table 7. birds been sighted at uvic that are known to use ... · 72 history and restoration the...

69

Hebb described the characteristics of valuable wildlife trees in Coastal BC as laid out by the Wildlife Tree Committee in 2012: a minimum dbh of 70cm, a minimum height of 15m, visible signs of decay “such as broken tops, cavities and hollow areas,” and a decay stage of 2-6 (2013, p. 17). See

Table 7 for uses of wildlife trees by bird species. The wildlife trees of Bowker Creek were analyzed against these standards:

“Based on these measures, the woods at Bowker Creek West support some highly valuable wildlife trees. The majority of wildlife trees that were identified, 50 of the 77, were 15m in height or greater. In terms of dbh, the trees may have somewhat less value to wildlife as only 25 of the them were 70cm dbh or greater, and some of these were multi-stemmed trees. Nevertheless, trees as small as 20cm dbh had evidence of wildlife use and cavity excavation, and the trees from 35cm-69cm dbh also showed a great deal of usage. Most of the trees that were identified in the survey were in stages 2-6 of decay (based on visual appearance) which is good for wildlife. The high number of trees in stage 2 indicate that there will be ample recruitment into later stages in the next decades” (Hebb 2013, p. 17).

Table 7. Birds been sighted at UVic that are known to use wildlife trees (Adapted from Harrop-Archibald 2007)

Bird Species Wildlife Tree Use Great Blue Heron Open nest on large tree limbs Hooded Merganser Secondary cavity nester Turkey vulture Roosting Bald Eagle Open nest on large tree limbs, hunting perch, roost Red Tailed Hawk Hunting perch Merlin Secondary cavity nester Great Horned Owl Secondary cavity nester, nest in broken tree top, hunting perch Barred Owl Secondary cavity nester, nest in broken tree top, winter roost Western Screech Owl Secondary cavity nester Vaux’s Swift Secondary cavity nester, winter roost Belted Kingfisher Hunting perch Red Breasted Sapsucker Primary cavity nester, roost, foraging Northern licker Primary cavity nester, roost, foraging Pileated Woodpecker Primary cavity nester, roost, foraging Downy Woodpecker Primary cavity nester, roost, foraging Hairy Woodpecker Primary cavity nester, roost, foraging Pacific Slope Flycatcher Secondary cavity nester, hawking perch Violet Green Swallow Secondary cavity nester Tree Swallow Secondary cavity nester Chestnut Backed Chickadee

Primary cavity nester (opportunistic secondary cavity nester), foraging, winter roost

Red Breasted Nuthatch Primary cavity nester, occasional secondary cavity nester, foraging, winter roost

70

Brown Creeper Secondary cavity nester, foraging Bewick's Wren Secondary cavity nester

There are several invasive plant species of concern present in the Bowker Creek ecosystems. The dominant invasive species is English ivy, found climbing vertically up trees (Figure 63 and Figure 64Error! Reference source not found.) with the highest occurrence in the south of Bowker Creek (Kathrens & Jennings 2016). Additional species that are a high priority to remove are yellow flag iris, thistle, Daphne, Robert’s geranium, grasses and English holly (Kathrens & Jennings 2016). Distribution of invasive plants varies by species: “Large patches of English holly are found throughout, large stands of Himalayan blackberry are found bordering most of the area, and a high number of mature English hawthorn trees can be found in the southern portion of Bowker Creek West” (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 62). See Figure 65 for a map of the distribution of invasive species in Bowker Creek.

Figure 63. Thick stems of ivy climbing a tree (Photo: Kathrens & Jennings 2016)

Figure 64. Tree trunks completely engulfed in climbing ivy (right) (Photo: Kathrens & Jennings 2016)

71

Figure 65. Distribution of Invasive Species in Bowker Creek (Source: Kathrens & Jennings)

72

History and Restoration

The original plans for the campus from the 1960s did not preserve Bowker Creek as a natural area on campus; it was slated for “academic expansion and graduate studies” (Hocking 2000, p. 13). Shortly before the next campus plan was published in 2003, in 2001 UVic became a stakeholder in the multi-stakeholder group, the Bowker Creek Initiative (UVic 2006 & Kathrens & Jennings 2016). UVic contributed to the development of the January 2003 Bowker Creek Watershed Management Plan, which stated its vision for the watershed a follows: “The varied human uses and natural areas in the Bowker Creek Watershed are managed to minimize runoff pollution making Bowker Creek a healthy stream that supports habitat for native vegetation and wildlife, and to provide a community greenway that connect neighbourhoods” (Westland Resource Group 2003, p. i). The four goals outlined in the plan were (p. ii):

• Individuals, community and special interest groups, institutions, governments, and businesses take responsibility for actions that affect the watershed

• Manage flows effectively • Improve and expand public areas, natural areas, and biodiversity in the watershed • Achieve and maintain acceptable water quality in the watershed

In the Campus Plan 2003, protection was given to Bowker Creek that was equivalent to all other natural areas on campus outside of Ring Road: a ten-year moratorium on development (UVic 2003). The importance of Bowker Creek to the campus with further elucidated in the 2004 Integrated Stormwater Management Plan (Lloyd). Bowker Creek, with Mitchell’s Moat and its surrounding riparian and wetland ecosystems was described as “the most naturally protected system at the University because the water is extensively filtered through surface ponds and natural bio-treatment areas” (Lloyd 2004, p. 129).

In the Sustainability Report 2006, it described how UVIC had been participating for the past five years in the Bowker Creek Initiative (Robson, Corbett & Webb 2006). The involvement was further described: “From creek clean up projects to riparian area restoration, university staff have played an active role in the revitalization of this urban watershed” (Robson et al. 2006, p. 4). While this sounds as though these restoration activities were carried out on the campus itself, this was not specified in any detail.

As a further project of the Bowker Creek Initiative, the Bowker Creek Blueprint was published in 2012 that defined a 100-year management plan for the watershed based on the goals and vision of the Watershed Management Plan. The Blueprint laid out recommendations for management and restoration of each reach of the stream, including for reach 15 on the UVic campus.

Facilities Management was identified as the lead agency in charge of the implementation of these recommendations, which included: invasive species removal, installation of interpretive signs, a widening of riparian buffers (the vegetation on either side of the stream), and native species planting, with willow staking around Mitchell’s Moat. Student projects were also identified as a source of support for carrying out these recommendations. Perhaps the most ambitious goal, “to obtain perpetual protection of the reach beyond 2011,” would require the cooperation of many more elements of UVic to achieve. A map published in this report identified areas all along the creek where restoration activities have taken place, and this includes the UVic campus although further details of this restoration were not provided. See Figure 66 for details of this map for the headwater of Bowker Creek on the UVic campus.

73

Figure 66. The headwaters of Bowkers Creek on the UVic campus. The pink highlight indicated creek restoration areas (Adapted from the Bowker Creek Initiative 2012).

74

The UVic Campus Plan 2016 contains several references to Bowker Creek. It is designated as a protected natural area to be preserved and restored as part of the campus’ green ring, however it is not given protection in perpetuity as requested in the Blueprint. It said to implement “wherever possible” the management and restoration recommendations in the Watershed Management plan and the Blueprint (UVic 2016, p. 44). Equally broadly, it contained a policy regarding creek corridors and waterbodies, which was to preserve and restore those that are located in natural areas (UVic 2016, p. 56). More specifically, it recommended that UVic consider replacing lawn at McGill Road entrance to the university “with meadow and forested landscapes to create improved habitat and rainwater infiltration around the sensitive Bowker Creek ecosystem” (UVic 2016, p. 54).

An early restoration activity, predating 2008 but possibly installed significantly earlier, are two log weirs located near the University Club, just downstream of Mitchell’s Moat. Weirs span the width of the stream and create a drop in the channel depth, while reducing erosion and catching sediment. See Figure 67 for location of the weirs. See Figure 68 and Figure 69 for photos of the weirs.

Figure 67. Black lines indicate location of existing weirs. Yellow lines represent weirs proposed as part of a student project

(Source: Dasanjh et al. 2009)

75

Figure 68. Southern log weir (Source: Dasanjh et al. 2009)

Figure 69. Northern log weir (Source: Dasanjh 2009)

76

Invasive species work parties commenced in 2016 as part of the Public Engagement portion of the Invasive Species Management Strategy (Kathrens & Jennings 2016). The first event, an ivy pull, was hosted in October by Kathrens and Jennings with the Ecological Restoration Volunteer Network (ERVN). Five volunteers were present, mostly geography and environmental studies students (Kathrens & Jennings 2016). See Figure 70 and Figure 71 for photos from the event.

Figure 70. Volunteers removing ivy stems from a tree trunk in Bowker Creek (Source: Kathrens & Jennings 2016)

Figure 71. Volunteers display the thick ivy stems removed from Bowker Creek (Source: Kathrens & Jennings 2016)

77

Additional events have since been hosted by the ERVN, including in December of 2017 and January 2018, and two events in February 2018. The focus of the February events was clipping vertical growing ivy from trees and removing mats of ivy from the ground near the Alumni Chip Trail (“February Restoration” 2018).

References

Bokor, C., Brett, E., Brennan, J., Gryzbowski, N. & Heidendahl, E. (2008). Bowker Creek Headwaters Restoration Project. ES341 Project. School of Environmental Studies. (Unpublished paper). University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. Retrieved August 13, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/environmental/assets/docs/course341/bowker_creek_headwaters_Fall%202008.pdf

Campus Map. (2018). Victoria, BC: University of Victoria. Retrieved July 21, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/home/about/campus-info/maps/pdf/handout-map.pdf

Dasanjh, R., Gutman, R., Hansen, M., Mensink, J. & Voghell, K. (2009). Bowker Creek Restoration Plan. ES341 Project. School of Environmental Studies. (Unpublished paper). University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. Retrieved August 13, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/environmental/assets/docs/course341/Bowker%20Creek_Fall2009.pdf

Groves, M. (2012). University Club Receives a Facelift. University of Victoria UVic News. Retrieved August 13, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/news/topics/2012+university-club-gets-a-facelift+ring

February Restoration: Bowker Creek. (2018). Evensi. Retrieved August 10 from https://www.evensi.ca/february-restoration-bowker-creek-university-victoria/244469673

Hebb, J. & Schaefer, V. (2017) University of Victoria Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, Office of Campus Planning & Sustainability.

Hebb, J. (2013). Bowker Creek West Wildlife Tree Survey. ER490 Report. (Unpublished paper). Restoration of Natural Systems Program, University of Victoria.

Hocking, M. (2000). UVic Sustainability Project: 2.1 Campus Ecology. Prepared for the University of Victoria Sustainability Project. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria. Unpublished Document. Retrieved July 8, 2018 from https://morganhocking.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/uvsp_hocking-report.pdf

Lloyd, H. (May 2004). Integrated Stormwater Management Plan: University of Victoria Project No. 02--4367. Prepared by RCL Consulting Ltd. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/campusplanning/assets/docs/2004.Integrated.Stormwater.Management.Plan..pdf

78

McNeney, M. (2007). Honorary Degrees for 3 at UVic’s Fall Convocation. Retrieved August 13, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/news/topics/2007+honorary-degree-for-3-at-uvic-s-fall-convocation+media-release

Robson, G., Corbett, C. & Webb, S. (2006). University of Victoria Sustainability Report 2006. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, Facilities Management. Retrieved July 15, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/sustainability/assets/docs/reports/sustainabilityreport2006.pdf

University of Victoria (2003). Campus Plan 2003. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/campusplanning/assets/docs/campusplan2003.pdf

University of Victoria (2016). University of Victoria Campus Plan. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria Office of Campus Planning & Sustainability, University of Victoria. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/campusplanning/assets/docs/CampusPlan2016.pdf

Westland Resource Group. (2003). Bowker Creek Watershed Management Plan. Victoria, BC: Capital Region District (CRD). Retrieved August 13, 2018 from https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/initiatives-pdf/bci-pdf/other-reports/bowker-creek-watershed-management-plan-2003.pdf?sfvrsn=a349fc9_2

79

2.2. Cunningham Woods

Location

Cunningham Woods is located within Ring Road on the University of Victoria Campus. It is location adjacent to the southernmost section of Ring Road, just west of the intersection with University Drive. South Woods shares a border with the same section of Ring Road. See Figure 72 and Figure 73 for the location of Cunningham Woods.

Figure 72. Area outlined in green is Cunningham Woods (Source: Google Satellite 2018)

80

Figure 73. Campus features surrounding Cunningham Woods (Adapted from “Campus Map” 2018)

The campus buildings adjacent to Cunningham Woods are the Medical Sciences Buildings and the Engineering & Computer Sciences Buildings (Figure 73). The location of Cunningham Woods, surrounded by buildings, roads, lawn and paths is not ideal for wildlife. However, “Cunningham Woods can be seen as part of a larger system of fragmented ecosystems, acting as a stepping stone, or green corridor, between forest ecosystems and other natural areas. It's close proximity to South Woods makes it an ideal sanctuary for animals caught within the often busy traffic of Ring Road” (Fisher 2013, p. 22-23).

Ecology

Cunningham Woods is the last remaining wooded area within Ring Road. It contains second growth coniferous and deciduous trees. “Stand age and diameter data indicate the oldest trees in Cunningham Woods are approximately 75 to 100 years old; the average diameter of these trees is 65 centimetres” (Harrop-Archibald 2007, p. 11).

Habitat and ecological characteristics are not uniform across Cunningham Woods (Table 8). Rather, there are two distinct sections of this natural area that exist with significant contrasts (Figure 74). The west part of the woods contains a moist depression and its vegetation “consists of a red-osier dogwood, willow, and red alder thicket, and the south end of the depression is dominated by a stand of trembling aspen” (Harrop-Archibald 2007, p. 11). The east part of the site is older second-growth coniferous woodland, dominated by a canopy of grand fir and Douglas-fir, a shrub layer of snowberry, ocean spray,

81

and trailing blackberry, and an herbaceous layer of English ivy. This part of the woods has a higher proportion of dead and dying trees, wildlife trees, and a widely fluctuating water table. The soil moisture in this area varies seasonally: “In the winter months water was observed spilling out beyond the periphery of the naturally vegetated area onto the surrounding lawn; in the summer months this is not the case. Thus the soils appear to be saturated during the winter months due to a combination of flat topography, dense, poorly drained soil layers, and fine textures. In the summer months the water table appears to drop, leaving an aerated zone” (Harrop-Archibald 2007, p. 37).

Table 8. Site series classification for Cunningham Woods (Source: Harrop-Archibald 2007)

Location SMR SNR Special Sites Site Series Cunningham Woods West

Wet Rich and Very Rich

Strongly Fluctuating Water Table

Cw-Slough sedge

Cunningham Woods East

Slightly Dry and Fresh to Moist

Rich and Very Rich

N/A CwBg-Foamflower

Figure 74. Dominant tree communities in Cunningham Woods (Source: Lloyd 2004)

82

The cause of the tree deaths in the east part of the woods has not yet been determined, but it is suspected that stormwater runoff due to campus development is a factor. Between 2004 and 2013, seven campus buildings were constructed, increasing the quantity of surface runoff of stormwater (Fisher 2013, p. 22). In addition, it is suspected that fungal pathogens may be affecting these already weakened trees, contributing to further damage. Six different species of mushrooms, the fruiting bodies of fungi, were observed on site (Fisher 2013, p. 23). See Figure 75 for an example of a mushroom found on the site.

Figure 75. Jumbo Gym mushrooms on a tree trunk in Cunningham Woods (Photo: Fisher 2013)

Tree death has some positive outcomes for wildlife: wildlife trees are very common, and this area is “recorded as containing 44 snags or 8.8 snags per hectare; 5 of these snags appear to be human-created and 54% of the snags in Cunningham Woods showed evidence of feeding by birds and insects” (Harrop-Archibald 2007, p. 11). In addition, these dying trees provide “feeding, perching, and denning opportunities for birds and small mammals, as does the CWD produced that also provides a medium for fungal and lichen growth.” (Fisher 2013, p. 24). See Figure 76 for a photo of a wildlife tree in Cunningham Woods.

Figure 76. Woodpecker feeding holes on a wildlife tree (Photo: Fisher 2013)

83

In 2013 Lexi Fisher performed a biophysical inventory on a section of the east part of Cunningham Woods (Figure 77) as part of her ER390 Special Project. Within this study area she created a 20m by 20m sample plot, for which she recorded the plant species (Table 9 and Figure 78). She also drew a map the study plot, which included the location of vegetation, the diameter at breast height (DBH) for all trees, coarse woody debris (CWD), and other features (Figure 79). She also completed a belt transect of the study site and drew a map of this area (Figure 80). The ground cover composition along the belt transect can be observed in Figure 81. During the inventory, she observed birds of many species observed using Cunningham Woods (Table 10). A bird nest was also observed in a snowberry bush (Figure 82).

Figure 77. Focus area of 2013 biophysical inventory (Source: Fisher 2013)

Figure 78. Graph showing estimated % cover of vegetation identified in 20m x 20m study plot (Source: Fisher 2013)

84

Table 9. Plant species identified in a 20 x 20m study plot (Adapted from Fisher 2013)

Common Name Scientific Name Native or Introduced TREE Arbutus Arbutus menziesii Native Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum Native Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Native Grand fir Abies grandis Native Lodegpole pine Pinus contorta Native Western redcedar Thuja plicata Native SHRUB

English holly Ilex aquifolium Introduced Nootka rose Rosa nutkana Native Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor Native Red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea Native Snowberry Symphoricarpos Native HERB

Dull Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa Native English ivy Hedera helix Introduced Sword fern Polystichum munitum Native Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus Native Vanilla leaf Achlys Native MOSS & FUNGUS

Armillaria Armillaria mellea Native Oregon beaked moss Eurhynchium oreganum Native Jumbo Gym Gymnopilus junonius Native

85

Figure 79. Map of 20 x 20m sample plot (Source: Fisher 2013)

86

Figure 80. Map of “belt transect” site survey, the 20 x 20m plot, and surrounding area (Source: Fisher 2013)

87

Figure 81. Ground cover composition over 60m belt transect (Source: Fisher 2013)

Table 10. Birds seen in Cunningham Woods (Adapted from Fisher 2013)

Common name Scientific name Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Brown Creeper Certhia americana Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Downey Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Barred Owl Strix varia

88

Figure 82. Birds nest in a snowberry bush (Photo: Fisher 2013)

In addition to the English Holly and English ivy recorded in Table 9, there are the following invasive species in Cunningham Woods: Daphne laurel, Himalayan blackberry, yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) (Kathrens & Jennings 2016). There are also a variety of unidentified exotic ornamental species and agronomic grasses. See Figure 83 for a photo of dead ivy on tree trunks. See Figure 84 for a map of invasive species cover in Cunningham Woods.

Figure 83. Trees with dead English ivy on their trunks (Photo: Fisher 2013)

89

Figure 84. Map of invasive species cover in Cunningham Woods (Source: Kathrens & Jennings 2016)


The wooded area composing Cunningham Woods has been owned by the University since the first university lands were purchased in 1959. The area remained undeveloped through the decades until in 2002 the University shared plans to clear Cunningham Woods to build the Medical Sciences Buildings. However, there was significant opposition to these plans, and late that year a peaceful protest was held,

90

with more than 300 individuals – students, faculty and community members – holding hands at the site. Undeterred, the university began clearing the woods over the winter holiday when students were off campus. This resulted in even greater resistance, led by student and activist Ingmar Lee, who at the time was a representative on UVic’s Board of Governors. A “tree sit” began, with platforms built 10 feet off the ground in two trees that were occupied at all times by a rotation of approximately 100 students (Fisher 2013, p. 5). See Figure 85 for a photo taken of the ‘tree sit’ protesters.

Figure 85. Students occupying a raised platform during the 'tree sit' on January 14, 2003 (Photo: John McKay 2003. Source:

M'Gonigle & Starke 2006)

This dedicated protest was largely successful, as by late January 2003 it forced the Campus Development Committee to propose a “freeze on use” of the woods and before the end of February a parking lot was selected to for construction of the Medical Sciences Buildings (Fisher 2013, p. 5). The tree-sit extended for an additional four months as protest against the felling of trees at the edge of the woods, and while these trees were eventually cleared, this organized resistance pushed the university towards developing the UVic Campus Plan in 2003 in which protections for the natural areas on campus were made explicit. After the protests and "tree-sits" in 2002, a guiding document for the campus was published in 2003, the "Campus Plan 2003." In this plan a 'freeze' was placed on any further clearing of the Woods for 10 years. See Figure 86 for a map of the area given ‘freeze on use’ designation.

91

Figure 86. Cunningham Woods "freeze on use" (Source: Campus Plan 2003)

Cunningham Woods was targeted for ecological restoration for the first time in 2013. A large restoration effort was undertaken that March by RNS student Andrew MacKinnon and ERVN coordinator Lexi Fisher. They organized ES341 students and volunteers to remove invasive species at a series of events (Figure 90). The invasive species targeted were daphne laurel, English ivy and English holly: “Ivy was removed from the trunks of 101 trees and 700 square meters of ground was cleared of ivy and holly” (Fisher 2013, p. 7). See Figure 87 and Figure 88 for the results of this ivy pull.

Figure 87. Cunningham woods before MacKinnon's ivy pull (Photo: MacKinnon 2013)

92

Figure 88. Cunningham woods after MacKinnon's ivy pull (Photo: MacKinnon 2013)

The focus on restoration in Cunningham woods continued in 2013 as Fisher chose to do her ER 390 graduating project focused on this site. She noted in her biophysical inventory of the site that the ivy was left on site in piles and was all dead with no sign of re-sprouting when Fisher assessed the site in late September of 2013, and additionally the piles appeared to be encouraging the growth of trailing blackberry. However, at that time, no replanting had occurred since the invasive species removal.

Momentum continued in the restoration of Cunningham woods after the initial thrust by Andrew MacKinnon and Lexi Fisher in 2013. For instance, in October 2014 “the Office of Campus Planning and Sustainability helped to organize two invasive species pulls in Cunningham Woods as a Sustainability Week event on campus, in partnership with the Greater Victoria Green Team and UVic’s Ecological Restoration Volunteer Network” (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 18). See Figure 89 for a photo from this event.

Figure 89. Greater Victoria Green Team volunteers and UVic students participating in a Sustainability Week invasive species

removal event (Photo: Kathrens & Jennings 2016)

93

The ERVN remained highly active in Cunningham Woods. As summarized by the Invasive Species Management Strategy in 2016: “ERVN volunteers have participated in 1-2 invasive species removal work parties in the area per semester, bringing out an estimated 190 volunteers and logging 310 volunteer hours between January 2013 and October 2015. This is a site of ongoing interest for ERVN volunteers.” See Figure 90 for an example of an ERVN event.

Figure 90. Ecological Restoration Volunteer Network Volunteer Coordinator Lexi Fisher giving instructions to volunteers before

an ivy pull in Cunningham Woods (Photographer unknown)

In the midst of this activity, in 2014, work began on the next guiding document for the campus (Campus Plan 2016) and there was discussion of developing Cunningham Woods to make space for new buildings. However, as part of the preparation for the new campus plan two community engagement studies were carried out in 2015 by a consulting firm called DIALOG. The first study engaged with more than 1000 people (DIALOG 2015a). The comments they received to the question of what to do with Cunningham Woods and the southwest quadrant (a small wooded area between the Medical Sciences Building and the MacLaurin Building) were “Keep them green; do not develop natural areas” and “These green spaces are vital and are well-used as learning areas and more” (DIALOG 2015a, p. 31).

The second study, which engaged with over 600 people, resulted in an even more resounding message that that Cunningham Woods should be protected from development. The dominant theme in the feedback regarding areas was to “protect Cunningham Woods” as is seen in Figure 91 (DIALOG 2015b, p 12). Further, the dominant theme in the feedback regarding future building sites was to allow “no building in Cunningham Woods” as is displayed in Figure 92 (DIALOG 2015b, p. 14). Because of this community input, and recognition of the ongoing student and community use of this green space and efforts to restore it, the plans to clear Cunningham Woods were revised (DIALOG 2015c).

94

Figure 91. Feedback received on campus natural areas in the Engagement Study Phase Two (Source: DIALOG 2015b)

Figure 92. Feedback received on campus future building site in the Engagement Study Phase Two (Source: DIALOG 2015b)

When finally published, 2016 Campus Plan identified Cunningham Woods as a protected natural area, in which “development will not be considered except for pathways, service lines, and underground services, and must be informed by special studies on ecological impacts, remediation plans, and

95

stakeholder input” (University of Victoria 2016, p. 44). However, Cunningham Woods is not protected in perpetuity by covenant, so the future of this area is still uncertain, and an outlined section of the woods is designated as a Special Study Area.

In revisions to the initial draft of the campus plan, made because of the community engagement studies, the Special Study Area designation was applied “in the location previously identified as a potential future building site in Cunningham Woods” and to replace “the policy dealing with Cunningham Woods that references a potential future building site” (DIALOG, 2015c, p. 1). The 2016 Campus Plan discusses this area thus: “At such a time that there is an institutional need to consider a potential building at this location, a study will be undertaken that includes: an evaluation of building uses, needs, and design as required to meet academic needs; ecological impacts; and a comprehensive engagement process for students, faculty, staff, and broader community stakeholders” (p. 44). See Figure 93 for a map with the location of this Special Study Area.

Figure 93. Cunningham Woods Special Study Area (adapted from University of Victoria, 2016)

While the future of the Special Study Area potion of Cunningham Woods is still undecided, if the past activism and community engagement around Cunningham Woods is any indication, the mandated

96

engagement process would once again elicit staunch opposition to the felling of trees in Cunningham Woods and provide the University with a clear directive of preservation.

By 2016, a variety of educational activities have become common, “including native species plantings, plant identification walks, and ecosystem monitoring workshops with The Land Conservancy of BC (TLC)” (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 17). The ongoing partnership between groups at UVic and TLC have been particularly productive.

Across October and November 2015, four afternoon covenant monitoring workshops were hosted by TLC, assisted by staff member Andrew MacKinnon. These events were hosted in partnership with the UVic Ecological Restoration Club and its leader Lindsay Kathrens. The data collected through covenant monitoring allows TLC to “determine if the covenant is healthy, undergoing any change (e.g. seasonal, or disturbance from nearby developments) and whether invasive species are present or not” (Stenberg 2015b). The first half of the workshops were taught in a classroom and the second half used the Cunningham Woods for the field experience of applying what the participants had learned (Stenberg 2015a). Participants were taught how to perform standardized biophysical inventories, through filling out Ground Inspection Forms, photo point monitoring, wildlife tree identification, how to dig soil pits and identify soil type. Students and volunteers attended, with 10 to 20 participants at each workshop.

In February of 2016, a native and invasive plant species identification workshop and ivy pull was hosted by TLC and the ERVN. One hour was spent learning how to identify species on a walk led by TLC. Another hour was spent learning about invasive species removal with direction from Sammy Kent, a UVic grad and owner of environmentally friendly landscaping company Pacific Ecoscapes (Stenberg 2016b). The third hour was spent removing invasive species. In March of that year, TLC collaborated with ERVN once again to host a Bioblitz in Cunningham Woods, the first of its kind held on the campus (Stenberg 2016a). The bioblitz “brought together over 18 volunteers and resulted in the identification of over 40 plant species and over 20 bird species over the course of 3 hours” (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 17). In October of 2016 another invasive species removal work party was organized by a student from the Red Fish School of Change in collaboration with TLC, ERVN, the Environmental Studies Students Association, the Meditation Club of UVic as well as the Leadership and Sustainability Floors of the campus residences.

Figure 94. A poster advertising the March 2016 Bioblitz in Cunningham Woods (Source: The Land Conservancy)

97

Restoration activities continued in Cunningham Woods in through the end of 2016 and into 2017. In November 2016 a collaborative ivy pull was coordinated between Jake Mentz, the ERVN at the time, and the UVic student Residence Green Team. In January of 2017 another ivy pull was hosted by the ERVN, followed by collecting hardwood for plant propagation that spring. In March of 2017 the ERVN once again partnered with the Residence Green Team to restore the Woods. Invasive species were removed, native species were planted and deer fencing was erected. See Figure 95 for a photo of native plants selected for that restoration event and Figure 96 for the location targeted at the work party.

Figure 95. Native species to be planted at the Cunningham Woods work party in March 2017 (Photo: Mentz 2017)

Figure 96. The area being targeted for restoration at the work party (Source: Mentz 2017)

98

References

DIALOG. (2015a). Phase One Engagement Summary, University of Victoria Campus Plan Update: Beginning the Conversation. REVISED DRAFT. Victoria, BC: Office of Campus Planning And Sustainability. University of Victoria. Retrieved July 6, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/campusplanning/assets/docs/Campus-Plan-Update-2015/Phase%201%20Engagement%20Summary%20-%20March%2018%202015%20_Part1.pdf

DIALOG. (2015b). Engagement Summary Phase 2, UVic Campus Plan Update. Victoria, BC: Office of Campus Planning and Sustainability. University of Victoria. Retrieved July 6, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/campusplanning/assets/docs/Campus-Plan-Update-2015/151130%20Phase%202%20Engagement%20Summary.pdf

DIALOG. (2015c). Revisions to the October 14th Draft Campus Plan. Victoria, BC: Office of Campus Planning and Sustainability. University of Victoria. Retrieved July 7, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/campusplanning/assets/docs/Campus-Plan-Update-2015/CAMPUS%20PLAN%20REVISIONS%20151215.pdf

Fisher, L. (2013). Cunningham Woods: Restoration Report and Monitoring Plan. ER390 Project, Restoration of Natural Systems Program, University of Victoria. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from http://www.urbanecology.ca/documents/Student%20Technical%20Series/Fisher.pdf

Kathrens, L. & Jennings, J. (2016). University of Victoria Invasive Species Management Plan. Victoria, BC: Office of Campus Planning & Sustainability. University of Victoria. Retrieved June 18, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/sustainability/assets/docs/invasive-species-mgmt-plan-final.pdf

Lloyd, H. (May 2004). Integrated Stormwater Management Plan: University of Victoria Project No. 02---4367. Prepared by RCL Consulting Ltd. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/campusplanning/assets/docs/2004.Integrated.Stormwater.Management.Plan..pdf

M’Gonigle, M. & Starke, J. (2006). Planet U. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers

Stenberg, D. (2015a). Covenant Monitoring Training Sessions Oct 30, Nov 6 and Nov 20. The Land Conservancy. Retrieved July 5, 2018 from http://conservancy.bc.ca/2015/10/covenant-monitoring-training-sessions-oct-30-nov-6-and-nov-20/

Stenberg, D. (2015b). Covenant Monitoring Program Training in Cunningham Woods. The Land Conservancy. Retrieved July 5, 2018 from http://conservancy.bc.ca/2015/12/covenant-monitoring-program-training-in-cunningham-woods/

Stenberg, D. (2016a). Cunningham Woods BioBlitz March 19. The Land Conservancy. Retrieved from http://conservancy.bc.ca/2016/02/cunningham-woods-bioblitz-march-19/

Stenberg, D. (2016b). Native/Invasive Plant Workshop & Ivy Pull Saturday, Feb 27. The Land Conservancy. Retrieved July 5, 2018 from http://conservancy.bc.ca/2016/02/nativeinvasive-plant-workshop-ivy-pull-saturday-feb-27/


99


University of Victoria. (2016). University of Victoria Campus Plan. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria Office of Campus Planning & Sustainability, University of Victoria. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/campusplanning/assets/docs/CampusPlan2016.pdf

University of Victoria. (2018). Campus Map. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria. Retrieved July 21, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/home/about/campus-info/maps/pdf/handout-map.pdf

The Land Conservancy. (November 16, 2016). Removing Invasive Species At Cunningham Woods Work Party. The Land Conservancy. Retrieved July 5, 2018 from http://conservancy.bc.ca/2016/11/removing-invasive-species-at-cunningham-woods-work-party/

100

2.3. South Woods

Location

South Woods is an 11.5 ha natural area on campus, outside of Ring Road and bordering UVic’s southernmost edge. It is encompassed within the District of Oak Bay.

Figure 97. Location of South Woods (Source: Google Satellite 2018)

101

Figure 98. Location of South Woods relative to other University features. The lower corner is cut off as it wasn't included on the

source map (Adapted from “Campus Map” 2018)

To the southwest of South Woods is Cedar Hill Cross Road. To its southeast is the Haro Road right-of-way, across which is Upper Hobbs Creek. To its northeast is Parking Lot 1 and Mystic Vale. To its north it is bounded by Ring Road. Across Ring Road, is Cunningham Woods, the Engineering and Computer Science Building, the Engineering Lab Wing and the Engineering Office Wing. The western edge of South Woods is bordered by University Drive, across which is Finnerty Gardens and the Alumni Garry Oak Meadow.

Ecology

South Woods unusual ecology is due to it acting as an area of transition between the dry woodland/meadow habitats of the Alumni Garry Oak Meadow, Finnerty Gardens and the Garry Oak and Camas Meadow to its west and the wetter riparian/ravine ecosystems of Upper Hobbs Creek and Mystic Vale to its east (Kathrens & Jennings 2016). As a result, it has characteristics of each and “demonstrates unusual assemblages” of plants and “highly variable” conditions (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 25). In contrast to Upper Hobbs Creek and Mystic Vale, South woods in characterized as an “upland” and is at a higher elevation (Hocking 2000, p. 11).

Lloyd (2004) produced a map showing the distribution of species assemblages organized by dominant canopy cover in South Woods (Figure 99). Generally, the natural area can be divided into two dominant

102

sub-ecosystems, defined by their soil moisture and canopy cover. Drier “areas have developed into a coniferous forest” populated by Douglas-fir and Grand fir (polygons labelled “18”), “while the moist areas have become dominated by cottonwood” (polygon 20) (Carden et al. 2013, p. 7).

Figure 99. Dominant tree communities in South Woods and area hydrology

In the moist regions dominated by black cottonwood, additional canopy species include bigleaf maple and red alder (Harrop-Archibald 2008). The dominant understory species are red-osier dogwood, Indian plum, snowberry, salal and English ivy. Other understory species are: Nootka and baldhip rose, trailing blackberry, cascara, Pacific crabapple, Scouler’s and Hooker’s willow, Saskatoon berry, thimbleberry, red huckleberry, bracken fern, deer fern and stinging nettle (Lloyd 2004). The dominant invasive species is English ivy. There is also presence of English holly “within the thicket and cottonwood areas” (Harrop-Archibald 2008, p. 19). The eastern moist part is “quite swampy in some areas” and the black

103

cottonwood communities are indicative of this moisture (Hocking 2000, p. 11). Other canopy species are bigleaf maple and red alder. There is also a small moist region (polygon 17) populated with red-osier dogwood and willow thicket (Lloyd 2004).

The dry region is relatively flat. The dominant understory species are: snowberry, ocean spray, Indian plum, English ivy and sword fern. Other understory species include Nootka and baldhip rose, dull Oregon-grape, trailing blackberry, Saskatoon berry, thimbleberry, bracken fern, white fawn lily and western trumpet honeysuckle (Lloyd 2004 & Harrop-Archibald 2008).

The forested overstory of Douglas-fir and grand fir is “sometimes attributed to the colonial ban on burning regimes, which had traditionally controlled them” and allowed for open Garry oak woodlands (Carden et al. 2013, p. 6). Within canopy openings can indeed be found Garry oaks. In this area there is critical habitat of foothill sedge (Carex tumulicola) which is listed as Endangered under the Species at Risk Act and typically found in Garry oak ecosystems (Parks Canada Agency 2013).

Figure 100. Critical habitat (in polygon 1014_03) of foothill sedge, listed as Endangered under the Species at Risk Act (Adapted

from Parks Canada Agency 2013)

South Woods in entirely contained in the Hobbs Creek watershed, with the exception of a portion at its southwest edge along Cedar Hill Cross Road near University Drive. This area instead drains into the Bowker Creek (polygon 19 in Figure 4) (Rombs, Filip, Chan, Elford & Sharuga 2009). It is a particularly dry area that is dominated by Garry oak and arbutus with an understory of snowberry, Nootka rose and Himalayan (Lloyd 2004). The rest of South Woods drains through a small ravine in the northeast part of the woods (polygon 21). It is dominated by a canopy of bigleaf maple and a small red-osier dogwood thicket near its centre (Lloyd 2004). The ravine has 30°- 40° side slopes and supports an ephemeral stream, which flows only during and following precipitation (Harrop-Archibald 2008).

Two storm drains in Parking Lot 1 also drain into the ravine, emptying through a culvert in the northeast corner of the ravine next to the parking lot. Erosion is occurring at the culvert outlet, and a plunge pool “is contributing to down cutting of the channel in the ravine” (Lloyd 2004, p. 47). A second parking lot

104

drains through this area, according to a personal communication with Facilities Management staff in 2009 (Rombs et al. 2009). There is a dug channel along Ring Road near the Engineering Lab Wing that collects stormwater, which may be connected to the catch basin indicatd in Figure 99, and diverts it into the ravine’s west boundary. The forested area in South Woods also drains through the ravine.

The ravine itself drains into Hobbs Creek in Mystic Vale though “two culverts through the Haro Road right-of-way” (Harrop-Archibald 2008, p. 19. This drainage pattern is a result of “fill that was dumped along the Haro road right of way in the 1960’s” which in some areas is up to 15m deep” (Hocking 2000, p. 11). This fill may affect drainage in areas as distanced as the dry fir forest area.

The primary disturbance in South Woods is caused by the presence of invasive species. These include English ivy, English holly, English hawthorn, Himalayan blackberry, common periwinkle, Scotch broom, Robert’s geranium, Thistle species and yellow flag iris. See Figure 101 for their distribution.

Figure 101. Invasive species in South Woods (Image: Kathrens & Jennings)

105


As with other campus natural areas, South Woods has a history of disturbance and was previously logged. As a result, most of its trees are younger than 100 years old (Hocking 2000). However, it still supports sensitive ecosystem types, including older second growth forest (Hebb & Schaefer 2017). It is considered a protected area under the 2016 Campus Plan but is not protected in perpetuity (University of Victoria 2016).

South Woods has frequently been targeted for ecological restoration activities, namely invasive species removal. The Ecological Restoration Volunteer Network (ERVN) carried out invasive species removal parties as early as 2013. Leading up to 2016 there were numerous invasive species removal work parties by the Greater Victoria Green Team (GVGT) and the ERVN, though no particular area of South Woods was repeatedly targeted (Kathrens & Jennings 2016).

In 2014 and 2015 a Restoration of Natural Systems student, Michelle Kramer, carried out her ER390 Special project in South Woods. She chose three locations of study, which are indicated in Figure 102: a wet coniferous area with dead trees, a wet ravine deciduous area and an upland bigleaf maple area.

Figure 102. The three locations of study selected by RNS student, Kramer, for ER390 Speciak Project (Source: Kramer 2015)

In November 2014, at each location a 30cm soil pit was dug to determine soil type through hand texturing and pictures were taken (Kramer 2015). On March 7, 2015, at each location a 20 minute bird survey and wildlife tree assessments was carried out. Trees were only included if they had a minimum diameter at breast height (DBH) of 25cm and decay stage 3 or greater.

106

The upland bigleaf maple area had a soil moisture regime (SMR) of 2-3, a soil nutrient regime (SNR) of rich and a site series classification of FdBg-Oregon grape. Its elevation was 58m and it was described as “drier than other areas” in November but in March “the far south portion of the area was experiencing significantly wetter soil conditions, likely due to the weather and run off from Cedar Hill X Road and Haro Road” (Kramer 2015, p. 7). The birds sighted in this area during the 20 minute bird survey are identified in (Table 11).

Table 11. Bird sightings in upland area (Source: Kramer 2015)

The deciduous wet ravine area had an SMR of 5, an SNR of medium and a site series classification of CwFd-Kindbergia. Its elevation was elevation 51m, located at the base of ravine with slopes of approximately 70°. Crown cover was 50%. Bird sightings are indicated in Table 12.

Table 12. Bird sightings in the deciduous wet ravine area (Source: Kramer 2015)

The wet coniferous area had an SMR of 2-3 (according to the site series, but Kramer estimated it as closer to 3-4), an SNR of rich and a site series of Fd-salal. There were many dead Douglas-fir trees, which she hypothesized was due to wet conditions caused by Ring Road runoff and possible fill. See Table 13 for bird sightings at this location.

107

Table 13. Bird sightings in the wet coniferous area (Source: Kramer 2015)

On March 12, 2015 Kramer carried out ecological restoration activities in South Woods by performing a garbage cleanup and bird habitat restoration. Materials used were “bird boxes, hammer, nails, GPS, and garage bags” (Kramer 2015, p. 6). The upland bigleaf maple site was selected for the installation of 6 bird boxes. The bird boxes were provided by the RNS program. They were installed 2-4m above ground, facing “north and east to avoid direct sunlight and strong wet winds” (Kramer 2015, p. 15). She also considered flight path from the boxes: “locations ensured a direct flight from the nest, un obstructed by branches but still slightly sheltered above” (Kramer 2015, p. 15). She acknowledged that nest boxes tend to more successful if put up in the fall, therefore activity may not be expected until the following spring of 2016. See Figure 103 for an example of a bird box installed by Kramer. Further information can be found in her ER390 report, available through the RNS Library.

Figure 103. A bird box installed by Kramer as part of her ecological restoration activities (Photo: Kramer 2015)

108

Invasive species removal has continued to be a priority in South Woods. In 2016 a large event was held these two organizations partnered “a group of 10-13 year-old students in the area” from Maria Montessori Academy (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 17). 76 volunteers contributed a total of 56 hours of work between them (Evans 2016). See Figure 104, Figure 105, Figure 106 for photos from this event. Over the years other work parties have been made up of students who “have engaged in invasive species removal in South Woods through course work” (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 76).

Figure 104. Lindsay Kathrens taught students about invasive species removal (Source: Evans 2016)

Figure 105. A mat of ivy is pictured in a “before restoration” photo (Source: Evans 2016)

109

Figure 106. An “after” photo captured bare ground and tree trunks that have been cleared of ivy (Source: Evans 2016)

Later in 2016 another large invasive species work party was held in South Woods, this time as part of the engagement process of the Invasive Species Management Strategy (Kathrens & Jennings 2016). An Environmental Studies class, ER321 Ethnoecology, was engaged in the restoration effort. Approximately 40 people participated, contributing a total of 60 volunteer hours (Kathrens & Jennings 2016).

References


Carden, C., Currie, J., Field, J. & Goulden, S. (2013). Restoration in South Woods. ES341 Project. Prepared for Eric Higgs & Tanya Taggart-Hodge, School of Environmental Studies. (Unpublished Paper). Retrieved from https://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/environmental/assets/docs/course341/SouthWoods_Fall2013.pdf

Evans, A. (2016, March 4). Greater Victoria Green Team: South Woods UVic March 4 2016. Meetup. Retrieved August 10, 2018 from https://www.meetup.com/Greater-Victoria-Green-Team/pages/20296862/South_Woods_UVic_March_4_2016/

Harrop-Archibald, H. (January 3, 2008). University of Victoria Natural Features Study Phase Two: University Cedar Hill Corner Property, Garry Oak Meadow & Camas Meadow, Finnerty Ravine, Haro Woods, South Woods, Lower Hobbs Creek/Mystic Vale. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, Restoration of Natural Systems Program. (Available in the Restoration of Natural Systems Library upon request).

110

Hebb, J. & Shaefer, V. (2017) University of Victoria Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, Office of Campus Planning & Sustainability.


Lloyd, H. (May 2004). Integrated Stormwater Management Plan: University of Victoria Project No. 02---4367. Prepared by RCL Consulting Ltd. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from https://www.uvic.ca/campusplanning/assets/docs/2004.Integrated.Stormwater.Management.Plan..pdf

Rombs, R., Filip, N, Chan, K., Elford, L. & Sharuga, S. (2009). South Woods Restoration Project. ES341 Project. Prepared for Eric Higgs & Brian Starzomski, School of Environmental Studies. (Unpublished Paper). Retrieved from https://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/environmental/assets/docs/course341/South_Woods_Fall%202009.pdf


111

2.4. Mystic Vale and Upper Hobbs Creek

Location

Mystic Vale and Upper Hobbs Creek are located outside of Ring Road, in the southeast corner of campus. Two trails cut through the area, accessible from Parking Lot 1, near University House 3, University House 4 and the Haro Road right of way. See Figure 107 and Figure 108 for maps of the location of the natural area relative to other campus features.

Figure 107. Location of Mystic Vale and Hobbs Creek (Source: Harrop-Archibald 2008)

112

Figure 108. Location of Mystic Vale and Hobbs Creek relative to other campus features (Adapted from “Campus Map” 2018)

To the south and east of Mystic Vale and Hobb Creek is the Cedar Hill Corner Property, frequented by dogwalkers. Just northeast of this is residential property, accessed by Vista Bay Road, Chelsea Place and Crestview Road. The southwest boundary of these areas is marked by Cedar Hill Cross Road. To the north are University House 2, 3 and 4, and the Commonwealth Village Cluster Housing. To the northwest is Parking Lot 1, the Haro Road right of way and South Woods.

Ecology

Mystic Vale and Hobbs Creek is 4.4 ha in size and characterized as a steeply sloped coniferous woodland with an overstory of bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir and grand fir. Most trees are 100 to 150 years old (Bein 2004), with their status as second growth indicative of “logging, fire and other human disturbances that have occurred in the recent past” (Hocking 2000, p. 10). Several trees appear to be significantly older, with ages estimated between 350 and 500 years old (Hocking 2000, p. 10).

The vegetation communities growing in this area differ based on slope location. This is best described by Hocking (2000, p. 10): “The water shedding upper flanks of the ravine contain species such Arbutus, Salal and Oregon grape due to the drier, more well drained conditions. The water receiving basin of Mystic Vale is a site that is generally quite moist year round and contains unique plant species such as

113

skunk cabbage, water parsley, and false lily of the valley…. Other common plant species include Sword fern, Licorice fern, Lady fern, Snowberry and Indian plum.”

The area is “the main riparian area and stream course for the Hobbs Creek watershed, which drains into Cadboro Bay” (Bein 2004, p. 19). Years ago, before degradation of the stream channel, Upper Hobbs Creek would have been characterized as a flood plain (Harrop-Archibald 2007). See Figure 109 for a map of the Hobbs Creek watershed.

Figure 109. Boundaries of the Hobbs Creek watershed (Source: Capital Region District)

114

Upper Hobbs Creek has a soil moisture regime (SMR) is moderately dry to slightly dry and fresh, the soil nutrient regime is rich and very right, and its site series is classified as FdBg-Oregon Grape (See Table 14).

Table 14. Site series classification for Upper Hobbs Creek (Source: Harrop-Archibald 2007)

Location SMR SNR Special Sites Site Series Upper Hobbs Creek

Moderately Dry to Slightly Dry and Fresh

Rich and Very Rich N/A FdBg-Oregon grape

Hobbs Creek is considered a flashy stream and can exhibit a completely dry streambed during the summer. Head cuts occur in streams like this due to the stream having to accommodate too high a volume of water during too short a period of time, and once this starts it unavoidably spreads up-stream. Sediment loading also occurs, with large quantities of sediment eroding from the stream channel and accumulating in areas downstream with lower velocity, such as ponds.

Lloyd (2004) developed maps of the vegetation communities and drainage patterns of Mystic Vale and Upper Hobbs Creek. See Figure 110 and Figure 111 for these maps.

Figure 110. Map of vegetation communities and drainage patterns of Mystic Vale (Source: Lloyd 2004)

115

Figure 111. Map of vegetation communities and drainage patters in Upper Hobbs Creek (Source: Lloyd 2004)

116

A study, performed by Nancy Turner in 1993 produced an extensive species list of trees, shrubs, herbaceous flowering plants, ferns and fern allies, and mosses and liverworts. See Table 15 below for the species list.

Table 15. Species list for Mystic Vale developed by Nancy Turner in 1993 (Adapted from Harrop-Archibald 2008)

HERBACEOUS FLOWERING PLANTS Vanilla-leaf (Achyls triphylla) Sedge (Carex spp.) Coralroot (Corallorhiza maculata) Sweet-scented bedstraw (Galium triflorum) Large-leaved avens (Geum macrophyllu) Rattlesnake plantain orchid (Goodyera oblongifolia) Purple pea (Lathyrus nevadensis) Twinflower (Linnaea borealis) Wood-rush (Luzula sp) Skunk-cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) Indian pipe (Monotropa uniflora) Siberian miner's-lettuce (Montia sibirca) Nemophila (Nemophila parviflora) Water-parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) Sweet cicely (Osmorhiza purpurea) Sanicle (Sanicula crassicaulis) Yerba buena (Satureja douglasii) False Solomon's-seal (Smilacina racemosa) Hedge-nettle (Stachys cooleyae) Common twisted-stalk (Streptopus amplexifolius) Tall fringecup (Tellima grandiflora) Fringecup (Tiarella trifoliata) Starflower (Trientalis latifolia) Western trillium (Trillium ovatum) Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) (NOTE: a number of grass species were also observed, but not identified) FERNS AND FERN-ALLIES Lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina) Spiny wood fern (Dryopteris expansa) Common horsetail (Equisetum arvense) Branchless horsetail (Equisetum hiemale) Giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia) Licorice fern (Polypodium glycyrrhiza) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum)

TREES Grand fir (Abies grandis) Broadleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) Red alder (Alnus rubra) Arbutus (Arbutus menziesii) Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) Bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata) Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) Hooker's willow (Salix hookeriana) Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana) Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) Western red-cedar (Thuja plicata) Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) SHRUBS Saskatoon berry (Amelanchier alnifolia) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) Orange-flowered honeysuckle (Lonicera ciliosa) Hairy honeysuckle (Lonicera hispidula) Tall Oregon-grape (Mahonia aquifolium) Dull Oregon-grape (Mahonia nervosa) Indian-plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) False box (Pachistima myrsinites) Mock-orange (Philadelphus lewisii) Stink currant (Ribes bracteosum) Black gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum) Red-flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum) Baldhip rose (Rosa gymnocarpa) Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) Trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus) Red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) Red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium)

117

Wildlife species include: “Great-Horned and Barred owls, Cooper's Hawks, Bald eagles, Ravens, Piloted, Downy and Hairy woodpeckers, various songbirds, Black-tailed deer, and several rodent and bat species” (Hocking 2000, p. 10)

In RNS student Sacha Doucet’s 2012 ER390 report on the value of Mystic Vale’s ecosystem services, she noted that this natural area provides services such as flood mitigation, clean air and water, and the immersive experience of nature, valued at more than $250,000 per year (Doucet, p. 36). It was estimated that 4,000 people visit Mystic Vale each year, with a total of at least 40,000 total visits between them (Doucet 2012, p. 31). She argued:

“We are all directly dependent on natural capital for the services that ecosystems provide. Some of these benefits include clean air, clean water, flood control, and the experience of nature. In Mystic Vale’s case, those services are worth over $250,000/year or $4.64 million since the establishment of perpetual protection in 1993. This ecosystem service valuation of Mystic Vale not only confirms that the University’s and the District of Saanich’s decision to expropriate the vale’s land was the right one, but also emphasizes the need to ensure effective restoration to improve these services” (2012, p. 36)

There has been significant degradation of the ecosystems in Mystic Vale in recent decades. The primary sources of degradation have stemmed from the increased usage of the area by the public. Improper placement of trails and bridges, soil compaction from trail use, and use by joggers, mountain bikers and dogs are the main sources of vegetation disturbance. The UVic section of Hobbs Creek became defined by its “extensive streambank instability” and erosion of the stream banks and bed (Aqua-Tex 2009, p. 6). By 1999 downstream neighbours, such as Tom Galimberti, were complaining of sediment from Hobbs Creek filling their downstream ponds (Aqua-Tex 2009, p. 6).

In Mystic Vale: “degraded stream banks and slopes from extensive recreational use and rogue trails and flood events from extensive storm water run off results in serious erosion of the banks. In addition to erosion, stormwater carries contaminants from roads and automobiles. While the wetlands can retain flash flood water and filter contaminants from vehicles, the quality of habitat for wildlife is compromised” (Bein, p. 11)

Invasive species are have also infested areas of Mystic Vale. Species include the following: Daphne laurel, English ivy, English holly, Himalayan blackberry, thistle, ornamental species and agronomic grasses (Kathrens and Jennings 2016). See Figure 112 for a map of their distribution.

118

Figure 112. Invasive species in Mystic Vale (Source: Kathrens & Jennings 2016)


Mystic Vale’s lands were purchased by UVIC, Saanich and the provincial government in 1993 for $2.7 million (Aqua-Tex 2009). Beginning in December 2000, restoration activities took place to address the issues in Hobbs Creek. Over 30 weirs were installed in the UVIC section of the stream. The purpose of this system was to stabilize the creek channel and increase dissolved oxygen in the water. Over 300 m2 of sediment was removed from a private pond owned by Tom Galimberti (Figure 113) just downstream of Mystic Vale. However, just five months later, following winter rains, there was already a visible pile of sandy sediment breaking the surface of the pond (Figure 114). In 2003, following a 100-year storm (Figure 115), the sediment was even more extensive (Figure 116).

119

Figure 113. Removal of sediment from Tom Glimberti’s pond, downstream of Mystic Vale, December 2000 (Source: Aqua-Tex 2009)

Figure 114. The delta of Hobbs Creek in Galimberti’s pond barely 5 months after the pond was excavated. Note the pile of sand

already deposited by winter rains and channel erosion from Hobbs Creek (Source: Aqua-Tex 2009).

120

Figure 115. Hobbs Creek on October 20, 2003 during a 100-year storm event (Source: Aqua-Tex 2009)

Figure 116. Galimberti’s pond in October 2003, following a 100-year rainstorm. Note the extensive sediment at the mouth of

Hobbs Creek (Photo: Aqua-Tex 2009).

In 2000, Saanich restored the section of stream between Killarney Road and Mystic Pond during the installation of a new culvert (. In 2001, a reach of creek just downstream of this pond was restored by a

121

private homeowner during construction of a new house, with advisory from Aqua-Tex, which “involved creating step pools and extensively planting the riparian zone” (2009, p. 9). See Figure 117 and Figure 118 for photos of this restoration.

Figure 117. Channel restoration of Hobbs Creek downstream of Galimberti’s Pond in September 2000 (Source: Aqua-Tex 2009)

Figure 118. In 2000, the culvert under Killarney Road was replaced. Hobbs Creek between Killarney and Mystic Pond was

reconfigured and replanted and the delta into Mystic Pond was excavated (Source: Aqua-Tex 2009)

Over 30 log weirs were placed in Hobbs Creek in Mystic Vale in an emergency installation from 2001 to 2002. They were temporarily successful in stabilizing the stream, halting erosion of the banks, and reducing the movement of sediment downstream (Aqua-Tex 2009).

122

In 2002, the entire watershed was assessed for Proper Functioning Condition and for each reach of the creek restoration and management considerations were discussed, including recommendations for replanting native species and removing invasive species, installing weirs, public education, monitoring stormwater and moving public trails away from the stream channel (Aqua-Tex 2009, p. 13).

Also in 2002, Saanich restored the Cadboro Bay outlet of Hobbs Creek by removing a rock wall and reinforcing the streambank with logs instead, as well as planting riparian vegetation (Aqua-Tex 2009, p. 14). See Figure 119 for a photo of the channel prior to restoration. See Figure 120 for an example of a log weir preventing a headcut in the channel. See Figure 121 and Figure 122 for photos of during and after restoration of the Hobbs Creek outlet.

Figure 119. An example of the heavily trampled, compacted and de-vegetated banks in Hobbs Creek, September 2002 (Source:

Aqua-Tex 2009)

123

Figure 120. Hobbs Creek in September 2002. Note the headcut that was stopped by the log weir across the creek. Weirs were

installed to mimic natural sediment traps (Source: Aqua-Tex 2009)

Figure 121. Hobbs creek outlet restoration, September 6, 2002 (Source: Aqua-Tex 2009)

124

Figure 122. The restored outlet channel of Hobbs Creek, August 2003. Note that residents mowed some of the newly planted

riparian plants (Source: Aqua-Tex 2009)

A community round table was held in 2003 to discuss issues related to the creek. Funding accessed through Environment EcoAction Project to address a portion of the concerns (Aqua-Tex 2009). The next year, educational signs were installed in Mystic Vale and some were defaced. (Aqua-Tex 2009).

Restoration continued in 2003: “From July 2003 to December 2004, the EYA sub-contracted the University of Victoria Sustainability Project to complete an Environment Canada EcoAction funded project. The project objectives and desired outcomes were expressed in the contract held between Environment Canada and EYA. Funding of $18,000 was provided to University of Victoria Sustainability Project over the 18-month period.” (Bein 2004, p. 5) A management plan was developed, several operational trails were carried out, and significant invasive species removal and in-stream restoration was achieved. More specifically, completed projects included (Bein 2004, p. 19)

• “Stream riffle installation – a series of detention ponds [were] created to slow peak water flows and collect sediments”

• “Ivy control – remove or control invasive species such as holly, Daphne, and ivy from at least 1.6 hectares of Mystic Vale”

• “Plant salvage and propagation – Cunningham Woods Transplant - Subsequently, affected areas were replaced with native plant species using University of Victoria employees, volunteers, and community groups.”

Aqua-Tex was contracted in 2009 to address further needs of the natural area. Recommendations made included: Trail relocation

• Installation and maintenance of weirs • Bridges rebuilt and made longer

125

• Fencing to keep dogs out of sensitive areas – brush barriers may be more successful in some areas

• Removal of ivy and other invasive species • Plant a woodlot to provide wood for restoration efforts • Use materials from on site or on campus • Informational signs

In 2011, RNS student Hannah Oliver led restoration activities in Hobbs Creek and Mystic Vale as part of her ER390 Special Project. The project focused on reaches 6-8 of Hobbs Creek, while restoration focused on 6 and 8. Reach 7 is Canoe Pond (Figure 123). Her observations of the sites indicated that the 2001-2002 installation of 30 log weirs was largely successful, having reduced the degradation of the creek channel (Oliver 2011). However, a lack of monitoring and maintenance has resulted in the failure of past restoration efforts, including a broken log weir (Figure 124).

Figure 123. Location of restoration activities, yellow, and stream features, red (Source: Oliver 2011)

126

Figure 124. Broken log weir (Photo: Oliver)

In 2011 English ivy was the most dominant invasive species and the largest threat to the trees of any invasive species (Figure 125). Other disturbances to her study sites included the spread of invasive species, human and dog use, and erosion caused by high water volume. One critical area of disturbance to this natural area is human use of trails, which causes soil compaction and erosion, contributing to the spread of invasive species and adding to the sediment in Hobbs Creek (Oliver 2011). The placement of trails too close to the stream channel means that in winter the trails are saturated as part of the floodplain and people trample the vegetation on higher ground where it is drier. There were no fences installed at the time of the project, making it easier for users to go off trail.

Figure 125. English ivy had grown up many trees in Mystic Vale (Photo: Oliver)

127

Oliver was assisted by Nancy Turner and her ES 481 class to carry out restoration activities on the selected sites. The restoration occurred on March 8, 2011. The class helped in transplanting sword ferns from elsewhere in Mystic Vale to the creek edge to stabilize banks, installing willow wattles to reinforce an undercut bank, and invasive species removal. They worked for two hours. Students were supervised by Val Schaefer and Nancy Turner.

A group of students harvested 1m stakes of willow, black cottonwood and pacific dogwood from natural areas on campus. Another group removed invasive species in reach 8. A third group of students transplanted sword ferns in reach 6. All groups worked together in reach 8 to construct a wattle, 10 m upstream from the previously installed wattles. The wattles were constructed by weaving willow and dogwood between four stakes inserted along the bank at regular intervals. A few remaining cottonwood stakes were placed directly into the edge of the creek in the hopes they would also germinate (Figure 126).

Figure 126. Construction of the wattle (Photo: Oliver)

128

Figure 127. Finished wattle (Photo: Oliver 2011)

Figure 128. Sword ferns planted to stabilize left bank (Photo: Oliver 2011)

One month following restoration, the cuttings and wattle had sprouted (Figure 129). Unfortunately, the sword fern transplantation was not successful. When assessed a month after planting most of them were dead from trampling. The restoration area had not been marked so people going off the trail may not have known the importance of the site.

129

Figure 129. Sprouted black cottonwood cutting (Photo: Oliver)

The project concluded saying that the area should be maintained and restored through student participation in the future. This participation would be garnered by including restoration activities within curriculum of relevant courses and through future student projects (Oliver, p. 20). She also recommended that a staff position be created in Facilities Management to manage and monitor the campus natural areas and restoration sites.

Ross McCarter was another RNS student who carried out his 2012 ER390 Special Project on Hobbs Creek in Mystic Vale. He selected a site just northeast of Canoe Pont (Figure 130).

Figure 130. McCarter's study site, "The Site," in Mystic Vale (Source: McCarter 2012)

130

McCarter and two volunteers carried out restoration activities from April 2-4th, 2012, during which time they removed invasive species, constructed wattles, and planted native species. Wattles were constructed using red-osier dogwood and black cottonwood cuttings taken from on campus. Both of these species were used for staking, and the dogwood was woven between the stakes. An estimated 75 dogwood cuttings were incorporated into the wattles. Wherever possible, the wattles were placed so that they were in contact with the stream bank, and where this wasn’t possible soil was brought into the site to fill the gaps (Figure 131 and Figure 132). The wattles were integrated into the existing system of channel restoration structures, connected to wattles installed in 2011 to the north part of the site and connected to a log weir at the south part of the site (Figure 133 and Figure 134).

Figure 131. Southeast view of Hobbs Creek Reach 6 before and after wattles were installed (Photos: McCarter 2012)

131

Figure 132. Northwest view of Hobbs Creek Reach 6 before and after wattle installation (Photos: McCarter 2012)

132

Figure 133. Map of location where wattles were installed (Source: McCarter 2012)

Figure 134. Northwest view of Hobbs Creek Reach 6: new wattles connected with November 2011 wattles (Photo: McCarter

2012)

133

For the planting of native species, the species selected were sword fern, red-osier dogwood, Indian-plum and dull Oregon-grape. Plants were not purchased but instead transplanted from nearby sites, and in case of the dogwood, small branches that had been cut off during the creation of wattles were planted. Sword fern was planted near the stream bank, whereas the Indian-plum and dull Oregon-grape were planted further from the stream at slightly higher elevations. Small woody debris was placed between the plants to discourage foot traffic.

English ivy was targeted for invasive species removal along the ravine walls surrounding the study site. Planting occurred right away, with Indian-plum and sword fern chosen for the cleared areas. Similar restoration activities occurred in November 2011 along Reach 6, which included the construction of wattles, planting native species, and removing ivy. The 2012 restoration aimed to address some of the problems noted from the earlier project: soil eroded from behind the wattles, vegetation was trampled during wattle installation, stream banks were compacted by foot traffic during restoration, and no planting had followed the ivy removal (Figure 135).

Figure 135. South view of previous November 2011 wattling showing separation creek bank and Red-osier Dogwood bows. Also

note lack of riparian vegetation and soil compaction (Photo: McCarter)

An addition ER390 project was carried out in this area by RNS student Vicente. As part of Vicente’s 2012 ER 390 Special Project restoration activities were carried out at Mystic Vale on Hobbs Creek (Figure 136). Two classes of students volunteered their time to help with the restoration. On February 28th, 2012 a group of 22 people were present, including 16 students, instructors and representatives from facilities management. On March 8, 2012 around 30 students were present at the site. In between these classes, a group of volunteers from the Ecological Restoration Volunteer Network contributed their time to the project.

134

Figure 136. Yellow pin represents location of wattles and native plant transplanting (Source: Vicente 2012)

Large woody debris was moved from trails and surrounding sites into the creek. LWD within the creek was also shifted in order to increase stream health, as the initial configuration put the creek at additional risk for headcutting and blockages. Wattles were constructed using an estimated 60 red-osier dogwood whips 2-3m in length harvested from Mystic Vale and black cottonwood stakes from Swan Lake Nature Sanctuary. Wattles covered 7.5m of the south stream bank and 12m of the north (Figure 137). Both species were also used for live staking in the delta forming off Canoe Pond.

Figure 137. Completed wattle (Photo: McCarter)

135

Soil was brought near the site by truck and was transported by bucket to help fill in the edges of Canoe Pond to encourage plant growth. Sword ferns were transplanted from other parts of Mystic Vale to fill in bare areas of stream bank (Figure 138). An existing log weir was altered using a chainsaw to make a ‘banana cut’ to increase its benefit to the creek (Figure 139).

Figure 138. Ferns being transplanted (Photo: Vicente)

Figure 139. Banana cut on a log weir (Photo: Vicente)

136

Beyond these individual events associated with ER390 Special Projects, there has been ongoing invasive species removal work parties as part of ES341. These students “frequently engaged in invasive species removal activities as an introduction to ecological restoration” in the far north corner of Mystic Vale (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 69). Facilities Management have also been active in Mystic Vale, though they do not have the capacity for ongoing maintenance. Through their work they achieved “removal of all tree climbing English ivy (Hedera helix), a great deal of ivy from the ground, and all visible English holly (Ilex aquifolium)” (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 69). Experiments in restoration ecology, testing various invasive species removal techniques and native species plantings, have been carried out in Mystic Vale, but the documentation on these efforts has been lost over time. See Figure 140 for a photo of Environmental Studies students installing a wattle to stabilize the banks of Hobbs Creek.

Figure 140. Students from Environmental Studies install a wattle to stabilize the bank of Hobbs Creek where the water flowed

around the side of the weir and eroded the bank (Photo: Schaefer)

Students won a video contest with TD Friends of the Environment and received $30,000, $10,000 of which went to the university. The funding was used for restoration in the area of Canoe Pond: page wire fence was installed “to prevent human and dog traffic in the pond area, followed by subsequent native species plantings and the addition of sandbags and large woody debris” (Kathrens & Jennings, p. 69). “Sandbags and large woody debris have also been installed in several points along the lower portion of Hobbs Creek to redirect and slow water flow, especially in times of high flow volumes” (Kathrens & Jennings, p. 69). In addition, educational signs were installed, bridges were replaced. This restoration work was carried out with the guidance of the Hobbs Creek Five Year Plan (Aqua-Tex 2009) and was consistent with its recommendations. See Figure 141 for a photo of the work done.

137

Figure 141. Photo of the new bridge, page wire fence, logs, and delta blocks (Photo: Schaefer 2017)

Unfortunately, the “native species plantings and stream restoration techniques have resulted in mixed success in the Mystic Vale area” (Kathens & Jennings, p. 69). Much of what was implemented didn’t work. There still remnants from those projects, such as rebar, but the structures reinforcing the banks and channel have not been maintained.

On October 1st, 2016, the Greater Victoria Green Team collaborated with “participants of Project Serve - an annual day of volunteering taken on by UVic students joining up with non-profit organizations – to remove English ivy from trees in upper Mystic Vale” (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 152). Over a period of four hours, 35 volunteers contributed a total of 125 volunteer hours. The volunteers removed climbing ivy from about 100 native shrubs and trees, in addition to clearing approximately 200 m2 of ivy mats. This totalled approximately 18 cubic metres of the invasive species removed from the site.

References

Aqua-Tex Sccientific Consulting, Ltd. (2009). Hobbs Creek – Mystic Vale Five Year Plan: Restoration Priorities for Planning Purposes. DRAFT for Discussion. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

138

Bein, M. (2004). Ecosystem Care and Restoration at University of Victoria: University of Victoria Sustainability Project’s EcoAction Accomplishments. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria Sustainability Project.


Doucet, S. (2012). Valuation of Mystic Vale’s Ecosystem Services. ER390 Project. Restoration of Natural Systems Program, University of Victoria. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from http://www.urbanecology.ca/documents/Student%20Technical%20Series/Doucet.pdf

Harrop-Archibald, H. (January 3, 2008). University of Victoria Natural Features Study Phase Two: University Cedar Hill Corner Property, Garry Oak Meadow & Camas Meadow, Finnerty Ravine, Haro Woods, South Woods, Lower Hobbs Creek/Mystic Vale. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, Restoration of Natural Systems Program. (Available in the Restoration of Natural Systems Library upon request).

Harrop-Archibald, H. (May 31, 2007). University of Victoria Natural Features Study: Bowker Creek, Cunningham Woods, Upper Hobbs Creek/Mystic Vale. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, Restoration of Natural Systems Program. (Available in the Restoration of Natural Systems Library upon request).

Hebb, J. & Shaefer, V. (2017) University of Victoria Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, Office of Campus Planning & Sustainability.

Hocking, M. (2000). UVic Sustainability Project: 2.1 Campus Ecology. Prepared for the University of Victoria Sustainability Project. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria. Unpublished Document. Retrieved July 8, 2018 from https://morganhocking.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/uvsp_hocking-report.pdf


McCarter, R. (2012). Hobbs Creek: Reach 6 Riparian Restoration. ER390 Project. Restoration of Natural Systems Program, University of Victoria. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from http://www.urbanecology.ca/documents/Student%20Technical%20Series/McCarter.pdf

Oliver, H. (2011). Ecological Restoration of the Riparian Area at Mystic Vale/Hobbs Creek. ER390 Project. Restoration of Natural Systems Program, University of Victoria. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from http://www.urbanecology.ca/documents/Student%20Technical%20Series/Oliver%20hannah%20final.pdf

Vicente, M. (2012). Ecological Restoration of Hobbs Creek in Mystic Vale. ER390 Project. Restoration of Natural Systems Program, University of Victoria.

139

2.5. Haro Woods and Finnerty Ravine

Location

Haro Woods and Finnerty Ravine are location outside of Ring Road, to the far northeast corner of campus. See Figure 142 and Figure 143 for maps of their locations.

Figure 142. The location of Finnerty Ravine, to the west, and Haro Woods, to the east (Source: Google Satellite 2018)

140

Figure 143. Location of Finnerty Ravine in dark green relative to other campus features. Haro Woods is was not included on the

source map, but would be located just to the southeast of this area (Adapted from “Campus Map” 2018)

Finnerty Ravine is bordered by the UVic Child Care Complex, Parking Lot 15, and Finnerty Road, to the northwest. To the southwest is the Lam Familty Student Housing Complex and the Lou-Poy Child Care Centre. Its northeast border runs along a portion of Haro Woods owned by the District of Saanich. See Figure 144 for a map showing the current ownership of Haro Woods lands. The portion of Haro Woods owned by UVic, referred to in this document simply as “Haro Woods” is located to the southeast of Finnerty Creek. To its southwest is Sutton Road and its southeast edge is bordered by Haro Road. To its northwest are parcels of land owned by the Capital Region District and the District of Saanich.

141

Figure 144. Current ownership of lands surrounding UVic Haro Woods and Finnerty Creek (Source: District of Saanich 2017)

Ecology

UVic owns 1.1ha of Haro Woods, which is surrounded by 8.7ha of forested land (MacKinnon 2012). Haro Woods is characterized as second growth forest dominate by “Western redcedar (Thuja plicata), shore pine (Pinus contorta, var. contorta), arbutus (Arbutus menziesii), and Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) in the overstory; as well as common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Oregon grape (Mahonia spp.), and oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) in the understory” (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 98). See Figure 145 for a photo taken in Haro Woods.

142

Figure 145. Haro Woods (Photo: Kathrens & Jennings 2016)

Finnerty Ravine is “a small gulley” (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 98) with a riparian area and “remnants of wetland” (p. 25). It is dominated by “Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), grand fir (Abies grandis), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and arbutus trees; with a diversity of shrub species and a significant presence of stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) and Pacific water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) along the creek bed” (Kathrens & Jennings, p. 98). See Figure 146 for a photo taken in Finnerty Ravine. See Figure 147 for a map showing of Finnerty Ravine’s vegetation communities and hydrology.

Figure 146. Finnerty Ravine (Phptp: Kathrens & Jennings 2016)

143

Figure 147. Finnerty Ravine vegetation communities and hydrology (Image: Lloyd 2004)

144

Harrop-Archibald (2008, p. 15) summarized data collected on the stand of trees in Finnerty Ravine:

“[Tree] core samples were taken on November 12, 2007. The investigators found that the Douglas-fir were between 118-108 years old with no other cohorts of Douglas-fir in the stand. Observations were also made on a cut arbutus stump which showed very dense growth rings; it was determined that the sub-canopy arbutus likely predate the Douglas-fir. Thus it is surmised that Finnerty Creek had a different stand structure and was characterized by drier conditions prior to 1880 then what is observed … This is supported by the Capital Regional Districts Natural Areas Atlas which shows a portion of Finnerty Creek as part of a Garry oak ecosystem circa 1800.”

Disturbances in these natural areas include invasive species, human traffic and mountain biking in surrounding areas, which has caused significant erosion (MacKinnon 2012). Invasive species include Daphne laurel, English ivy, English holly, English hawthorn, Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, thistle species, ornamental species and agronomic grasses (Kathrens & Jennings 2016). See Figure 148 for a map of the distribution of these species.

Figure 148. Invasive species in Haro Woods and Finnerty Ravine (Source: Kathrens & Jennings)

145

History and Restoration Finnerty Creek and Haro Woods are protected by UVic in perpetuity, as acknowledged in both the 2003 and 2016 Campus Plans. Haro Woods was acquired by UVic in 1995 as “part of The Commonwealth Nature Legacy initiative of the 1994 Commonwealth Games (Dickson 2012 as quoted in MacKinnon 2012, p. 4). The purpose of the Initiative was the “preservation of “urban wilderness” areas for public uses and enjoyment” (MacKinnon 2014, p. 4).

Finnerty Ravine and Haro Woods have been targeted for ecological restoration on multiple occasions. The first interest in this area was from Restoration of Natural Systems student Andrew MacKinnon who targeted Haro Woods in his ER390 Special Project. He organized an invasive species removal work party, in which a group of four UVic students achieved “Daphne Laurel in the prescribed area” (MacKinnon 2012, p. 1). This ER390 report is available in the RNS Library. Further restoration MacKinnon’s initial focus on the area. In October of 2013 the Ecological Restoration Volunteer Network partnered with the UVic Childcare Service to remove Daphne from Finnerty Ravine in order to “to mitigate potential harm done to children by this noxious invasive that regularly causes respiratory and skin irritation” (Kathrens & Jennings 2016, p. 17). Invasive species removal work parties continued into 2014.

References


District of Saanich. (September 2017). Haro Woods Management Plan DRAFT. Victoria, BC: Parks and Recreation Department, Parks Division. District of Saanich. Retrieved July 9, 2018 from http://www.saanich.ca/assets/Parks~Recreation~and~Culture/Documents/Haro-Woods-Management-Plan-DRAFT.pdf

Harrop-Archibald, H. (2008). University of Victoria Natural Features Study Phase Two: University Cedar Hill Corner Property, Garry Oak Meadow & Camas Meadow, Finnerty Ravine, Haro Woods, South Woods, Lower Hobbs Creek/Mystic Vale. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, Restoration of Natural Systems Program. (Available in the Restoration of Natural Systems Library upon request).


MacKinnon, A. (2012) Restoration of Haro Woods: Designing a Program for University Students to Carry Out On-Campus Restoration. Prepared for ER 390, Restoration of Natural Systems Program, University of Victoria. Retrieved July 7th, 2018 from http://www.urbanecology.ca/documents/Student%20Technical%20Series/Mackinnon.pdf

146

