minor: Common Periwinkle

These species should not be planted and if found in the park should be fully removed.

8.1.3 Invasive Species Management

The Invasive Plant Council of BC defines the term 'invasive plant' as any invasive alien plant species that has the potential to pose undesirable or detrimental impacts on humans, animals or ecosystems. The following invasive species and noxious weeds were found in the park during the park planning process:

• Cytisus scoparius: Scotch broom
• Hedera helix: English Ivy
• Phalaris arundinacea: Reed Canary Grass
• Rubus discolor: Himalayan Blackberry

Ongoing removal of these species should be included in the park maintenance program, and all nursery stock selected for future planting in the park should be rigorously inspected to ensure that invasive plant species are not growing in their root balls or nursery pots. Nursery stock should be purchased from recognized commercial Phytophthora ramorum Certified Growers.

Note- the list of invasive species found in the park is not comprehensive; further field review should be undertaken

8.2 Recommended Wetland & Riparian Species

8.2.1 Recommended Wetland & Riparian Species

Trees

• Acer circinatum: Vine Maple
• Acer glabrum: Douglas Maple
• Acer macrophyllum: Bigleaf Maple
• Alnus rubra: Red Alder
• Crataegus douglasii: Black Hawthorn
• Malus fusca (Pyrus fusca): Pacific Crab Apple
• Prunus emarginata: Bitter Cherry
• Pseudotsuga menziesii: Douglas Fir
• Quercus garryana: Garry Oak
• Thuja plicata: Western Red Cedar

Tall Shrubs

• Amelanchier alnifolia: Saskatoon
• Cornus stolonifera: Red-osier dogwood
• Crataegus douglasii: Black Hawthorn
• Holodiscus discolor: Oceanspray
• Lonicera involucrata: Black Twinberry
• Oemleria cerasiformis: Indian plum
• Physocarpus capitatus: Pacific Ninebark
• Philadelphus lewisii 'Gordianus': Mock Orange (Coastal)
• Rhamnus purshiana: Cascara
• Rubus parvifflourus: Thimbleberry
• Rubus spectablis: Salmonberry
• Salix hookeriana: Hooker's Willow
• Salix lucida (lasiandra): Pacific Willow
• Salix scouleriana: Scouler's Willow
• Salix sitchensis: Sitka Willow
• Sambucus racemosa: Red Elderberry
• Sorbus sitchensis: Sitka Mountain Ash

Medium and Small Shrubs

• Spirea douglasii: Hardhack
• Mahonia nervosa: Dull Oregon Grape
• Ribes sanguineum: Red Flowering Currant
• Rosa gymnocarpa: Baldhip Rose
• Rosa nutkana: Nootka Rose
• Rosa pisocarpa: Clustered Wild Rose
• Symphoricarpos albus: Common Snowberry
• Vaccinium membranaceum: Black Huckleberry

Ferns

• Athyrium felix-femina: Lady Fern
• Blechnum spicant: Deer Fern
• Polystichum munitum: Sword Fern
• Pteridium aquilinum: Bracken Fern

Aquatics

• Alisma plantago-aquatica: Water-plantain
• Carex mertensii: Merten's Sedge
• Carex lyngbei: Lyngbei's Sedge
• Carex obnupta: Slough Sedge
• Carex rostrata: Beaked Sedge
• Carex sitchensis: Sitka Sedge
• Carex stipata: Sawbeak Sedge
• Eleocharis palustris: Common Spike-Rush
• Iris missouriensis: Western Blue Flag
• Juncus effusus: Common Rush
• Juncus ensifolius: Dagger-leaf Rush
• Menyanthes trifoliata: Bog or Buck Bean
• Oenanthe samentosa: Pacific Water-parsley
• Polygonum amphibium: Water Smartweed
• Sagittaria latifolia: Wapato, Arrowhead
• Scirpus acutus: Hard-stemmed Bulrush
• Scirpus microcarpus: Small-flowered Bulrush
• Typha latolla: Cattail

Groundcover

• Arctostaphylos uva-ursi: Kinnickinick
• Fragaria chiloensis: Coastal Strawberry

8.2.2 West Nile Virus

To minimize the risk of West Nile virus (WNv), habitat attributes should be considered in the design of wetland and on-site stormwater management complexes. The following strategies should be incorporated as part of the redevelopment of Cadboro Gyro Park:

• Protect and create a healthy wetland habitat and associated riparian area to encourage mosquito predators
• Convert large drainage ditches and depressions to vegetated swales
• Convert small ditches and depressions to rain gardens
• Plant diverse riparian species along ditches instead of allowing grass and cattails to dominate
• Provide surveillance for vector species during the breeding season (summer), and (if warranted, e.g. when WNv is present) targeted control, preferably through physical, before chemical, methods;
• Stock storm water ponds with native fish such as stickleback to prey on mosquitoes, and design ponds with areas of deep water and floating aquatic plants (Culex Environmental, 2007b).

9.0 Implementation

9.1 Phasing

The View Royal Park 15 Year Vision Plan does not propose significant development in the park but does, nevertheless, represent a considerable financial outlay and will need to be approached in phases. It is important that the park remain accessible during construction, and that work be carefully planned and scheduled to minimize damage to the environment and protected elements.

Successful development of the proposed three park zones will be, in part, contingent on understanding and mitigating the existing drainage issues. The geotechnical investigation will determine the underlying cause or causes of poor drainage on the site and provide recommendations which should be incorporated into a grading and on-site stormwater management plan. The geotechnical (hydrology and soils) investigation and report would take approximately three weeks and the grading/drainage plan, prepared by a civil engineer, would take, approximately, another three weeks.

Once the geotechnical investigation is complete and the grading/drainage plan prepared, development of areas that do not require re-grading can be completed in any order whatsoever and as funds allow. Areas that require re-grading must be realized sequentially.

The following phasing sequence is recommended:

Phase 1 (1-5 years and as budgets allow):

1. Complete the topographical survey, geotechnical investigation and a grading/drainage plan that incorporates the 15 Year Vision Plan and an on-site stormwater management strategy. This is an important first step. As noted above, development of areas that do not require re-grading can be completed in any order whatsoever and as funds allow. Areas that require re-grading must be realized sequentially. The areas that don't require re-grading will be identified on the grading/drainage plan.
2. Expand the riparian areas to 15m wide along Craigflower Creek and to 4.5m wide on either side of the central drainage channel north of the play area. This includes removal of invasives and grass lawn, and new planting of appropriate native plants. Approvals from DFO will be required prior to construction of any viewing platforms along Craigflower Creek. Therefore, there should be no work in the areas of proposed viewing platforms other than the removal of invasive species until viewing platforms have been designed and approvals received. Construction of viewing platforms do not have to be part of the initial work, however, to protect the riparian zone at least one viewing platform should be constructed in Phase 1. New planting should be completed in the fall to take advantage of winter rains for root establishment. Removal of invasive species should be considered a priority. Planting in the riparian zone can be undertaken on an ongoing basis and as funds allow; areas that are cleared but not immediately planted should be well mulched (a minimum depth of 4" or 100mm of mulch should be applied to unplanted areas annually).
3. Because expanding the Craigflower Creek riparian area to 15m wide will impact planting at the south entrance, installation of a new entry sign should be included as part of the riparian expansion. Allow space for bike parking and installation of a washroom structure in the future, or now (in phase one) if funds allow. The washroom can be installed at any time and is not contingent on development of other features at the south end of the park. If desired, a temporary washroom (port-a-potty or similar) could be installed until funds for the structure are available.
4. Re-grade the southern half of the park in accordance with the grading/drainage plan. The Masterplan assumes that the area between the south gate and the existing play area, will be re-graded to create a reasonably level field with positive drainage towards Craigflower Creek and the proposed south wetland. Re-grading in this area will include removing the berms and all single conifers that are adversely impacted by the grade change. The plan recommends that some of the removed conifers be replaced with clusters of native or adaptive trees and/or individual trees strategically located to become 'significant' shade trees in years ahead. If funds allow, 'significant' shade trees should be planted at 7cm-8cm calliper. Lawns in this area are to be maintained as Level 3 "Moderate" areas as outlined in the BC Landscape Standard 7th edition. Level 3 moderate areas require a moderate standard of maintenance – the main objective is to maintain a generally neat and moderately groomed appearance, with some tolerance for the effects of 'wear and tear'. All new vegetation will require watering until established. Trees will require special attention to ensure root balls do not dry out. A number of low cost simple watering devices such as 'Treegator' watering bags are available to support 'single' tree establishment; their use is recommended. Re-grading of the south portion of the park is necessary prior to installation of permanent fixtures such as underground services and new planting, and is highly recommended prior to installation of site furniture, play equipment, picnic shelters and signage. Once the re-grading is complete, installation of site amenities such as picnic tables, picnic shelters, information kiosks, signage, community/demonstration gardens and new planting can take place independent of each other and as funds allow. It is important that the installation of amenities be coordinated with the long term park plan, including future installation of underground services, trail widening and construction of new trails, wetland construction, and play environment development.
5. Develop the communication hub at the centrally located trail confluence. The hub is an important landmark and community gathering space within the park and should, at a minimum, include feature paving, seating, an information kiosk, a people/dog drinking fountain, and a garbage receptacle. A dog bag dispenser should be located near the hub if not within it.
6. Provide water and electricity from the south end of the park to the communication hub at the centrally located trail confluence. Installation of a water line is necessary for operation of the drinking fountain at the hub and supply of both electricity and water to this area will provide a connection point for the picnic pavilion, the play environment, pathway lighting, irrigation and other future service demands within the park. Extension of services can be carried out as the relevant receiving spaces are developed. Note that items 5 and 6 above could be undertaken in reverse order, or simultaneously. They could also be completed when the trails are constructed (after the wetlands are developed).

Phase 2 (6-10 years and as budgets allow): 7. Construct the wetlands and upgrade the grass drainage ditch to a vegetated swale. Creation of the wetland ecosystems is important to increase habitat, address concerns around West Nile Virus and, potentially contribute to on-site stormwater management. It is understood that if the wetlands are not able to mitigate poor drainage issues, they will not exacerbate them and should still be built. At the very least the wetland ecosystems will add ecological diversity and aesthetic value to the park. 8. Develop the new play environment. The new playground could be installed at any time after the site re-grading identified in phase 1 is complete, 9. Remove any remaining single conifers that are in failing or marginal health and/or not planted in suitable locations within the park. Continue to replace these with clusters of native or adaptive trees, and individual trees strategically located to become 'significant' shade trees in future years. It is recommended that all 'significant' tree plantings be completed by the end of Phase 2 to maximise the time period for growth. See item 3 above for watering recommendations for individually planted significant trees. This task could be completed at any time in phase 1 or 2.

Phase 3 (11-15 years and as budgets allow) 10. Develop the primary and secondary trail system. Primary trails are to be 2.6m wide and paved to provide universal accessibility and accommodate park maintenance vehicles. Secondary trails are a mix of gravel and wood chip paths. It is critical that trail enhancement and construction does not contribute to poor drainage within the park. Once the trails are complete, exercise stations, distance markers, interpretive signs and additional site furniture (benches, dog bag dispensers, and garbage receptacles) can be installed. (Note: the width of the trails should be reviewed prior to installation; it is possible that demand on the primary trails may require they be wider than proposed at this time.) 11. Re-grade the dedicated off leash field to slope to the wetlands; create a centre crown and replace the existing grass cover with a low maintenance seed mix of white clover, Kentucky bluegrass and perennial ryegrasses. This field work cannot be completed until the wetlands are constructed but could be completed prior to or simultaneously with the trail construction. 12. Re-grade remaining areas that require re-grading. Grassy areas in the northern half of the park are to be maintained as Level 4 "Open Space/Play" areas as outlined in the BC Landscape Standard 7th edition. In Level 4 areas a high standard of maintenance is neither anticipated nor required – the main objective is to maintain an orderly appearance, well adapted to play and heavy traffic. 13. Complete installation of the park amenities and services that are recommended in the Masterplan but have not been completed in earlier phases.

9.2 Order of Magnitude

View Royal Park Order of Magnitude ALL PHASES prepared by LADR Landscape Architects March 24, 2010 Based on 2010 Dollars

Phase 1 (1-5 Years)

Phase 2 (6-10 Years)

Phase 3 (11-15 Years)

Key Words

Best Management Practice (BMP): A procedure for organizations, businesses and industries that promotes sustainable operations and minimizes environmental impact.

BC Landscape Standard: A document prepared jointly by the BC Society of Landscape Architects (BCSLA) and the BC Landscape & Nursery Association (BCLNA) that outlines 'best practices' of the landscape construction industry in the Province of British Columbia, as agreed upon by the BCSLA, the BCLNA, government authorities and other industry associations. The current Standard is the 7th edition.

Charrette: An interactive design/planning tool that is used to obtain input from a wide array of stakeholders in a set amount of time. Rather than simply 'discussing' concepts, ideas are recorded graphically and ultimately compiled into one or more concept plans or drawings. The length of a charrette varies widely, depending on the specific project and objectives. They may be as short as a few hours, as long as a week or they may even be held on a routine annual basis. Charrettes facilitate stakeholder involvement and provide participants an opportunity to have early input into the planning process.

Constructed Wetland: A shallow pond planted with uniquely adapted wetland plants. Constructed wetlands are used to slow surface flows and remove pollutants from stormwater before it reaches receiving waters such as creeks, oceans and lakes. Suspended solids and attached pollutants settle in the wetland and plants, algae, bacteria and the soil remove dissolved pollutants. Constructed wetlands also provide aesthetic benefits and wildlife habitat.

Estuary: A semi-enclosed coastal body of water that has a free connection with the open sea, and within which sea water is diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage.

Floodplain: The low-lying lands adjacent to a stream or river that are naturally subjected to flooding.

Order of Magnitude: This is an approximate cost estimate made without detailed design information, produced from current average unit rates, and based on inexact knowledge of the extent of work required. This type of estimate is used during the formative stages of a project for initial cost evaluation. Other terms commonly used to identify an Order of Magnitude estimate are preliminary, conceptual, factored, and feasibility.

Playground: An area designed specifically to promote and support play, and of which there are 3 widely recognized styles:

• Traditional: characterized by large, metal equipment, such as climbers, slides and swings, on which children can exercise
• Non-traditional: characterized by interconnected elements that promote social, interactive, creative and dramatic play, and incorporate natural materials such as boulders, sand, root wads, logs, vegetation, and diverse topography
• Adventure: characterized by various types of moveable parts that children use to construct their own playground

Rain Garden: A depressed garden area designed to receive and infiltrate stormwater from a surrounding area, especially from lawns, paved surfaces and roofs. Rain gardens are often planted with native species but that is not integral to their function.

Riparian: The interface area between land and a natural water course, typically the bank of a creek or stream. Plant communities in these margins are called riparian vegetation and are often distinctly different from vegetation in adjacent communities.

Vegetated Swale: A broad shallow vegetated channel designed to convey water from one place to another. Infiltration varies from little to substantial, and depends upon the swale design, especially subsoils and vegetation. Acceptable vegetation includes grass, shrubs and groundcovers. Grassy swales have less infiltration and pollutant removal benefit than swales planted with shrubs and groundcovers.