UVic Garry Oak Meadow Restoration Project

Magnus Bein

ER 390 – Final Project

Restoration of Natural Systems University of Victoria

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 3 ACCOMPLISHMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 4

SITE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 7 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 7 OVERVIEW OF LOCALITY AND SITE.............................................................................................................. 7 ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF SITE AND ENVIRONS..................................................................................... 9

Parent Material and Soil........................................................................................................................ 9 Hydrology............................................................................................................................................. 10 Flora..................................................................................................................................................... 11

CULTURAL CONDITIONS OF THE SITE ........................................................................................................ 13 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 14

PARTICIPATION AND POLICY............................................................................................................. 15 OUTREACH ................................................................................................................................................ 15 ADVISORY ................................................................................................................................................. 16 DESIGN CHARETTE .................................................................................................................................... 16

Methods and Materials ........................................................................................................................ 17 Materials .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 18

1. Plant Selection Group.................................................................................................................................... 19 3. Field Trial Experimental Design Group........................................................................................................ 21 4. Education and Outreach Group ..................................................................................................................... 22 5. Landscaping Group ....................................................................................................................................... 23

PARTICIPATION AND POLICY INTREPRETATION ......................................................................................... 24 RESTORATION SITE DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 25

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 26 VEGETATION ............................................................................................................................................. 26 ACCESS AND SERVICES.............................................................................................................................. 28

IMPLEMENTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT................................... 29 SITE WORK ................................................................................................................................................ 29 BASELINE DATA COLLECTION.................................................................................................................... 29 LEVEE AND BERME.................................................................................................................................... 29 FIELD TRIALS ............................................................................................................................................ 30 PROPAGATION PLAN .................................................................................................................................. 30 MAINTENANCE, CARE, AND MANAGEMENT NEEDS .................................................................................... 31

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 33

Introduction This restoration project will be the first demonstration restoration to take place on campus and symbolizes the University's acknowledgement of the ecological and cultural significance of the Garry oak (Quercus garryana) ecosystems on campus. The purpose of this project is to research appropriate methods for Garry oak meadow restoration on a highly degraded meadow that had been converted into an agricultural field. A community participation and consultation process was initiated to include input from experts, municipalities, community members and students. The results of this process have proven to be the basis of this report. The University of Victoria has a unique opportunity to implement restoration and research in this ecosystem, as it is the only campus in Canada that houses these ecosystems. This project could provide valuable hands on educational opportunities for students while at the same time contributing biological and ecological research that can be applied to larger scale restoration projects. The Garry oak ecosystem located on the southwest corner of the University of Victoria (UVic) campus is a remnant of the surviving 1-5% of Garry oak ecosystems. These ecosystems are among the most endangered in Canada and a recent analysis suggests that of the area estimated to once exist in the Greater Victoria region, only 5% remain (Lea, 2002). The Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team has prepared a strategy to address this drastic loss. Coordinated action is needed to address the past, current and future losses of these ecosystems and their species (GOERT, 2002). A multifaceted approach is being taken towards the restoration of this meadow. A variety of operational trials are planed to study the most appropriate methods for restoring a Garry oak meadow from scratch. There is virtually no information reported on this topic. Two prairie restorations were found that have been implemented and researched at Fort Lewis in the South Puget Sound area and Yellow Island of the San Juan Islands, USA. These restoration experiments looked at the reduction of invasive species and recruitment of native species in Garry oak prairie landscapes. Results and interpretations from these restorations were used in the planning of this proposal as it is aimed at the eradication of agronomic grass species and the reintroduction and recruitment of native species.

Acknowledgements This work is based on an initial plan by Lisa Heinbuch. The Garry Oak Meadow Restoration Project has been a fruitful partnership between Restoration of Natural Systems program, Facilities Management, and members of the UVic and surrounding community. Don Eastman, Tony James, and Lynn Bartle, with assistance from Lisa Heinbuch and Magnus Bein, students of the RNS program, have been the core organizers leading the project. The following table is a list of participants in the project: Name Affiliation Bob Maxwell Consulting soil scientist, RNS instructor Brenda Beckwith Phd. Candidate, Environmental Studies

Carolyn MacDonald Municipality of Saanich Cheryl Bryce Songhees First Nation Chris Hyde-Lay Oak Bay Parks Dan Bell Oak Bay Parks Don Eastman Restoration of Natural Systems Eric Higgs Environmental Studies Geri Poisson Restoration of Natural Systems student Graham Watt-Gremm Uvic Sustainability Project Hal Gibbard Garry Oak Meadow Preservation Society Heather Nicol Mt. Tolmie Rate Payer Association James Miskelly Graduate student Joe Antos Dept. Biology Lisa Heinbuch Restoration Student Lynn Bartle Facilities Management Magnus Bein Restoration Student Matt Fairbarns Conservation Data Centre, Province Michael Meagher Garry Oak Ecosystem Recovery Team Nancy Brown Facilities Management Nancy Turner Environmental Studies Patty Mack Mt. Tolmie Rate Payer Association Pierre d'Estrube Garry Oak Meadow Preservation Society Richard Hebda Royal BC Museum Tony James Facilities Management Trevor Lantz Environmental Studies

Accomplishments Members of the university community including students and faculty have been involved in their areas of expertise and passion. Some local residents and government have been involved such as members of the Mount Tolmie rate-payers association and staff of Oak Bay parks and Saanich Environmental Planning. Moreover people from the Garry oak “community” have been involved representing volunteer groups, such as Garry Oak Meadow Preservation Society as well as consultants from provincial agencies such as the Royal BC Museum and the Conservation Data Centre. The Acknowledgements show the full list of all the participants and their affiliations. October 2001 “Garry Oak Ecosystems at the University of Victoria; Research, Restoration and Conservation Area Proposal,” a directed studies research report written by Carmel Jorgenson, synthesized history, ideas, and vision for the UVic Garry Oak ecosystems in proposed policy for the protection, restoration, and research of the Garry Oak area. This report is available from the Restoration of Natural Systems library. July 2002 A committee within Facilities Management including Dr. Don Eastman, Lynn Bartle, and Tony James, agreed to reclaim the open meadow site. The major step was taken by forming a multi-stakeholder advisory group to support the planning and research of the restoration project. Research activities were completed including a soil survey, ecosystem mapping, and archival review.

August 2002 Bob Maxwell, retired soils scientist from the BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, was contracted to provide a soils review for the proposed restoration site as well as on the fill material intended to be used in the berm. His report investigated the soil type and suitability for restoration and provided management considerations. October 2002 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) of the Garry oak Ecosystem on the southwest corner of campus was completed. The methodology is a provincial standard (RIC 1998) and includes analyses of site vegetation and soils. Garry oak classifications were done using Del Meidinger's “Oak Associations,” this material is available at the RNS library. January, 2003 The advisory group successfully contributed to the project: • Invite Songhees First Nation to name the project and site. • Need for a larger natural areas planning framework. • Need for a working relationship with union employees, students and volunteers. • Restoration of Natural Systems Program committed to be an ongoing steward of the

project. • Need for clear and shared goals and objectives for the site and draft goal, objectives,

and vision. These concerns resulted in composing a draft restoration plan and invitation of more members to the advisory, in particular a representative from the Songhees First Nations. February 2003 Garry Oak research colloquium at Pacific Forestry Centre, involved many experts and community members interested in Garry Oak ecosystems. Lisa Heinbuch presented the project and plan. Feedback indicated that the UVic restoration project was going to prove to be a novel enterprise. No project of this nature has been completed at its scale in British Columbia. April 2003 Over 800 native plants were obtained from a native plant nursery on discount as well as donated by volunteers. July 2003 The advisory group convened to review the vision, goal, and objectives, verify the restoration plan, and discuss next steps in light of new information. With some clarifications and changes the group has accepted the plan with several key conditions. The group specifically decided: • A final revision to the vision, goal, and objectives (presented below). • To preserve the sites potential as a wet meadow (avoid sub-soiling and filling). • To select plants from the same provenance in order to conserve genetic diversity. • To use organic methods of exotic species control.

• To proceed installing a narrow berm and trials for the work yard prior to engaging field trials..

October 2003 A restoration design charette and open house was held at the university with a total attendance of 25 participants and 50 drop-ins. Participants helped refine, confirm, and feedback on the plans in one of five break-out groups.

Site Analysis Site analysis is completed to coordinate the restoration plan with the actual location and observe proposed targets represented by actual examples. This section describes the context of the restoration site and locality, ecological and cultural conditions of the restoration site, a review of existing reference or model sites, and offsite factors that influence the site and area. The methods employed to obtain information/data are explained along with results (including context, cultural history…)

Methods Field work, literature and map review, and personal communications generated a sound picture of the restoration site and adjoining areas in the context of the region. Surveying and ground-truthing; ground inspections; and soil pits were completed in the field by Magnus Bein, Lisa Heinbuch, and Bob Maxwell, respectively. Field data was partly used for terrestrial ecosystem mapping procedure by the Ecosystems Working Group, Terrestrial Ecosystems Tasks Force (1998). Literature, maps, and some unpublished information provided general information applied to understanding the site and area. Environment Canada (2003) provided climate data that was used to in a water budget model by Dingman (2002). Unpublished sources were found on campus vegetation change and plant inventory from the UVic herbarium. Personal communications and site visits conducted with advisors also provided relevant background. Cheryl Bryce confirmed First Nations uses of the site and area (Pers. Comm. 2003). Matt Fairbarns recommended target plant species and reference site upon visiting the site and Uplands Park (Pers. Comm. 2003). Adolf and Oldriska Ceska did an assessment on the invasive and at risk plant species on Mt. Tolmie (Pers. Comm. 2003).

Overview of locality and site The proposed restoration site is located at the corner of Cedar Hill Cross Road and University Drive on the southwest corner of the UVic campus in an approximately four hectare complex of fields and Garry oak and associated plant communities. The University of Victoria is located on southern Vancouver Island in the District of Victoria within South Saanich and Oak Bay municipalities, British Columbia, in the traditional territory of the Songhees First Nation. Several important aspects of the southeastern region of Vancouver Island have a bearing on the area and therefore the restoration site. First, it has a Mediterranean like climate; the Olympic Mountains and the mountains of Vancouver Island create a rain shadow effect as well the Georgia Straight moderate temperatures, shaping the regional climate. The region has mild wet winters and warm dry summers (Environment Canada 2004). Table 1 displays 30 year normal annual temperate and precipitation data from an Environment Canada weather station at Gonzales Hill in Victoria. The climate of the lower lying areas of the region has an annual precipitation of 626 mm, with lowest at 14 mm in July, and highest in December at 108 mm. Yearly mean temperature is 13°C at its maximum and 6.9°C at its minimum.

July and August demonstrate the highest temperatures ranging from a low of11-12°C to a high of 20°C. The lowest temperatures occur in January, ranging from 2.6-6.7°C. Table 1: Mean temperature extremes (°C) and precipitation (mm) from 30 year climate normal collected at Gonzales Hill weather station. Source: Environment Canada (2004). Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Temp Min 2.6 3.6 4.2 5.8 8 9.9 11 12 10 7.9 5.1 3 Temp Max 6.7 8.4 10 13 16 18 20 20 18 14 9.3 6.9 Precipitation 104 69 45 33 25 19 14 21 31 60 99 108 Second, the southeastern region of Vancouver Island is part of the coastal Douglas-fir biogeoclimatic zone, which comprises only 0.3 percent of the land area in BC (Nuszdorfer et al. 1991). The extent of the zone is moderated by climatic and geographic controls, yielding characteristic vegetation communities depending on soil nutrient and water conditions. Wetter sites and late seral stages typically contain a mix of Coastal Douglas-fir, Western red cedar, big-leaf maple, and red alder, with an under-story of salmonberry, thimbleberry, sword fern, and salal. Garry oak and arbutus trees in a shrub-herb landscape of grasses, wildflowers, and thickets of snowberry and rose characterize sites with very shallow soils, dry conditions, and early seral stages. Species such as Scotch broom, English holly, Himalayan blackberry, and English ivy are prevalent where there has been anthropogenic disturbance. The plant communities in turn form habitat, components of the broader ecosystems in the zone. Natural areas of this zone are of significant conservation value because much of this zone has been destroyed and degraded (Caskey and Henigman 2002). Third, the zone represents the northern-most occurrence of Garry oak ecosystems (Erikson, 1993). Garry oak ecosystems occupy a small portion of this biogeoclimatic zone. These ecosystems are some of the most endangered in Canada and are threatened by habitat loss from human development, invasive species, and the suppression of traditional land management practices (Fuchs 2001). Fourth, traditional land management practices were an intrinsic ecological process in producing the "prairies of the west," as it was know by early settlers and colonialists. The Songhees People played a fundamental role in the landscape through traditional management practices such as burning and the selective harvesting of root vegetables such as great camas (Camassia leichtlinni) (Beckwith 2002; Turner, 2002). At the UVic campus and in the surrounding neighbourhoods Garry oak vegetation communities (as well as coastal Douglas-fir communities) were once the dominant landscape, now replaced by development and exotic species (Ketcheson et al. 1975). The main patches of Garry oak at the Gordon Head campus and vicinity are presently found in the south west corner of the campus near Mount Tolmie and in the southeast, as narrow band along Mystic Vale. These patches are remnant from a more extensive savanna landscape of prior times (Lea 2002; Capital Regional District 2004).

Figure: UVic Natural Areas The site lies in the municipality of Oak Bay between N48°27'35.2", W123°18'57.4" and N48°27'33.6", W123°18'52.6" at an elevation of 69 metres (University of Victoria 1990). The total area of this site is approximately 3500 m2. It is part of a grass field that occurs in the southwest area of Garry oak ecosystems. Adjacent land-uses to this site are a work yard, the Finnerty Gardens, Oak Bay transportation right of way, Hydro right of way, a road, a bus stop, and gravel trails.

Ecological Conditions of Site and Environs

Parent Material and Soil The campus lands are legacy of long-term geological processes. Bedrock exposed and buried around the campus is Wark gneiss, a metamorphic rock of various igneous and possibly sedimentary minerals (Muller 1980). The gneiss has been scoured, broken, and buried over periods of glaciations and sea level change. Pleistocene deposits of an earlier glaciation are overlain with the Capilano sediments, which form the parent material of present day soils (Monahan and Geo 2000). The sediments have three characteristic facies: a soft to firm grey clay; a brown clay; and sand. Around the University of Victoria, the Capilano Sediments are glacio-marine clayey silts known as the Victoria Clay, quite common all around Victoria. At the sample site, less than 5 m of Victoria Clay overlie Pleistocene deposits greater than 10 m thick. Blanketing these deposits is silty diamicton deposited directly by glaciers of over 1 m thick (Blyth & Rutter 1993). At the restoration site, the ground is relatively flat with some hummocks. There are a number of soil disturbances including planting and then transplanting ornamental trees,

vehicle compaction and tire rutting, and installation of a water pipe. It is possible there was contamination and disturbance during construction of Cedar Hill Cross Road and installation of telephone poles. There was a temporary structure in a small are to the Southwest of the site, of which a compacted gravelly bed remains. Bob Maxwell (2002) found the following characteristics from three soil pits at the restoration site. The Ah horizon is 25-30 cm of medium brown (dry) sandy loam with a root mat, or turf, to 15 cm. The surface soils are very dark brown and likely include fine charcoal in the matrix indicative of historical aboriginal burning. This surface is likely a beach strand with aeolian sands resting on a compact silty subsoil. The subsoil horizon at 35-55cm consists of a grayish white dry very compact clay loam. It is mottled, reflecting a fluctuating water table, and is slightly cemented. This layer will restrict both root and water penetration. The grass field had a shallower Ah surface soil and the colour was not as dark brown as the pits near the oak trees. His interpretation was that the soils near the forest appear to be unmodified from to plowing or scalping. Near surface bedrock likely precluded farm tillage. He concluded that the soils are characteristic of Group 6 deep clayey soils and biophysical zone 9 grassland over clayey soils described in the Saanich oak sites GORP project (Maxwell and Giasson, 2002). Based on the findings from field sampling, soil moisture and nutrient regimes may classified based on Green and Klinka (1994). The soil moisture regime is moist with a strongly fluctuating water table. The main determinants of this are the flat laying surface of the site, fine particle size of the earth fraction, and mottles present 35 cm below ground level. The soil nutrient regime is rich to very rich, due to a thick Ah horizon and earth worms which form a Mull humus layer.

Hydrology The climate around the university governs a hydrological pattern representative of the Coastal-Douglas Fir biogeoclimatic zone. Using a water balance model (Dingmann 2002) and nearby weather station data (Table 1) a water budget for the campus may be projected. Figure 1 displays precipitation, snow pack, available water, soil water, actual evapotranspiration, surplus water, potential evapotranspiration, and water deficits in mm of water monthly. Water from rain and snow melt, soil moisture, and potential and actual evapotranspiration interplay to yield monthly surplus or deficit in the water balance of the regions.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

PercipitationSnow packAvailable WaterSoil WaterActual evapotranspirationSurplus waterPotential evapotranspirationWater deficit

Figure 1: Water balance in mm of water over a year using temperate and precipitation climate normal from Environment Canada (2004). Water balance model based on Dingman (2004). Precipitation occurs year round. Minimum is in July and maximum is in December. Snow only occurs in December and January; rain still has same maximum and minimum. Rain and snow melt has values at the same as PPT, except from Dec to Feb. Soil water is at capacity from December to March with a steady decline from April to September, and recharges over October and November. Potential evapotranspiration equals actual evapotranspiration from October to March; in the other months of the year, actual evapotranspiration is lower than potential evapotranspiration being limited by available water. Surplus water occurs from December to May, with maximum in January, and minimum in March. Deficit occurs from April to September, with minimum in April, maximum in July. The restoration site is situated in a buffer location to the headwater wetland complex of the urban Bowker Creek watershed. These headwater wetlands occur on the UVic campus and are characterized by shallow ground water flow. The site, with a shallow clay layer probably has same ground water source. The site once flooded before installation of drains, suggesting it may have been a wet meadow. Within the site are several puddle to pond sized vernal pools (diameters a half to five metres). The site has the potential to flood in the winter and dries out quickly in the summer. No flooding occurs during relatively dry winters due to drainage tiles.

Flora The vegetation near and around the site is fragmented, degraded, and managed. There are a range of plant associations, including managed gardens and mowed lawns, grass field, wild flower meadows, wooded shrub thickets, and forest. The main physiognomic types are grass-forbe communities; woodland savanna; and forest.

The Grass-Forbe communities are fields of mostly exotic species with primarily grasses that include patches and invading/remnant native species. There are scattered shrubs which are also mostly exotic like English hawthorn, apple, scotch broom. Some shrubs are native and include Scouler's willow and black hawthorn. These fields are mowed after native species have set seed. The Woodland Savanna communities are a mix of in grown thickets and anthropogenic gardens and lawns. The anthropogenic patches maintain a canopy of mostly native trees including Quercus garryana and Arbutus menziesii. All other plants in these areas are exotic, except for the ornamental native plants, and pioneering species like piggy back plant. The native Garry Oak – Indian Plum thickets are undergoing succession with Douglas-fir and grand fir invasion. Pockets of shallow soil occur intermittently around exposed bedrock where moss - miner's lettuce communities occur. Other pockets of native camas community occur in gaps and trail edges. Established English hawthorn and apple trees are scattered around the Woodlands in some instances forming a contiguous grove. Exotic blackberry form continuous population in highly disturbed sites. Finally ivy, laurel leaf Daphne pervade all the woodland areas. Beyond woodlands there is a stand of forest dominated by Douglas-fir and grand fir, with some other canopy trees like bog leaf maple and oak. In the undertory are Indian plum, red oisier dogwood, English holly. Matthew Fairbarns provided information at the Research Colloquium that there is a red listed species, Carex tumulicola, found in the Garry oak meadow along Gordon Head Road. Adolf Ceska verified it on March 25 during a telephone conversation.

Figure : Garry oak and associated plant communities in the southwest corner of the UVic Gordon Head campus The site supports limited species of plants. The site consists of low growing agronomic grass species such as Orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and Sweet vernalgrass (Anthoxanthum odoratum). Many other invasive grasses and weeds are also found on site. Also observed at the site are at least three species of fungi. Meadow mushroom (Agaricus campestris) was observed at a high density in the fall 2003. Also at small densities a species of puffball and an unidenitified black mushroom were see. The site is bordered to the east by a dense thicket of snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) and red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). There is a mixed forest of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Garry oak (Quercus garryana) beyond the thicket. To the north is Finnerty Gardens, composed of a variety of ornamental plant species. According to the moisture and nutrient regime Green and Klinka (1994) predict a Western red cedar - Vanilla-leaf site series as the climax vegetation. The tree species representative of this vegetation community are: Abies grandis, Psuedotsuga menziesii, Acer macrophyllum, Alnus rubra, and Cornus nuttallii. Gaultheria shallon, Holodiscus discolor, Mahonia nervosa, Oemlaria serasiformis, Symphoricarpos albus, and Rubus ursinus are typical shrubs. The characteristic herbs are Polystichum minutum, Achlys triphylla, Tiarella trifoliata, and Lactuca muralis. Finally Kindbergia spp., Leucolepis menziesii, and Plagiomnium insigne are common mosses. Many of these species occur in adjacent areas like Abies grandis, Psuedotsuga menziesii, Oemlaria serasiformis, and Symphoricarpos albus. Acer macrophyllum seedlings and Kindbergia have been observed at the site. Fauna No formal animal inventory has been conducted and findings are based on casual observations during site visits and un-published reports by members of the campus community. Several individual bats (Myosotis sp.), European rabbit (Orctolagus cuniculus), and Eastern gray squirrel have been observed from the site. Butterflys and earthworms are known at the site. Also known to occur around the campus are deer, birds, and a red-listed butterfly. Extripated from the campus: skylark, garter snake, elk, other spp of deer

Cultural Conditions of the Site It is confirmed that the land in and around present day UVic was an important source of camas as well as other wild foods for the First Peoples (Bryce, Pers. Comm.). There was a village site, burial, and midden in present day Cadboro Bay, then known as "......" (Bryce, Pers. Comm.; Keddie ????).

The restoration site was once used as camas harvesting grounds until 1858 when the campus lands were acquired by the Hudson's Bay Company and traditional land management practices were replaced by domesticated techniques of farming. Air photo comparisons of this area from 1928 until present revealed that the boundaries of the meadow have remained the same. This is due to regular grazing, haying, and later mowing. Since then this area has been seeded with agronomic grass species and used for hay (James pers. comm. 2003). Present management of this area by University of Victoria Facilities Management includes mowing once a year.

Conclusion Presently the site is a mowed field dominated by exotic orchard grass, sweet vernal grass, and Kentucky blue grass, with some dandelion, field chyrsanthemum, radish, etc. In one corner are two Cedar cultivars and a Douglas-fir. A Scouler's willow with intermixed Nootka rose and snowberry and exotic grasses. Recently Aster subspicatus has colonized a tiny patch by a telephone pole, showing promise as a restoration species. The site has rich soils, indicated by high amounts of organic matter and active organisms including mushrooms and earthworms. These soils (were very similar to those found on surveys done on Saanich Garry Oak Restoration Project sites where well established meadows were located on fine sandy soils. The water table fluctuates between seasonal wet and dry cycles. Water pools and potentially floods during high percipitation and over-saturation of soil moisture capacity. It is exposed to the south and partly shaded from morning light at the east by a thicket of Douglas-fir, Garry oak, willow, red-oisier dogwood, Himalyan blackberry, snowberry, and Nootka rose. While in the future this site may provide better hunting grounds for Bat and birds and even nesting habitat to other vertebrates, such as the garter snake and birds, the problems associated with grazing and trampling will need to be managed. Rabbits probably pose the biggest problem to grazing, while deer may be a seasonal nuisance. Directing human activity out of the site will be important to prevent trampling and possibly vandalism, or even theft of plants. The Garry oak patches around the site are a source of plant material, some of which is undesirable. The exotic species in particular are a problem, such the grasses and some shrubs llike Himalyan blackberry, Scotch broom, red hawthorn, English ivy, English holly, and laurel leaf Daphne. Also the invasive native species, such as nootka rose, snow berry, and bigleaf maple, pose a problem to shifting the site into a shrub land with little herbaceous cover or area. These plants, in the absense of mowing, hand-removal, and possibly annual flood-drought cycle, will eventually dominate the site.

Participation and Policy Just as the landscape is the object of observation, engagement, and care, so to are the people of the place. The social community enlivens the land by committing and continuing the restoration. Some of the ways individuals do this is by reducing their impact and respecting the environment or directly monitoring, protecting, or maintaining the restoration site. The results of participation influence and contribute to the restoration and signal acceptable ways at including people in the restoration. This section reviews participation that has occurred in this project and present the results, in the form of feedback. General outreach, an advisory group, and a design charrette have been the main forums in this project. This process has allowed a wider ecological and planning perspective, institutional backing and support for the project, and most importantly directed project plans and policy.

Outreach This form is ongoing and brings people in to support the project to gain fresh ideas, insights, and guidance. Communication occurs by email bulletins, a website, advertisement, display panels, meetings with individuals, and events like nature walks. Among these modes of communication three large paneled display boards were written and graphically designed. Essential to the approach is contact with local experts and co-operators and with the land, whether or not it results in larger scale transformation or a grass-root movement. Both these acts help verify plans with the community and field check plans for feasibility. A variety of consultations were carried out, ranging from correspondence, personal meetings, and public events: • A partnership with the Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team was formed. • A nature walk for new students was led by James Miskelly and introduced them to

the Garry oak ecosystems at UVic and discussed the potential of the restoration project. I video documented the students’ feelings and thoughts on the significance to them.

• Tony James, Rhonda Rose, Steve, and me discussed the direction of site planning, especially introducing the idea of a wet meadow, minimal site work, and hydrological monitoring at the site.

• Matt Fairbarns at Uplands and the restoration site identified promising meadow species and strategies to establish them.

• Ross Archibald gave an orientation to sources of historic ecology pertaining to the region and site.

• Cheryl Bryce spoke of the Lekwungen First Peoples connection to the site and UVic lands and discussed possible partnership.

• Don Eastman gave regular feedback and guidance to all stages of the project. • Plant materials were sourced in detail, including source origin, by corresponding with

local nurseries. • Members of the Advisory group gave additional ideas through correspondence.

• Garry oak plantings were completed as part of Gerri Poisson’s final restoration project that involved several volunteers over a couple of morning work-parties west of this restoration site.

Advisory The advisors to this project have been suggesting and informing guidelines to manage, plan, and implement the project since the projects inception. The structure is relatively informal although Don Eastman and current restoration project coordinator organize and chair meetings by forming an agenda, presenting topics, and facilitating the feedback and interactions. The people involved are representatives of organizations outside the University, staff from Facilities Management including the Sustainability Coordinator and Manager of Grounds. The following vision, goal, and objectives was developed by the advisory and accepted by the advisory in August 2003, with minor editting. Vision: A self-sustaining Garry oak community echoing those that occurred prior to European settlement and provided: • Habitat to species at risk; • An interface with the areas hydrology, mosaic of environments, and aesthetics; as

well as, • Inspiration and value to the community. Goal: Restore Garry oak ecosystems appropriate to the site and address ecological and social integrity, through partnership and participation of university, public, and restoration communities.

Objectives: 1. To demonstrate the restoration of Garry oak communities appropriate to the site. 2. To provide learning opportunities and experience for the community, especially the

people involved in the project. 3. To conduct research for other and future restoration on campus and in the region. 4. To incorporate public safety, visual screening, and grounds maintenance

considerations and desires. 5. To acknowledge the Songhee Nation's heritage with the site and area.

Design Charette A restoration design charette was held for the UVic Garry oak meadow restoration project (UVic GOMRP). Magnus Bein with the assistance of Sarah Webb were the main organizers. Facilities Management commissioned the event as a requirement for this specific restoration project to move into implementation. The event was organized in a total of three weeks, including the graphic design of display panels and advertisement. The purpose of the event was to hear from the whole community on the plans and vision to restore one site within the Garry oak ecosystems on the UVic campus, and gain direction on how to involve partners, students, and the public in this exciting project. It gave campus and community members a chance to see the work that has been started, ask questions and learn more about Garry oak ecosystems.

The charette accommodated interested people, members of the UVic community and public, to drop in with an interpretive display on the project and relevant background, a work station with the working website of the project, printed plans, summaries, and maps. People wishing to contribute feedback and advise to the project were involved in a charette. A charette is a set of intense focus groups were participants offer suggestion in a visual and conversational format. The restoration design charette goal was to design, refine, and confirm the restoration plan for the Garry oak meadow restoration site at the UVic campus with the participation from locals and experts. The restoration design charette is an opportunity for collaborative planning: to share experiences, provide local expertise, and expand the project details in depth.

Methods and Materials Existing background materials were organized on a working website for interested people to access the plan and background documents as well as obtain details on the charette. This was completed by Magnus Bein. The interpretive display boards were designed and written by Magnus Bein, with editing by Don Eastman and Sarah Webb. Cheryl Bryce,Brenda Beckwith, and the Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team provided background information for the content of the displays. Numerous photographs were contributed and used in the display from James Miskelly, Chris Junck, Ted Lea, Brenda Beckwith, and Cheryl Bryce. The display boards were a standard graphic art project utilizing computer layout and graphics software. Upon finalization of the text and completed layout, the files were delivered to Digital Direct Printing for output to large format colour posters. A title board was designed by Magnus Bein and printed at Facilities Management. Terry Moen produced outdoor sign that was on display. The event was advertised with an ad in the student newspaper, the marlet, by direct mail, and email listserv announcements. Magnus Bein crafted the advertisement and Sarah Webb delivered to the various media outlets. Interested people were asked to register for the event especially the charette. We sought volunteers to act as team leaders, recorders, and artists for each charette break out group as well as to aid in preparation of background and handout materials. Charette structure: The charette was structured with several focus groups, each with a facilitator, written recorder, and visual recorder. All group members would be encouraged to take notes and do drawings. Each group formed around a common element of the restoration project. The groups included: • Landscaping group for design of berm, core garden, and harvest meadow areas • Field trial group to confirm experimental design for exotic perrenial grass control

including promising methods.

• Plant selection group to work out species to propagate in house, identify additional sources plant and seeds, confirm existing sources of plant stock, designate species for use on berm, core garden, harvest meadow, and trial plots.

• Education and outreach group to look at volunteer opportunities, possible events, education topics and materials, and partners.

• Adaptive management group to look at monitoring system, evaluation, orchestrating, and overall management.

Materials Every group was given a 2' by 3' base map of the restoration site, tracing paper of the same size, and flip chart paper which were cliped to a hard drawing board. They were given a copy of the restoration plan, with relevant sections tagged, and guidelines specific to their group. Each group will be given its own background documents including: questions to address and reference summaries to consider in working out guidelines and designs. Every participant was given a package containing: the open house and charette schedule and structure; a small base map; and, a private evaluation/feedback form. Planned Schedule of open house and charette Time Activity Description 12 noon to 6 pm Open house drop in. 2:40 to 3 pm Public presentation

by Gordon De Frane and Don Eastman.

Lekwungen welcome and a word from the restoration of Natural Systems Program.

3:00 pm to 3:15 pm Charette begins; introduction to charette.

Break out groups formed with pre-assigned people to act as: artist, scribe, group leader.

3:15 to 3:35 pm Group break off; clarify topic area, questions, and initial ideas.

Intro to groups: in each group the leader presents background information then group discusses plan and design questions and ideas.

3:35 to 3:50 pm Group presentations. Brief updates to whole from break out groups.

3:50 pm to 4:50 pm Group break off. Break back out into groups to devise guidelines and designs.

4:50 pm to 5:20 pm Group presentations. Each group presents guidelines and designs to whole group.

5:20 pm to 5:45 pm Piecing it together. Piece it together: work out any overlaps/conflicts.

5:45 pm to 6 pm Wrap up and thanks.

Results The open house drew in total approximately 75 people, 25 for the charette, and 50 as drop ins. Gordon De Frane and Don Eastman both gave a presentations to the public and charette participants. Gordon spoke about the First Nations connection to the UVic lands and area. Don spoke about the restoration project specifically. The charette began a few

minutes behind schedule which was later compensated, and finished with a few minutes to spare. Modifications were made to the schedule ad hoc including taking out the first group presentation period and in place of this function giving two opportunities for any participant and group to ask a question of any break-out group, announce an important point, or present to the whole group.

1. Plant Selection Group Group members: James Miskelly, Joe Antos, Pat Jonston, Tamara Bonnemaison, Carol Davies Main Points: • Propagation should be the main source of plants, and should be done by a volunteer

group, guided by the RNS program and Facilities Management in order to ensure continuity.

• Short-term plant selection should focus on common species, representative of the Garry Oak meadow, while long-term plant selection includes species at risk and rare species.

Where do we get our plants? • From legitimate sources, such as propagation, nurseries, and salvages. • Salvage and purchase would give “instant gratification”. Support local nurseries,

perhaps through a contract, to create a market demand. Shooting Stars are already available. Potentially buy out Woodland Plant Nursery.

• Propagation is the only practical way to get many plants. Is this within a reasonable budget? Where do we get seed and cuttings?

• All collections of wild seed (including species at risk) should be approved by GOERT. Draw up proposals between collectors and landowners.

• Provenance: no cultivars or bred plants. Stocks from as close to the site as possible, without artificially imposing fragmentation.

Questions of sustainability goals: • Consider the self-sustainability of the restored ecosystem. Microhabitats reduce this

potential. If the berm is created as a steep and sandy site, does this micro-climatic diversity lead to populations that are too small? Do we modify the site for species, or choose species based on the current site?

• What is the ultimate goal: botanical garden or restoration? “…self-sustaining Garry Oak community…”

• Start with the basic species, and then introduce rarer, more delicate species. Who will do the propagation and planting?

• UVSP, management must plant them. Also, a volunteer propagation team. Continuity is necessary. Who will care for plants in greenhouse during summer months? Establish an administrative structure, potentially with RNS program.

• Resources: containers, potting medium, personnel

Question period:

• Is instant gratification actually an objective? Is it aesthetic or ecological? (aesthetic)

• What about formal partnerships (contracts) with a nursery? We would miss out on the education opportunity for volunteers. Perhaps involve local high school students.

• What are the union implications? To what extent do they participate? What are the problems with mixing union and volunteer positions?

Next Steps:

• Determine whether any seed can be collected NOW. High priority. • Identify ways to reach potential volunteers. Medium priority. • Sort out administrative/union/oversight details. Medium priority. • Begin identifying sites for next year’s seed collection. Medium priority. • See “plant wish list for site” for short-term priority species for berm and

meadow. 2. Monitoring and Adaptive Management Group

Group members: Geri Poisson (RNS student), Rhonda Rose (Gardener with Facilities Management), Steve Brown (Supervisor with Facilities Management), Nancy Brown (RNS student), Steph, Thomas Munson

The role of University management: • Effective management of native ecosystems requires continuity. The University

management needs to buy into the goals, in order for the project to become part of the curriculum and in order to finance it long-term.

Proposed structure: • A new position of Campus Restoration Coordinator is established to oversee all

restoration projects on campus (oak groves, GOMRP, Mystic Vale). This individual would liaise between Facilities Management and the Academic sector, in order to

• keep aware of any issues that arise on the site, and streamline communication between all involved groups

• oversee long-term consistent and comprehensive record keeping and data-collection • establish academic integration with RNS/ES • deal with labour issues • establish volunteer programs, help provide training and channel resources • fundraising What type of monitoring already occurs on campus? • Wildlife/danger trees • Adding CWD from newly fallen oaks • IPM (monitor all types of pests)

Learn from past projects: • Native plant garden in Finnerty: not enough resources at Grounds to do maintenance. • Student help should be a part of the curriculum. {provide training: watering,

weeding, record keeping) • Design data/monitoring sheets for consistency. Compiled by Co-coordinator? Question period: Is there a board to make decisions now? Would the coordinator make the decisions or facilitate the process? How serious is Management about restoring natural areas? How can one encourage the “culture of learning” in the current structure? (it’s just a project…)

3. Field Trial Experimental Design Group

Group members: Michael, Trevor, Moss Giasson, Sara Howard, Eric Higgs, Peter Robertson Need a reasonable number of treatment plots. 14 treatments, preferably repeated ten times, each 2m2 with the center 1m2 evaluated. Too many?!! Can reduce treatments over time based on viability and available people-power.

Possible variables: Pretreatments Control *Plowing repeatedly, others have said at least five years. *Mulching: use of biodegradable mulch layers, thin and thick (*most effective) Solarization, with black and clear plastic Scalping, Herbicide (why not? See how current practices compare) Burning Irrigation Seeding Planting Continue adding components of other treatments: 4 x plow/turn (mulch) 4 x plow/turn (solarize x 4: two white, two black) 4 x plow/turn (burn) till in summer, let fallow, bring in more soil, add compost, mulch etc., till and mix… Record percent cover data. Sample water and soils. Assess soil biota and moisture retention. May be a good master’s thesis.

Question period: How powerful do we want the stats to be? Some middle ground. Aesthetics? Not necessarily important in an academic study (but the neighbours…)

4. Education and Outreach Group

Group members: Michael M’Gonigle, Rae St. Arn, Justine Stark, Pam Tudge, Carolyn McDonald, Pauline Brestvankempen

Different forms of participation: • Hands-on (planting, salvaging, harvesting): Research; Tours; Planning/charettes;

Making interpretive signage; Outreach table with university survey; Mapping (by elementary children?)

• Fundraising events: bottle drives by kids, adopt-a-tree, raffles, musical events, grant writing, camas festival, integration into class work, seasonal calendar with restoration suggestions and TEK, camas bulb traditional recipe book, pit cook, open house with celebrity keynote speaker, bbq fundraiser on cedar sticks coordinated with annual conference in longhouse

Outreach: • Community groups, neighbours, schools; Distribution of maps, integrated maps

connecting this site to other places; Municipalities; Conferences at the university, and tours; Website, and chat rooms (conservation connection); Brochures and distribution (tree free paper); Ensure volunteers stay interested. Staff to organize volunteers?; Updates in newsletter

Diverse educational activities: • Diversity of involved groups. Staff and student orientation tours of Greenspaces.;

Native plant sales; Fair-trade organic hemp t-shirts; Photography/art contest/auction; Alumni specified donation drive; Annual tree planting ceremony and media show; Adopt-a-plot

Core Values: • Cultural diversity; Biodiversity; Community building and collaboration; Connection

to past heritage; Extending project to other natural areas at Uvic Question period: • Implementation? Start with ES and move out. Grant writing. Work-studies.

Administration support. Planning for a full-time position. Response to Adaptive Management Group: “A full-time position and support from upper-level administration were discussed as necessary components to ensuring the long-term success of the project. The larger institutional and decision-making context should also be highlighted, especially considering what we have learned on this campus over the last year and the potential changes that may or may not occur. An example of a question that this aspect may address is as follows: who decides that preserving Garry Oaks is a priority for this university in the first

place? For the success and legitimacy of the project, faith must be put into the democratic process at the university-wide level. From our research, the main reason for the lack of success of these projects, or the lack of significant impact of sustainability projects is the lack of permanent institutional mechanisms that allow for the creativity, innovation, and true participation to flourish. This may go beyond the immediate scope of this project, but a question was raised as to how a “restoration coordinator” would make decisions; if they would for example consult a group or just decide. I propose a form of “restoration sub-committee” that would be accountable to a body planning system within the university that has true decision-making power and that extends beyond “operational” departments. Restoration on campus, though tangibly physical, should have a huge educational/outreach/research component, which would involve a broader cross-section of the university institutional environment. An awareness of this context is key. Cheers. "

5. Landscaping Group

Group members: Graeme Watt-graeme, Don Eastman, Eric Higgs, Stacie Harder, Rob (from Facilities Management), Lisa

Hydrology: • Changing the hydrology of the site may be the defining landscape feature. Install an

adjustable drain, instead of irreversibly blocking the existing one. This way the water level can be managed as needed to avoid flooding the new jogging trail.

Berm: • The berm is currently four to five feet relative to the north side. It can be built up

along a length that slopes toward the drain, with sinuous sides that provide micro-communities and depressions at the base for vernal pools.

• Facilities Management is ready to implement the berm building immediately. Strive for minimal impact of machinery!

Test plots: • The soil in this area is a heavy clay, and even if tilled would continually return to a

non-porous state. The west end of the area will be naturally wetter, and the east end naturally drier.

• Well-designed access trails to the trial plots are especially important in the early stages of the restoration.

• The aesthetics of the trial plots may be an issue to the neighbours. • The existing shrub/oak area may need to be managed for invasive species, to reduce

“contamination”. Over time: To what extent do we seek a transition between manicured efforts and a more naturally sustaining community? Species composition may change and stabilize over time, and how much effort will be invested to control this and maintain the rare species populations? This begs the question of whether the project is a “restoration” or a “constructed creation”. Furthermore, a meadow by definition is a seral stage, while a prairie is a climax community. If the plant communities are not changing over time, is it accurately called a meadow? Question Period:

How will herbivore damage be controlled? It may be a part of testing exposures, and the impact of disturbance. However, fencing in order to let plants establish in early years may safeguard the investment.

Participation and Policy Intrepretation The feedback from the charette, advisory group, and outreach provide guiding principles and concepts to restoration planning, design, implementation, and monitoring. The Vision, Goal, and Objectives provide overarching policy. The charette results legitimize the policy and provide refinement, priority, and new guidelines. A clear message was made to broaden ecosystem restoration with: • Integrated ecosystem planning and adaptive management at the campus including

data sharing and archiving. • A staff position with this mandate and the support of a sub-committee composed of

diverse representation from the University, neighbours, and regional community. To uphold the feedback for the site restoration a number of targets are in development to provide indicators to monitor and evaluate the project. The areas include: • Ecosystem characteristics: conserve hydrology and soils, landscape connectivity

(corridor), sink population area • Habitat types: savanna "meadow", intermitent wetland, habitat for rare plants,

blending edges with adjacent sites: garden, thicket • Use and involvement: traditional harvest site, pool for native plant propagules,

experimentation of land management and recovery, learning and demonstration It is vital to ensure the project achieves its vision, goal, and desires, and successfully maintains the communities respect. The milestones completed in conjunction with the work described by this document—the planning on various levels, consultations, and field checks—are significant. The field work, consultations, and potential of the project exemplify the opportunity of a small-scale restoration project: to contribute to both natural and social space of a community, and demonstrating changes that could occur on a larger scale.

Restoration Site Design The principle concept is to treat this area as a highly degraded site that has been converted by agriculture. Surrounding native plant communities such as the native Garry oak meadow along Gordon Head Road and Uplands Park suggest the type of vegetation and site characteristics that existed prior to disturbance. The design considers site characteristics, size of the area to be restored, and policy. It was identified through consultations and recommendations from experts that a variety of different techniques be implemented in the form of operational trials in order to gain knowledge on the most effective methods (or not) for restoring this type of area. The University has an excellent opportunity to provide valuable research to the community on the effectiveness of the above treatments if a variety of operational trials are implemented. It is advised that the site be treated according to the following recommendations. Restricting Factors and Constraints: • Eradicating agronomic grasses and weeds. • Predation by rabbits and deer. • Competition between native plants and re-colonization of invasive grasses and weeds. • To create a visual screen to the Finnerty Gardens work yard. • To re-route the jogging trail away from the work yard.

Figure: Basemap of restoration site.

Landscape Elements Trails: from bus stop past site, into Finnerty gardens; along right of way and through thicket patch; to workyard, between site and Finnerty Gardens. To the east of the site, thin the thicket of native shrubs and remove all exotic plant species. This is to allow dispersal of pollinators and other native fauna (birds). Also the intention is to promote visual penetration into and through the thicket. Control exotic animals with barriers. Exotic plants may also be controlled by barrier or a mowing strip. Berm and levee: as a blended border between site and adjacent land on North side. Blend pre-exisitng berm with field, and extend berm as a levee around the site to dam water in depression. Function as a transition to the Finnerty gardens with showy native shrubs and herbs and as buffer and visual screen to the work yard. Using topsoil, taken from as deep as possible in the stockpile, is an ideal fill. When the topsoil is laid and contoured a generous layer (15+cm) of mulch mixed with decomposed sod could top it. ??? This will be the initial planting area, in a central core of the site. It will include the berm and extend into meadow on the western end using all native plants in possession. The purpose will be to establish a dense cover of native plants to help suppress non-native species as well as a grow new plant stock for expanding the native planted area. West side and small depression: Set aside depression to west site for a wetland, once flood regime, appropriate plants, and grass removal techniques are more certain. The main field: experimental trials and eventually reclamation of the whole area. Area will be devoted to an experiment assessing the optimal soil preparation technique. When these techniques are evaluated, the best option will be implemented over the field in increments. This area is planned to be planted with camas and associated meadow species. The area could become a First Nation's site to practice harvest and management activities. Plans are in development to make this an educational aspect of the project to raise awareness of indigenous culture and create more opportunities to work together. An interesting addition would be niche habitat for insects, birds, and small mammals. This could be “homes” for native bees, bats, and birds, for instance. This could be accomplished with wooden structures and modifying woody debris.

Vegetation Plants are to selected from as local as possible sources. Ornamental and foreign ecotypes are not an option. 75 herbaceous species narrowed down to selected dry and wet site species. Shrub species were added. Herbaceous Plants for Drier Locations Yarrow Achillea millefolium

Nodding onion Allium cernuum Harvest brodiaea Brodiaea coronaria Common camas Camassia quamash Sun sedge Carex inops field chickweed Cerastium arvense California oatgrass Danthonia californica broad-leaved shootingstar Dodecatheon hendersonii woolly eriophyllum Eriophyllum lanatum Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis June grass Koeleria macrantha Spring gold Lomatium utriculatum Death-camas Zygadenus venenosus Herbaceous Plants for Wetter Locations leafy aster Aster subspicatus Great camas Camassia leichtllinii Common (blue) camas Camassia quamash hare sedge Carex tracyi Foothill sedge Carex tumulicola California oatgrass Danthonia califonrica few-flowered shootingstar Dodecatheon pulchellum blue wildrye Elymus glaucus pink fawn lily Erythronium revolutum Indian consumption plant Lomatium nudicale sticky cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis Western buttercup Rananunculus occidentalis fool's onion Triteleia hyacinthina Selected Trees and Shrubs for levee, berm, and adjacent areas outside the site: Garry oak Quercus garryana Arbutus Arbutus menziesii Western flowering dogwood

Cornus nutalii

Red flowering current Ribes sanguieum Hazel mock orange ceonthus Saskatoon berry Amelanchier orange honeysuckle Lonicera ciliosa coastal black gooseberry Ribes gummy gooseberry Ribes black raspberry Rubus trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus soopalie evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum oregon grape Mahonia spp. manzanita Arctostaphylos kinnikinik Arctostaphylos uva-ursi black hawthorn Crateagus douglasii crab apple Malus fusca Selected herbaceous plants for dry areas are intended for berme and the wetter plant list is intended for the field area. Trees will be eventually planted along the berme and levee

and a limited end of the field, the west tip of the site. Shrubs will be limited to the berme and areas separated from the main field of the site by trails.

Access and Services Trail construction: avoid interfering with surface and soil water and direct people around the site. The jogging trail should be split from the area behind the bus stop and moved to the perimeter of the meadow. This will prevent the disturbance of native vegetation found between the telephone poles to the far west of the meadow. Care should be taken to cause the least amount of disturbance when punching the trail through the mixed woodland on the east side of the site. The relocated trail is recommended to be made of sands and gravel. Elevated around 10 cm high, if possible, would be ideal. This could be a way of using some of the stock piled coarse sand. Moving drain outside site -- An additional item to deal with is the drainage near the existing trail and the bottom of one of the potentially vernal areas. It needs to be plugged. If drainage is needed for the trail it should be moved to where the trail is, or elevate the trail and make it of porous material to avoid the possible flooding. This would require a trail material of course sands or just gravel. Fences and signs: It is important after site preparation is completed to fence the landscaping and trial areas in order to prevent people, dogs, rabbits and deer from impacting the vegetation, plots, and introducing foreign seeds. Appropriate fencing should be used to keep out both rabbits and deer. Signage plays a key role in creating awareness about the project and educating the public on the significance of this restoration.

Implementation and Recommendations for Management

Site Work - Workyard construction - Trail construction and sign installation - Levee construction, blending the berme - Moving drain outside site - Exotic species identification, removal and thinning Fill material should be tested for embedded seeds by simple germination trials in the greenhouse. Spot hand trimmings of exotic flowering grasses Cut shrub in-growth at borders of site Remove exotic invasive shrubs in and around site -> in whole garry oak complex? Mowing

Baseline data collection - Soil and water sampling Soil and water need to be sampled to determine presence of any toxins or pollutants because of possible human harvest and consumption of camas bulbs. Mulches and other soil materials should be tested for any toxins. - Measures before treatment: soil, plant cover - Installation of wells and piezometers - Hydrological Monitoring: The purpose of the hydrological monitoring are: • Chart the soil water hydrograph for the site to determine the flooding and soil moisture regimes. • Determine the primary sources of water to the site: is there groundwater seepage or is the primary source precipitation? What are the directions and rates of these? Monitoring of the hydrology of the site could be accomplished with: • Initial soil measures of texture, bulk density, and porosity • wells to measure water table along two transects criss-crossing the site in the soil water and ground water layers. Wells should be installed at comparison sites such as neighbouring Garry oak thicket, wet area in south woods, and at meadow site such as Uplands park (given permission). • Piezometers could also be installed on site to determine direction and rates of ground water flow. At least three location would need to be installed, each with three piezometers at different depths.

Levee and Berme - Berme and levee planting - Also the levee may best be installed when a cover of plants, preferable native can be etstablished to minimize any erosion that may results from precipitation.

Any fast growing annual would be an ideal cover crop to apply when it starts getting moister. Also something to consider for the future is a temporary irrigation system along the length of the berm for the summer in order to help establish the native plantings (e.g. buried soaker hoses).

Field Trials Treatment directions and timing - Application of solorization plastic before Soil prep techniques, each in area of 2 by 5 square metres, replicated 8 times. Install landscape edging around plots and maintain mowing in area outside of plots. May require use of "weed-wacker" around edges. The plots will contain three planting treatments and a stake will be installed in the centre of those areas. The soil preparation techniques are: • nothing, leave areas intact but with lawn edging installed around the area • rotto-tilling to the depth of root zone (depth: 15 cm = 6 in.) • applying a leaf mulch layer (thickness: 15 cm = 6 in.) over existing grasses • cover exiting vegetation with black plastic and fix in place with pins • scalp off the rooting zone (depth: 15 cm = 6 in.) and compost sod to kill seeds and

plants • scalp and apply leaf mulch at the respective depth and thickness (15 cm = 6 in.). Planting the Field trials The experimental trial plots will have three planting treatments applied to a circular 1 m squared area, these areas will have at least a half metre buffer to the edge of the plot, to ideally eliminate edge effects. The planting treatments are: • nothing • seedlings • seeds Seeded and seedling species will be selected from the wet or dry site herbaceous species. No shrubs or trees will be planted, except with the exception of trailing/ground cover shrubs like kinnikinik and trailing blackberry. Also availability of plants from our own and commercial nursery will dictate what is available for planting. For the planting in the black plastic plots, holes will be made in the plastic in the same arrangement for every kind of treatment.

Propagation plan - Seed collection Research is needed to determine what species at risk are appropriate to the site and if it is possible to introduce them as experimental populations. Planting of rare species at the UVic site is encouraged by GOERT and the Conservation Data Centre. It is an opportunity to develop translocation techniques and provide an ex-situ seed source. A note to the BC Conservation Data Centre would be required after the species are planted. The note should indicate what was planted and where. That information can go into their database so that there is a permanent record that these are experimental (rather than natural) populations.

Collections of wild seed (including species at risk) should selected in consultation with specialists at GOERT.

Maintenance, care, and management needs The consultations, field visits, and application of best knowledge contributed to accomplishments and reveal some next steps. Among the accomplishments are: • Submission of the site restoration proposal resulted with the conditional approval and

support by the institution. • Completing the mandatory open house, which satisfied conditions of approval, and a

charette that allowed design, detailing, and verification of the proposed restoration succeeded in placing the project to this stage.

The results of these actions are many: budget allocation, staff-pride, community confidence, identification of follow-up areas, and permission to go forward. At this stage, consent has been expressed by the institution and community and places the project at a strategic point. With such a multi-faceted project, implementation and management should prove challenging—yet achievable if these the next steps are carried forward: • Submit go-ahead and schematic drawings of site preparation to Facilities

Management to begin site work. The approval and drawings are needed to create an appropriate levee, place and construct a new trail conducive to the plans, design planting areas so they are attractive with landscaping such as rocks, wood, small animal structures (e.g. bat house) and robust with barriers to invasive species, suitable planting mixes and densities. This will be completed on the basis of an honorarium and the advisory committee in the meantime of the following step.

• Establish a position to oversee restoration planning, monitoring, and facilitation, and interface with partners, institutional units, and public. This would be a part-time yet regular job for the site.

• The next step, extending the capacity of the position, is the development of a budget and work plan. It would enable restoration project management, including the educational and outreach thread and allocating staff and proposed volunteer involvement.

• Activation of the education and outreach program is needed to succeed in the cultural and social aspect of restoration. For the site this would include not only information like reports or signs, but entry points for students through class work and for the community through volunteering. This capacity could be satisfied on a project or even program and campus scale.

• Another area that could serve a wider scale or just the site itself is a propagation program. The program would nurture native vegetation from propagules within the campus’s providence as much as possible for out-planting. Species at risk would be given special attention.

• Arrange an experiment design for the reclamation treatments of the site, sampling of seed bank and soil-water quality, and long-term hydrological monitoring points are key to a long-term adaptive management. These would give an indication of

promising measures the control exotic species, successful native species, and other results of the project.

• Institution of adaptive management for the project and possibly a larger scale is necessary for the sustainability and meaningful contribution to other practitioners and sites.

It is now vital to ensure the project achieves its vision, goal, and desires, and successfully maintains the communities respect. The milestones completed in conjunction with the work described by this document—the planning on various levels, consultations, and field checks—are significant. The field work, consultations, and potential of the project exemplify the opportunity of a small-scale restoration project: to contribute to both natural and social space of a community, and demonstrating changes that could occur on a larger scale.

References Blyth, H.E. And N.W. Rutter. 1993. Surficial geology of Sidney area, NTS 92B/11,

1:50,000. Province of BC, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Geological Survey Branch, Open File 1993-24.

Capital Region District. 2004. Natural Areas Atlas. Victoria, British Columbia. Accessed at <http://www.crd.bc.ca/es/natatlas/> on March 8, 2003.

Caskey, M. and M. Henigman. 2002. Audit of Selected Polygons of the SensitiveEcosystems Inventory of East Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands, 1999 – 2001.Ecosystems Section, Environmental Stewardship Division, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Victoria, BC.

Ecosystems Working Group, Terrestrial Ecosystems Tasks Force. 1998. Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia. Resources Inventory Committee, Province of British Columbia.

Erikson, W. 1993. Garry Oak Ecosystems: Ecosystems in British Columbia at risk Brochure. Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C.

Erikson, W. 1995. Classification and Interpretation of Garry Oak (Quercus garryana) Plant Communities and Ecosystems in Southwestern British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Victoria, B.C.

Fuchs, M. A. 2001. Towards a Recovery Strategy for Garry Oak and Associated Ecosystems in Canada: Ecological Assessment and Literature Review. Technical Report GBEI/EC-00-030. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region.

Green, R. N. and K. Klinka. 1994. A Field Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Vancouver Forest Region. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Research Program.

G.O.E.R.T. 2002. Recovery Strategy for Garry Oak and Associated Ecosystems and their Associated Species at Risk in Canada, 2001-2006 (Draft 20 February 2002). Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team, Victoria, B.C.

Dingman, S. L. 2002. Physical Hydrology. Second Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Environment Canada. 2004. Canadian Climate Normals. Available: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/climate/climate_normals/ (Accessed: March 6, 2004).

Ketcheson, M. V., K. L. Kromm, M. D. Wainwright. 1975. Mapping the Vegetational history of the UVic Campus. UVic Herbarium. Victoria, British Columbia.

Lea, T. 2002. Historical Garry Oak Ecosystems of Greater Victoria and Saanich Peninsula. 1:20,000 Map. Terrestrial Information Branch, B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Victoria, B.C.

Monahan, P.A. And V.M. Geo. 2000. Quaternary Geological Map of Greater Victoria. Geo Science Map 2002-2, Sheets 1 & 2, 1:25,000, Geological Survey Branch, Victoria, BC.

Muller, J.E. 1980. Geology of Victoria, map 1553A, 1:100,000. Geological Survey of Canada.

Nuszdorfer, F. C., K. Klinka, and D. A. Demarchi. 1991. Chapter 5: Coastal Douglas-fir Zone. Pp. 81-93. In Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar, (eds), Ecosystems of British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC.

Turner, N. 2002. Home Place: Campus and its Coast Salish Heritage. UVic Torch Alumni Magazine 23(2): 36.

University of Victoria. 1990. Sheet 5 and 6. UTM Zone 10, Scale 1:1,000. Pacific International Mapping. Victoria, BC.

Beckwith, B. 2002. Colonial Eden or Indeginous Cultivated Landscape: Reconstructing Nineteenth Century Camada Meadoes on Southern Vancouver Island. Pp. 64-72. In: Burton, P. J. (ed.), Garry Oak Ecosystem Restoration: Progress and Prognosis, Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the B.C. Chapter of Society for Ecological Restoration, April 27-28, 2002, University of Victoria. B.C. Chapter of the Society for Ecological Restoration, Victoria, BC.

Maxwell, R. 2002. Soils Investigation of Garry Oak Restoration Sites at the University of Victoria. Soils review for Facilities Management. Unpublished Material.

Maxwell, R. Giasson, M. 2002. Soil Mapping for the Garry Oak Restoration Project. Municipality of Saanich, Victoria, B.C. Unpublished Material.