A Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park

Mill Hill Regional Park Restoration Plan

October 2003

“The mission of every ecological restoration project is to re-establish a functional ecosystem of a designated type that contains sufficient biodiversity to continue its maturation by natural processes and to evolve over longer time spans in response to changing environmental conditions” — Society for Ecological Restoration

Vision Statement

CRD Parks is committed to protecting the land in regional parks. This restoration plan commits CRD Parks to going a step beyond protection and stewardship, to reverse the legacy of decades of human impact.

The vision for Mill Hill Regional Park is of a place with restored native ecosystems free of invasive species and with healthy, self-sustaining populations of rare plants. Natural processes in the park and surrounding areas will be sustained through ecosystem integrity. Mill Hill is an important remnant of the native ecosystems that historically covered much of the eastern portion of what is now the Capital Region. CRD Parks will meet this parks protection mandate by ensuring that these valuable natural areas persist and evolve.

The process of restoring Mill Hill Regional Park will be a learning one for CRD Parks, and lessons learned here will be applied to the protection and restoration of the environment in other regional parks. It will also be a learning experience for park visitors and neighbours, who will be encouraged to become active supporters of ecosystem restoration in parks and natural areas throughout the region.

Mill Hill Regional Park Restoration Plan Page i October 2003 Executive Summary

Ecological restoration is defined as the process of recovering and managing ecological integrity1. The restoration of ecosystems is a complex process, and a planned approach – such as developing a formal restoration plan – is more effective than a piecemeal one, in economic as well as ecological terms. CRD Parks is undertaking the restoration of Mill Hill Regional Park for the following reasons: • Protecting and maintaining the natural environment is the primary strategic direction in the CRD Parks Master Plan (CRD Parks 2000); • Mill Hill is an important remnant of the native ecosystems that historically covered much of the eastern portion of what is now the Capital Region, and it is home to a number of rare species that are impacted by the park’s current degraded state; • Actions around plan development and on-the-ground restoration will serve as templates for future restoration work in other CRD regional parks; and • As public interest in protecting the natural environment grows, public expectations of park management change. Regional parks users are now demanding a higher standard of natural areas management, and their expectations are beginning to encompass restoration or rehabilitation of degraded natural areas. The restoration of Mill Hill Regional Park will require a long-term commitment by CRD Parks. The park's ecosystems have been degraded over many decades, and such disturbances will not be remedied overnight.

Purpose The Mill Hill Regional Park Restoration Plan is a technical and scientific document to be used by CRD Parks staff to guide ecosystem restoration.

Goals The primary goals of a restoration plan for Mill Hill Regional Park are: • To restore and sustain the ecological integrity of the park’s ecosystems (including ecosystem processes); and

• To halt the loss and restore populations of all rare and endangered plant species occurring within the park. Our supporting goals are: • To provide leadership in ecological restoration in the Capital Regional District;

• To encourage partnerships in restoration efforts; and

1 Ecosystems in regional parks have ecological integrity when they have their native components intact, including: physical elements (e.g., water and rocks), biodiversity (i.e., composition and abundance of species and communities in an ecosystem) and ecosystem processes, the engine that makes the ecosystem work (e.g., fire, water cycle and predation).

Mill Hill Regional Park Restoration Plan Page ii October 2003 • To foster public understanding of, and support for, our restoration goals and for restoration in general.

While the primary goals of this restoration plan are long-term, the specific projects described here will take place during - or commence in - the first three years of work (i.e., Phase I, 2002-2004). Preparatory work, such as the collection of certain baseline data, will also take place during this phase.

Key recommendations This report makes a number of recommendations for undertaking the successful restoration of Mill Hill Regional Park. The key recommendations are summarised here. 1. Set realistic and attainable restoration tasks and objectives. 2. Use an adaptive management approach, including a science-based and ecosystem- based restoration work, and involve parks users. 3. Seek directed, task-specific funding (external and/or internal) on an annual basis in order to ensure completion of Phase I by the end of 2004. Budgets should be drafted and funds applied for well in advance of the desired start date of each task. 4. Seek partnerships with other groups and agencies (e.g., the Restoration of Natural Systems program at the University of Victoria, Victoria Natural History Society, Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team, local First Nations) should be pursued and fostered. 5. Use a multi-service area approach to restoration. 6. Take this opportunity to be a restoration leader. Innovative projects, such as the development of an interpretive program on restoration and research into the use of fire or fire surrogates as management tools, should be implemented. The results of our restoration projects should be published so that our successes are shared with other groups and agencies. 7. Treat the restoration of Mill Hill Regional Park as a learning experience. A summary report needs to be prepared in 2004, reviewing achievements and assessing weaknesses of the restoration plan’s first phase, and providing recommendations on how to move ahead with Phase II.

Mill Hill Regional Park Restoration Plan Page iii October 2003

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 What is Ecosystem Restoration? ...... 1 1.2 The steps in restoration planning ...... 1 1.3 How was this Restoration Plan prepared? ...... 1 1.4 Why a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park? ...... 2 1.5 Overview of Restoration Issues Facing the Park ...... 5 1.6 Purpose of a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park ...... 6 1.7 Goals of a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park ...... 6 1.8 Objectives of a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park...... 7 1.9 Project Duration and Time Frame (Phase I)...... 7

2.0 Detailed Site Description...... 9 2.1 General Site Description and Boundaries (including Mill Hill Regional Park’s broader context)...... 9 2.2 Pre-project Collection of Baseline Data ...... 11 2.3 Reference Ecosystems, or What Are We Restoring To? ...... 12

3.0 Approaches...... 13 3.1 Adaptive Management ...... 13 3.2 Setting Priorities...... 13

4.0 Implementation ...... 16 4.1 Work Plans and Outcomes ...... 16 4.2 Funding Requirements...... 17 4.3 Human Resource Requirements...... 17 4.4 Permitting Requirements...... 17 4.5 Equipment Needs ...... 17 4.6 Biotic Resource Needs ...... 17 4.7 Ecological and Logistical Constraints...... 18 4.8 Communications ...... 18 4.9 Target Audiences for Outreach...... 19

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Restoration...... 20

6.0 Acknowledgements...... 22

7.0 Literature Cited ...... 23

Mill Hill Regional Park Restoration Plan Page iv October 2003

8.0 Appendices ...... 25

Appendix 1 Steps in Setting up a Restoration Project

Appendix 2 List of Workshop Attendees, Developing a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park, 12 April 2002

Appendix 3 Broom Density in Mill Hill Regional Park

Appendix 4 Invasive alien plants found in Mill Hill Regional Park

Appendix 5 Rare plants on Record at the B.C. Conservation Data Centre as Occurring or Historically Occurring at Mill Hill Regional Park

Appendix 6 Steps in an Adaptive Management Approach

Appendix 7 Best Practices for Control of Scotch Broom

Appendix 8 Inventory of Rare Plants on the Eastern Slopes of Mill Hill Regional Park

Appendix 9 Proposed work plan and budget for Habitat Stewardship Program funds

Appendix 10 HCTF proposal for developing a restoration plan for Millstream Creek

Appendix 11 CRD Parks Communications Checklist

Appendix 12 Workshop Report

Mill Hill Regional Park Restoration Plan Page v October 2003 1.0 Introduction

1.1 What is Ecosystem Restoration? According to the Society for Ecological Restoration, restoration is "the process of assisting the recovery and management of ecological integrity. Ecological integrity 1 includes a critical range of variability in biodiversity, ecological processes and structures, regional and historical context, and sustainable cultural practices". Restoration can take place in a broad range of ecosystems - from saltwater marshes to alpine meadows - and the techniques applied are as diverse as the ecosystems themselves.

The goal of a well-planned restoration project is to re-establish a functioning ecosystem (or interconnected series of ecosystems) that contains sufficient biodiversity to continue having natural processes unfold, and, through these processes, to keep evolving in response to changing environmental conditions. Recovering ecological integrity should be at the heart of every restoration project.

1.2 The steps in restoration planning Ecological restoration is a complex process, and a concerted, planned approach is preferable to addressing conservation issues in a piecemeal manner. Current approaches to ecosystem restoration in our province have been summarised in Ground work: basic concepts of ecological restoration in British Columbia (Gayton 2001). The restoration plan for Mill Hill Regional Park will follow Gayton’s “Steps in Setting up a Restoration Project” (Appendix 1).

1.3 How was this Restoration Plan prepared? The process for preparing a restoration plan for Mill Hill Regional Park is outlined in “Project Description, Mill Hill Regional Park Restoration Plan” (CRD Parks 2002). This document provides an ecological and organisational context for the restoration of Mill Hill, and describes how the restoration plan should be developed.

CRD Parks held a one-day expert workshop, Developing a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park, in April 2002. Workshop attendees were provided in advance with relevant background documents, including a draft Table of Contents for this report and the Project Description for the restoration planning process. Participants performed a detailed review of the proposed restoration plan via its draft Table of Contents, and provided input on applying general restoration principles to the ecological problems at Mill Hill Regional Park. Workshop attendees included ecologists, restoration experts, and employees of CRD Parks and CRD Water. Participants were affiliated with a range of agencies, including the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the District of Langford, the Garry Oak Ecosystems

1 Recovery Team, the Garry Oak Meadow Preservation Society, and an ecological consulting firm. (See Appendix 2 for a complete list of workshop attendees.)

Apart from the workshop, information for this restoration plan was compiled from a wide range of sources, including: • Observations and field data compiled by CRD Parks staff; • Rare element occurrences from the BC Conservation Data Centre; • Personal communications with experts; • Unpublished reports; and • Scientific literature. These sources are described in detail in the relevant sections of this report, and are referenced in the Literature Cited and Appendices.

1.4 Why a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park? There four key reasons for implementing a restoration plan for Mill Hill Regional Park (MHRP).

1. Protecting and maintaining the natural environment is the primary strategic direction in the CRD Parks Master Plan (CRD Parks 2000).

2. Mill Hill is an important remnant of the native ecosystems that historically covered much of the eastern portion of what is now the Capital Region, and it is home to a number of rare species (i.e., those that are federally and/or provincially listed) that are impacted by the park’s current degraded state.

3. Actions around plan development and on-the-ground restoration will serve as templates for future restoration work in other CRD regional parks.

4. As public interest in protecting the natural environment grows, public expectations of park management change. Regional parks users are now demanding a higher standard of natural areas management, and their expectations are beginning to encompass restoration or rehabilitation of degraded natural areas. This desire for a healthy natural environment in our parks has been captured in the CRD Parks Master Plan, which was based upon extensive public consultation throughout the Capital Region.

CRD Parks Master Plan According to the CRD Parks Master Plan, the role of CRD Parks is two-fold:

• To establish and protect a network of regional parks in perpetuity that represent and help maintain the diverse range of natural environments in the Capital Regional District; and, • To provide opportunities for outdoor experiences and activities that foster appreciation, enjoyment and respect of the region's natural environment.

2 The Master Plan states that “restoring/repairing damaged natural environments” (p. 67) is one way for CRD Parks to accomplish this objective.

Mill Hill Regional Park is categorised in the Master Plan as a Regional Conservation Area. Regional Conservation Areas have regionally significant natural environments that contain sensitive and threatened ecosystems and rare or endangered plant and wildlife species, and the primary purpose of parks under this classification is protection of the natural environment. This classification, and the Master Plan in general, supports the choice of Mill Hill Regional Park as a candidate for ecological restoration.

A learning experience CRD Parks has no previous experience with undertaking restoration work of the magnitude that will be required at Mill Hill Regional Park. Another reason to select Mill Hill Regional Park as a restoration candidate is because of its appropriateness as an “entry level” restoration project. It is among the best-studied of the CRD’s parks, and its relatively small area (58 ha) means that the sites to be restored can be of a manageable size. Finally, Mill Hill Regional Park enjoys high conservation values, as it is home to several populations of rare or endangered plants and red-listed Garry oak (Quercus garryana) ecosystems (see below). These conservation values must be managed if they are to be maintained.

Conservation Value Due to its ecological significance, much of the land base within Mill Hill Regional Park has been mapped by the BC Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory2 (SEI; Figure 1). The ecosystem types on the hillsides and hilltop of the park, dominated by Garry oak ecosystems and their associated rock outcrops, are particularly at risk. These ecosystems are part of the Coastal Douglas Fir biogeoclimatic zone but make up only a small proportion of it overall. The CDF zone itself occupies a mere 0.3% of British Columbia's land base (Conservation Data Centre [CDC] 1993).

Garry oak ecosystems are included in the SEI Woodlands category (and to a lesser extent in the Coastal Bluff, Terrestrial Herbaceous and Sparsely Vegetated categories). These are among the most endangered ecosystems in Canada, with only 1-5% of the province's original oak habitat remaining in near-natural condition (Hebda and Aitkens 1993, Westland Resource Group 1999a).

Garry oak and associated ecosystems are also home to over 90 individual species that have been designated by the CDC as "at risk" in British Columbia, and the ecosystems themselves are red-listed3 by the Province (Table 1). Twenty-four of the designated species are threatened or endangered throughout their global range, and 21 species are

2 The SEI of East Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands commenced in 1993 "in response to an urgent need for inventory information on rare and fragile ecosystems, to support sound land use planning decisions" (Ward et al. 1998). It systematically identified and mapped the "ecologically significant and relatively unmodified sensitive terrestrial ecosystems" in BC's coastal lowlands areas. 3 Under the provincial system, red-listed species or ecosystems are those assessed as being extirpated, endangered or threatened in BC. Blue-listed species or ecosystems are those considered vulnerable to human activity.

3 listed by COSEWIC as nationally at risk (Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team [GOERT] 2001). Many more of these species are likely candidates for COSEWIC listing upon assessment. Populations of Sericocarpus rigidus, Balsamorhiza deltoidea, and Sanicula bipinnatifida occur at Mill Hill (CRD Parks 2001), and these plants are among the threatened or endangered Garry oak associates listed by COSEWIC. Other rare and endangered organisms, now extirpated in the region, likely occurred there in the past.4

Table 1. Rare natural plant communities occurring in Mill Hill Regional Park and their provincial rarity status (Source: BC Conservation Data Centre 2000).

Scientific Name Common Name Provincial TEM Park List or map Rarity symbol Quercus garryana / Garry oak / California Red GB Mill Bromus carinatus brome Hill, Thetis Quercus garryana / Garry oak / oceanspray Red GO Mill Holodiscus discolor Hill, Thetis Thuja plicata – Western redcedar – Red RK Francis- Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas-fir / Oregon King, Kindbergia oregana beaked moss Mill Hill

Coastal Douglas-fir ecosystems are among those tracked by the CDC, and older forest (OF), such as the Douglas-fir forest found in Mill Hill Regional Park, has also been mapped by the Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory. Older forests are not necessarily old- growth (never logged) forests - although there are old growth Douglas-fir at Mill Hill - but the two categories may overlap as OF is predominantly comprised of trees >100 years old. This minimum age for OF has been selected because many features associated with the high biodiversity values of older forests begin to develop after about 80 years. OF is classed as sensitive due to its rarity, its high biodiversity, and the fact that many species are dependent upon or associated with habitat features that are only found in forests comprised of older trees.

A small portion of Mill Hill Regional Park is comprised of mixed second growth forest. Second growth is ecologically important as essential habitat areas for many wildlife species, and also acts as a connection between ecosystems in a highly fragmented landscape. In addition, second growth forest acts as a buffer between developed areas and rarer systems, and has potential to become older forest with its higher biodiversity values (Ward et al. 1998).

4 Extirpated species associated with Garry oak ecosystems on southern Vancouver Island include the island marble butterfly (Euchloe ausonides), Lewis' woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta).

4 Figure 1 - SEI Polygons of Mill Hill Regional Park and Surrounding Area

LEGEND

Capital Regional District Natural Areas Atlas The SEI has identified 9 polygons5 within Mill Hill Regional Park. None of these are fully enclosed within the park's boundaries. The mapped areas in the park predominantly consist of mixed stands of Garry oak woodland and terrestrial herbaceous/rock outcrop ecosystems. Older forests (OF) are the second most common mapped ecosystems and are found at the northern end of the park. These are comprised of OF:co (i.e., coniferous) and OF:mx (i.e., conifer with >15% broadleaf component). The Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory has also mapped a small riparian-mature forest polygon along Millstream Creek at the park's south-east boundary. The fact that none of the mapped polygons are fully enclosed by the park's boundaries underscores the difficulties in recovering entire ecosystems, and highlights the need for protected areas to be delineated using ecological concepts rather than cadastral lines.

1.5 Overview of Restoration Issues Facing the Park The restoration issues and challenges facing Mill Hill Regional Park are: • Park size that is too small to sustain populations of certain organisms, in conjunction with loss of bordering non-park areas that have historically acted as buffer zones or areas of contiguous habitat; • Difference between management approaches on adjacent lands and those held by CRD Parks; • Encroachment of invasive exotic species of plants and animals which compete with and replace native organisms and/or alter ecosystem processes; • Potential impairment of creek water quality, originating primarily outside of park boundaries; • Extirpation of rare, indigenous organisms; • Park boundaries that cut through ecosystems rather than incorporating them in their entirety; • Residential development directly adjacent to the park with no allowance for natural area buffers; • Increased use of the park, including unofficial trail use, for a wide range of outdoor recreation; • More intensive recreation uses in the park; and • Maintenance and upgrade of eroding trails that do not adequately consider the protection of rare plants and ecosystems

These restoration issues may be further complicated by proposed future development bordering the park.

The key subject areas for restoration activity in Mill Hill Regional Park itself include:

5 Polygons CO572, CO573, CO575, CO576, CO577, C0577A, CO577B, CO578, CO579, SEI map no.92B.043 (CDC 1997).

5 • Controlling or removing introduced plants, particularly in the park's red-listed Garry oak ecosystems, where invasive plant species pose a serious threat to plant species-at-risk, and to the ecosystems themselves (CRD Parks 2001, Fuchs 2001, GOERT 2001); • Maintaining or recovering those species-at-risk (including taking steps to minimise deer browse of certain species, e.g., deltoid balsamroot Balsamorhiza deltoidea); • Addressing riparian and in-stream degradation in the park’s section of Millstream Creek; • Addressing concomitant water quality issues in the creek; • Addressing the need for maintenance or management actions that mimic the historical disturbance regimes; and • Dealing with severe erosion or compaction by foot and mountain bike traffic in trail and off-trail areas.

In addition, the control of certain introduced vertebrates (i.e., eastern grey squirrel Sciurius carolinensis, which consume acorns and camas bulbs, and may compete for habitat with native red squirrels Tamiascurius hudsonicus; Fuchs 2001) needs to be investigated. Other important restoration issues will likely come to light as a result of restoration work.

1.6 Purpose of a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park The Mill Hill Restoration Plan is a technical and scientific document to be used by CRD Parks to guide ecosystem restoration.

1.7 Goals of a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park The primary goals of a restoration plan for Mill Hill Regional Park are: • To restore and sustain the ecological integrity of the park’s ecosystems (including ecosystem processes); and

• To encourage partnerships in restoration efforts; and

• To foster public understanding of, and support for, our restoration goals and for restoration in general.

6 1.8 Objectives of a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park This restoration plan will take place over a number of years (see 1.8, Project Duration and Time Frame, below). The following objectives are those that will be met within the first phase of restoration work.

• To use an adaptive management approach where possible; • To maintain current populations of plant species-at-risk through removal of invasive alien plant species and addressing other threats, e.g., deer browsing on deltoid balsamroot; • To remove reproductive-age broom from all Garry oak ecosystems in the park; • To remove all cut broom from the park (cut broom piled on the ground leaches phytotoxins into the soil and eliminates plant growth on the site for several years; T. Ennis, pers. comm.); • To remove all reproductive-age daphne (Daphne laureola) from the park’s Garry oak ecosystems; • To determine short-term responses of plant species-at-risk populations to removal of invasive exotic plants from their immediate habitat; • To locate any previously undiscovered populations of plant species-at-risk in the park, and set invasives removal priorities accordingly; • To begin a program to monitor the responses of invasive exotic plants to removal treatments; • To recruit park visitors and neighbours as passive or active (i.e., volunteers) supporters of ecosystem restoration in Mill Hill Regional Park and of ecosystem restoration in general; • To develop and install interpretive signage informing park visitors about the restoration work and GOEs in general; • To undertake a field assessment and develop a detailed restoration plan for Millstream Creek’s riparian corridor within Mill Hill Regional Park, and to move ahead on the plan’s recommendations; • To develop recommendations for the construction of trails in ecologically sensitive areas; • To map unofficial trails within the park; and • To develop techniques to restore eroded areas along official trails (e.g., cut-across switchbacks) and to reverse erosion in the most impacted areas.

1.9 Project Duration and Time Frame (Phase I) The restoration of Mill Hill Regional Park will require a long-term commitment by CRD Parks. Park ecosystems have been degraded over a period of decades, and such disturbances will not be remedied overnight.

Short-term restoration projects also tend to cost more than long-term ones (Clewell et al. 2000). This is because longer-term work can rely upon ecosystem processes to provide some of the restoration “labour.” For example, small plantings can be allowed to grow into larger ones over time, or additional time and expense can be incurred in order to plant mature vegetation right away. Young trees (e.g., alder) can be planted and allowed to grow, eventually eliminating shade-intolerant invasives such as blackberry, or workers can return to a site many times and manually eliminate undesirable plant species. In some cases, a more labour-intensive approach is necessary or desirable, while in other situations it will be more prudent to allow nature to perform key restoration objectives.

While the goals of this restoration plan are long-term, the projects described here will take place during - or commence in - the first three years of work (i.e., Phase I, 2002- 2004). Preparatory work (e.g., collection of certain baseline data) will also take place during this phase. Phase II will be defined following an assessment of Phase I.

8 2.0 Detailed Site Description 2.1 General Site Description and Boundaries (including Mill Hill Regional Park’s broader context) Ecosystems Mill Hill Regional Park occurs in the moist maritime subzone of the Coastal Douglas-fir (CDFmm) biogeoclimatic zone in the Nanaimo Lowlands ecosection.6 Within the park are found Garry oak and associated ecosystems, maturing Douglas fir forest, and the riparian corridor of Millstream Creek. These ecosystems have been mapped in detail by CRD Parks, using the Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) methodology (Figure 2).

Regional hydrology and watershed boundaries The Millstream watershed drains approximately 26 km2 of the lands between Saanich Inlet and Esquimalt Harbour (Figure 3). The upper 60% of the watershed, within the District of Highlands, is primarily rural, while the lower 40% lies within the urban municipalities of Langford, Colwood and View Royal. The stream channel varies considerably throughout the watershed, and includes a number of canyons, cascades, and waterfalls. Within Mill Hill Regional Park, the creek’s channel is wide and meanders across a flood plain. The entire land base of the park drains into Millstream Creek. For further details on the watershed’s physical features, see the Millstream Watershed Management Plan (Westland Resource Group 1999b).

Brief description of watershed management plan The Millstream Watershed Management Plan (Westland Resource Group 1999b) was developed by a multi-stakeholder forum convened by the Capital Regional District. The group identified the following goals for watershed management: 1. Landowners, residents, community groups and businesses will understand and support stewardship of the watershed; 2. Municipalities, the CRD, and provincial and federal governments will develop and use regulatory and management tools to improve the health of the watershed; 3. Water flows will be managed to optimise groundwater recharge and summer flows, and minimise flood damage, while maintaining the natural integrity of the watercourse; 4. Surface and groundwater quality will be protected from human impacts; 5. The watershed will contain healthy aquatic ecosystems to support fish, wildlife and biodiversity; and 6. Native flora and fauna will be protected and restored throughout the watershed wherever feasible.

Thus, restoration of Mill Hill Regional Park fits within the management goals for the Millstream watershed.

6Although most zones in the Biogeoclimatic classification system are described with more than one subzone, only moist maritime (mm) is mapped within CDF ecosystems.

9 Political or jurisdictional boundaries As mentioned above, the Millstream watershed falls within the boundaries of four districts or municipalities (Langford, View Royal, Colwood, Highlands). The watershed falls fully within the CRD’s boundaries, and the Province and the Federal Government have jurisdiction over various fisheries issues within the stream and its riparian zone.

Mill Hill Regional Park itself, of course, falls under the jurisdiction of the Capital Regional District, although two small municipal parks are contiguous with the regional park to its west (see Figure 2). The park is bordered to the north by Highway 1 and by lands owned by the City of Victoria. The land on its east and west is privately held, with the exception of the above-mentioned municipal parks. As the majority of the lands adjacent to Mill Hill Regional Park are held privately, it is very likely that further development will occur on the park’s boundaries, and that park use will increase as a result.

Current and historic land use Human activity took place in the vicinity of the park long before the arrival of European settlers, as evidenced by the presence of a shell midden and the discovery of various aboriginal artefacts in the area (Crocker 2000; B. Beckwith, pers. comm.). Since the time European settlers arrived in the region, there has been a history of industrial and other modern activity at Mill Hill. In 1848, the Hudson's Bay Company built a water mill at the mouth of Millstream (then Rowe's Stream) Creek, where it ran until 1855. The stream was also used during the period as a fresh water source for British naval ships. One hundred years later, in 1948, a federal forestry facility (for the study of forest insects) was constructed at Mill Hill, and a year later the provincial Forest Service's Langford District started up a fire suppression camp nearby. Water for the facilities seems to have been pumped from Millstream Creek at its closest point to the access road, and a road led from the forest district camp to a lookout tower at the top of Mill Hill.

In 1980, the former federal building was renovated and became the CRD Parks' offices. New offices were constructed in 1990 and are still on the site of the forestry facility. The parking lot for the park itself appears to be situated on the footprint of the old fire camp, while the foundation of the fire lookout still remains at the Mill Hill summit. The Auburn Trail, Mill Hill Regional Park's main hilltop access trail, follows the old roadbed that once led up to the lookout tower (Crocker 2000).

In 1976, the provincial government approved an application to lease Mill Hill for a public park (Crocker 2000), and since that date the park has been added to through purchase or transfer of various segments from the Province in 1981 and 1991. Then in 1997 the Provincial Capital Commission agreed to a long-term lease of land along the north- western boundary and extending to the Trans Canada Highway. The park continues to grow, with lands to the east of the park - originally slated for residential development - transferred to CRD Parks in 2001. The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) was a partner in the recent purchase and holds a conservation covenant on this 8 ha addition. Acquisition efforts for adjacent sites on the west side of Mill Hill are ongoing, with a goal of bringing the surrounding unprotected ecosystems into the park.

10 hetis2vke egionl2rk

r ns 2g n d 2 rw yF2

vngvist222hrive

will2rill egionl2rk

will2rill2nd2gedr2le 5 wuniipl2rks

willstrem

greek wuniiplity2of2vngfordown2of2iew2oyl

qlloping qoose egionl ril

vegend

fuilding ivers uin vkeD2reservoirD2ostline rn2eres od piring2nge wotorwy pormline poot2fridges gontours restles2G2unnels od tremD2wetlnd rking2ere ins2 sntermittent2trem ilwy etk esonlly2plooded2ere tility2vines wmplvi ryst ew2h g egionl2rk rive roposed2eddition2to2will2rill2egionl2rk

wossy2rok2outrop2nd2medowsD2my ontin2some2qrry2ok2nd2rutus qrry2ok2eosystems2on2roky2outroppingsD2my ontin2medow2resD2rutus2nd2sttered2houglsEfirs histured2res iosystems2of2will2rill2egionl hry2houglsEfir2forest2on2rok2nd2shllow2soilsD2rutus ndGor2qrry2ok2present rk2nd2edjent2eres vkesD2ponds2nd2open2wter iprin2@stremEsideA2onifer2forest x wmps houglsEfir2G2sll2forest2with2rok2outroppings RWH2etkins2evenue @PSHA2RUVEQQRR2telF itoriD2fg @PSHA2RUVESRIT2fx Wf2PV houglsEfir2sll2G2yregon2grpe2mediumEwet2forest eX2gheudpinFom2222wwwFrdFFprks houglsEfir2sll2G2yregon2grpe2with2pokets2of2moist2forest le2I2X2THHH woistD2nutrient2rih2houglsEfir2forest2on2lower2slopes SH H SH IHH ISH weters truturl2tge2UD2forest2older2thn2PSH2yers lot2hteX2eptemer2RD2PHHI222222eX22hetisemPFpr2GGR2vRGGmhillddtnFps Plot Date: August 11, 2003 - Map Document: Mill_Hill_Restoration_Project_Overview_Map.mxd Map Document: 2003 - 11, PlotDate: August

Major Roads Figure 3: Roads Millstream Creek Watershed Water Features and Mill Hill Regional Park Municipal Boundaries Millstream Creek Watershed Boundary Federal Park Provincial Park

0250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Regional Park Meters Municipal Park Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator - Zone 10 North North American Datum 1983

Durrance

Lake Pease Lake

Oldfield Road

Third Lake Killarney Lake Focus Area Mount Work Second Regional Park Lake Lone Tree Fork Hill Lake t Regional

e Park l District of n

I Highlands Prospect h Lake c Mitchell Lake i Fizzle District of n Lake a a Saanich S Gowlland/Tod Provincial Park

Millstream Creek

Watershed Maltby Lake

Teanook Lake Pike Lake Matsan Lake Francis/King Regional Park Mount Finlayson Provincial Sooke Hills Park Wilderness Thetis Lake Regional Regional Park Park Reserve Town of

Goldstream View Royal M Provincial i ll Upper Park s Lower t Thetis r e Lake Thetis a Lake m

C r District of e Portage Florence e Inlet Langford k Lake

Mill Hill Regional Park Humpback Reservoir Langford Lake Sooke Hills Esquimalt Wilderness Harbour

Regional Colwood Lake Park Reserve City of Jacklin Road Colwood Township of

Glen Lake Esquimalt

Logging, in the form of high-grading to remove the largest Douglas-fir, took place in the general area of Thetis Lake starting in 1865. Land was commonly burned after logging in order to clear it for agriculture, and in 1880, a fire started in this manner burned from the west side of Thetis Lake down to the Millstream Creek estuary in Esquimalt Harbour. The northern part of what is now Mill Hill Park was burned at that time, and may have subsequently been grazed by livestock (CRD Parks 2001). It is estimated that some parts of the park were logged in the 1930s, though the logging must have been incomplete as much of the forested land remaining at Mill Hill contains trees that are well over 100 years old (CRD Parks 2001).

2.2 Pre-project Collection of Baseline Data Baseline data on a range of parameters already exist for Mill Hill Regional Park, and this information will only be summarised here.

Ecological information Comprehensive and up-to-date ecological information for Mill Hill Regional Park has been gathered into a single report, the Ecological Inventory of Thetis Lake, Francis/King and Mill Hill Regional Parks (CRD Parks 2001). This report includes information for Mill Hill on subjects such as plants, fish, wildlife, species-at-risk, invasive species, ecological processes, glaciological history, geology, hydrology, and a detailed bioterrain description based on the TEM conducted by CRD Parks. More detailed information on a number of these topics can be found in the literature referenced in this report as well as in the report itself.

Maps of the park Maps of SEI and TEM polygons have been presented earlier in this report (Figures 1 and 2). CRD Parks has also used an orthophoto base for mapping the key invasive plant populations (Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius and daphne Daphne laureola) of Mill Hill’s Garry oak ecosystems. These populations are shown in relation to known localities of rare plants, in order to assist in setting restoration priorities around species-at-risk (Figure 4 and Appendix 3; see also Appendices 4 & 5 for complete lists of rare and invasive plant species in the park). Despite the comprehensive body of information compiled in the park’s Ecological Inventory (CRD Parks 2001), a number of relevant information gaps still exist. Those that have been identified include: • Water quality parameters (Millstream); • General assessment of stream function and condition ; • Soil chemistry; • Inventory of invasive alien vertebrates and invertebrates; • Inventory of native invertebrates (terrestrial and aquatic), with a focus on rare species; • Inventory of mosses, lichens, liverworts, with a focus on rare species; • Research on the habitat requirements of the rare organisms occurring in the park; • Location and condition of unofficial trails and bike tracks; • First Nation interests;

11 • Fire history; • Air quality; • Hydrology & patterns of erosion; • Ecosystem interpretation. Some of these information gaps are essential to predicting outcomes of restoration actions (e.g., soil chemistry, stream assessment), as per an adaptive management approach (Section 3.1, below, and Appendix 6), and should be addressed during the first stages of restoration work, while other questions may be answered at a later date.

2.3 Reference Ecosystems, or What Are We Restoring To? In order to realise its restoration goals, CRD Parks will need to conceptualise a set of ‘reference ecosystems’ against which to model restoration planning and to evaluate ongoing restoration work. This reference ecosystem will need to be described in sufficient detail to act as a comparison for these purposes. A single site may be inadequate to act as a reference. Garry oak ecosystems in particular suffer from a high degree of fragmentation and degradation in the region, and it may be necessary to conceptualise an ideal or hypothetical reference system from the component attributes of several sites. According to the Society for Ecological Restoration, a reference ecosystem may be “the citation of existing documents, a report of baseline ecological studies conducted by the restoration team, or a combination thereof” (Clewell et al. 2000).

The Nature Conservancy of Canada’s Cowichan Garry Oak Preserve is the best extant British Columbian example of a deep-soil Garry oak ecosystem, and nearby Mt. Tzuhalem is the most intact shallow-soil rocky site (T. Ennis, pers. comm.). Eagle Heights also provides another local example of a grassland ecosystem (D. Polster, pers. comm.) Even these sites are badly disturbed, however, and certain external elements (e.g., disturbance regimes, soil chemistry) will need to be added to descriptions of these existing ecosystems to form an ideal, hypothetical reference site.

Restoration issues in the park’s forested sites will largely be dealt with in Phase II of the restoration process. Reference ecosystems for these sites may be drawn from less disturbed local examples of Coastal Douglas-fir forests, while reference ecosystems for the park’s riparian zone will be addressed in the detailed restoration plan for Millstream’s riparian zone (see Section 4.2, below).

Other parameters that may be described from reference ecosystems include: • Soil chemistry, vegetation, invertebrates and vertebrates of Garry oak ecosystems; • Water quality, aquatic and riparian vegetation, fish and aquatic invertebrates for the park’s riparian zone; • Soil chemistry, structural elements, vegetation, invertebrates and vertebrates for the park’s forested area; • Visuals and viewscapes; • Disturbance regimes and successional processes

12 464100 464200 464300 464400 464500 464600 464700 464800 464900 465000 465100

Phelps Av enue 5368000 5368000

Hans en Road Avery Court

Tr ans-Canada Highway

Six M ile Road 5367900 5367900

West Park Lane

Six M ile Road Trans-Canada Highway 5367800 5367800 5367700 5367700

5367600 Millhill Road 5367600

7 5367500 5367500 1

1 Chilco Road

Langvista Driv e 5367400 5367400

1 Sandra P lace 9 1

1 5

1 6 2

5367300 I 5367300 4 6

1 10

1 2

Jeanine Driv e D 3 1

1 5367200 5367200 1 4

4 11

2 1 5 2 C 2 1 1 2 6

E 3 6 F 5367100 5367100 12 13

H 2 6 5367000 7 5367000 G

B 1 4

A 2 2 5366900 5366900 5366800 5366800

Wynwood Clos e 5366700 5366700

Millwoods Court Downhom e Driv e 5366600 5366600

MillpondTerrace

NuggetTerrace

SilverstoneWay Platinum Place

Leggett Lane Atkins Road 5366500 Selwyn Road 5366500

Cry stalview Drive

Hoffman Avenue 5366400 5366400

Westwind Drive

464100 464200 464300 464400 464500 464600 464700 464800 464900 465000 465100 Field Data Figure 4: Area of invasive shrub removal in 2002 highlighted TEM Polygon Recent Mill Hill Park Addition Woody Invasive Species Broom Density Municipal Park Boundary Watercourse (Orienteer Data) Broom (labled by polygon number) Polygon Number: Vegetation Plots Invasive Shrub Fence (Orienteer Data) 1, 3, 7, 8, 11 - High Regional Park Boundary Daphne 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13 - Medium Photo Point Footpath (Orienteer Data) 5, 9 - Low 015 30 60 90 120 Marsh (Orienteer Data) Rare Plants TEM Polygon Small Footpath (Orienteer Data) Meters Occurrence Pond (Orienteer Data) Current Vehicle Track (Orienteer Data) Ruin - Near Cairn (Orienteer Data) Watercourse (TRIM) Historical in TEM Polygons Uncrossable Marsh (Orienteer Data) Roads 1 - Aster c urtus 2 - Sanicula bipinnatifida Lake (TRIM) Contours (5 meter interval) 3 - Lotus purshianus 4 - Iosetes nuttallii 5 - Idahoa s capigera Orthophoto: Flown in 2001, 25cm pixel resolution 6 - Trifolium depauperatum Projection: Universal T ransverse Mercator - Zone 10 North October 28, 2002 7 - Balsamorhiza deltoidea Mill Hill Restoration Project North American Datum 1983 Map Document: Invasive_Shrub_2002_Mill_Hill_wo_TEM_Labels.mxd 3.0 Approaches 3.1 Adaptive Management CRD Parks will attempt to integrate the principles of adaptive management into its restoration efforts at Mill Hill Regional Park wherever feasible. An adaptive management approach to restoration work combines research and monitoring with hands- on activity. As the restoration project is monitored, the actual results are compared to the project’s original goals or predictions, and the restoration activity is then modified and enhanced accordingly. The process is repeated, to create an ongoing loop of action, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment (see Appendix 6). An example of how this approach might be carried out in park restoration includes the use of photopoint monitoring to document ecosystem responses to broom removal, or the monitoring of rare plant populations to determine their responses to restoration activities. Documenting the key components of the restoration program is crucial for effective adaptive management.

Testing Hypotheses The monitoring phase of adaptive management involves testing predictions or hypotheses. The key null hypotheses7 to be tested by the restoration work proposed here are: H1: Removal of woody invasive plants has no impact on persistence of rare plant populations at Mill Hill Regional Park. H2: Removal of woody invasive plants has no positive impact on the biotic integrity of the Garry oak ecosystems of Mill Hill Regional Park.

3.2 Setting Priorities Although the scope of this plan is necessarily comprehensive, CRD Parks needs to focus on a few priority activities in order to achieve a set of manageable objectives. While priority tasks should be ecologically relevant, they should also be focused on realistic, achievable targets as per the following priority areas:

Species-at-risk Maintaining (over the short term) and restoring (over the longer term) plant species-at- risk is a primary goal of restoration work at Mill Hill Regional Park. All known populations of rare plants will be focal points for restoration work. For Phase I, this work will consist of removing invasive species in the vicinity of rare plants, and fencing off these populations where they are threatened by deer browsing.

Ecological processes/Essential Ecosystem Characteristics (EECs) GOERT has identified three primary EECs that are critical for the composition, structure and function of Garry oak ecosystems. These characteristics are: 1. Spatial integrity, i.e., the consequences of habitat fragmentation;

7 At the outset of any scientific approach to research, a question(s) is asked and posed in the null or negative form. The null hypothesis is then proved (i.e., there is no effect) or disproved (i.e., there is an effect).

13 2. The role of fire as a natural disturbance agent; and 3. Biotic integrity, in terms of the presence and effects of invasive alien species (Fuchs 2001). Restoring spatial integrity (i.e., restoring contiguous tracts of land outside Mill Hill Regional Park) is not within the scope of this restoration plan. However, CRD Parks is attempting to secure adjacent unprotected areas for addition to the park as part of its land acquisition strategy.

Reintroducing prescribed fire (or fire surrogates) as a disturbance agent will be necessary to restore essential ecological processes to the Garry oak ecosystems of Mill Hill. However, the presence of a large biomass of invasive plant species, particularly the highly flammable Scotch broom, introduces a “wild card” to the use of fire as a management tool. In addition, a number of invasive species respond favourably to fire (Fuchs 2001). Although prescribed fire is now a commonplace forestry management tool in North America (e.g., see references to fire in Fuchs 2001; and at the USDA Forest Service research website - http://www.fs.fed.us/research/), its widespread use for British Columbia’s Garry oak ecosystems is some way from being perfected. CRD Parks should conduct detailed investigations of the effects of burning in these ecosystems before using fire as a management option.8

Even when the use of prescribed fire has been further researched it may not be a viable option for a park such as Mill Hill, given the proximity of residential areas, air quality concerns, or the ecological reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. The use of fire surrogates should also be studied both as a long-term substitute for burning, and as a short-term solution while we are learning more about fire as a management tool. Fire surrogates mimic one or more than one of the impacts of fire. Management techniques such as tree girdling, tree and shrub removal, or the mowing or selective flaming of grasses and other herbaceous cover can all fill ecological roles similar to that of fire in certain ecosystems.

CRD Parks should also begin exploring policy options around accidental fires in Mill Hill and other regional parks. Once Scotch broom removal has taken place, a wildfire at Mill Hill could conceivably be managed as a controlled burn and treated as an opportunity to monitor the impacts of fire in such a setting. If such a policy direction were explored, however, it would clearly need to be done in consultation with local municipalities, fire departments, and wildfire control experts.

The first phase of the restoration plan for Mill Hill Regional Park, then, will focus on restoring biotic integrity through the management of invasive alien plant species. An adaptive management approach will ensure that treatments are monitored and their effectiveness evaluated.

8 The use of fire to restore Garry oak ecosystems is being tested by researchers at the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia. CRD Parks should consider introducing fire (or fire surrogates) as a management tool at a later phase of this restoration work. Removing the fuel load of Scotch broom from these ecosystems must be undertaken before fire can be trialed on anything other than a small scale.

Priority sites and ecosystems The park’s red-listed Garry oak ecosystems will be priorities for ecological restoration at Mill Hill. The degraded riparian corridor of Millstream Creek will also be a focus for restoration treatments in Phase I, as will eroded sections of main trails.

Priority invasive alien species The priority invasive alien species for control or removal efforts at Mill Hill are 1) Scotch broom, given its ubiquity in the park, its relative ease of removal, and the fact that it appears to be outcompeting or shading out many of the park’s rare plant populations;9 and 2) Daphne. Daphne currently occurs at Mill Hill Regional Park in only a few areas (primarily shallow draws in Garry oak ecosystems, where moisture is retained late into the spring), and at relatively low densities. This plant appears to be increasing in density and abundance, however (pers. obs.; J. Ussery, pers. comm.), and should be removed while populations are still manageable and complete eradication remains an option. See Appendix 8 (H. Roemer 2002 report to CRD Parks) for further comments on rare plant management and Scotch broom control.

Priorities for public outreach Building support among park users and neighbours for restoration efforts in Mill Hill Regional Park is the public outreach priority for Phase I.

9 Broom removal should be carried out following the Best Practices for Control of Scotch Broom (Appendix 7) from Murray and Pinkham (2002).

15 4.0 Implementation 4.1 Work Plans and Outcomes Specific restoration tasks (based on the objectives described in this document) should be determined on an annual basis, outlined in annual work plans and described in the CRD Parks Project Management Form. Fieldwork should be staged by ecosystem polygon and by task.

The desired outcomes for Phase I (2002-2004) of the restoration plan are as follows: • Permanent and secure photopoint monitoring stations (6 – 10) set up in treatment and control plots; • Photopoint monitoring of treatment areas pre- and post-treatment completed, with post-treatment monitoring occurring at least twice a year and at the same times each year; • Collection of soil samples for analysis of nitrogen content pre- and post-removal of broom in order to test hypothesis that broom presence alters nitrogen levels in soil, with concomitant responses in vegetation community; • Pre-treatment inventory for new populations of rare plants completed in new addition (2001) to park; • Complete removal of reproductive-age broom from the vicinity of all known populations of rare plants (Year 1); • Complete removal of reproductive-age broom from Garry oak ecosystems of park except for control plots10 (end of Phase I); • Eradication of reproductive-age daphne from park (Year 1); • Removal of all cut broom and daphne from park; • Calculation of volume of cut broom and daphne removed from park; • Evaluation of rare plant populations’ response to broom removal; • Fence off all known populations of deltoid balsamroot to eliminate browsing by deer; • Completion of field work and detailed restoration plan for riparian corridor within park; • Action on key recommendations of stream restoration plan; • Reversal of erosion in most-eroded trail areas;11

10 Control plots (also called reference plots) will enable CRD Parks to compare the results of their restoration work against sites where broom removal has not taken place, in order to monitor ways in which sites without broom differ from those with it (e.g., soil chemistry, invertebrate communities, plant community composition). 11 Proposals for dealing with trail erosion should refer to the trail studies conducted by Bodman et al. (2000).

16 • Mapping and assessment of condition of unofficial park trails; • Development of recommendations for the construction of trails in ecologically sensitive areas; • Development of interpretive signs and programs to promote restoration (of park and in general) to the public; • Acquire adjacent lands for addition to the park wherever possible; and • Assess the effectiveness of restoration work before proceeding to Phase II. The tasks required for the second phase will be defined as part of the assessment of Phase I.

4.2 Funding Requirements External funding has already been acquired for the first year of invasives removal, photopoint monitoring of restoration sites, and for the proposed rare plant inventory (see Appendix 9, HSP Project Description and Budget). It has also been acquired for the development of a detailed restoration plan for the park’s riparian area (Appendix 10, HCTF Proposal and Budget). The CRD Parks Environmental Protection Specialist, in consultation with Operations staff, should seek directed, task-specific funding on an annual basis in order to ensure Phase I completion by the end of 2004. Budgets should be drafted and funds applied for well in advance of the desired start date of each task.

4.3 Human Resource Requirements The human resource requirements will be determined by the project management team.

4.4 Permitting Requirements Work in or about a stream Any restoration work carried out in or around Millstream creek will likely need approval from federal or provincial fisheries agencies. The HCTF-funded riparian restoration plan will include information on permitting requirements for this work.

4.5 Equipment Needs Equipment needs will be dealt with as they arise. Some classes of equipment (e.g., photopoint monitoring equipment, helicopters) will be hired where necessary. High cost items such as helicopter time should be determined on an annual basis and budgeted for internally or in funding applications.

The majority of equipment needed for on-the-ground restoration work (e.g., loppers, shovels, canvas slings for removal of vegetation, heavy equipment such as backhoes) will already be on hand at CRD Parks.

4.6 Biotic Resource Needs For Phase I, biotic resources such as plant seedlings will not be required for the terrestrial portion of the proposed restoration work, although revegetation work may well be indicated for Phase II in areas where broom removal has substantially reduced plant

17 cover. Terrestrial and/or aquatic vegetation will likely be required for any stream restoration work recommended by the riparian field assessment and restoration plan. The terms of reference for that contract requests a list of biotic resource needs for any proposed stream restoration work.

4.7 Ecological and Logistical Constraints Ecological constraints to be taken into account while doing detailed planning include time of year, plant community sensitivity to trampling or equipment use, and location of rare plant populations. Logistical constraints will be described in the detailed work plans to be prepared by Operations and Planning and Conservation Services staff.

4.8 Communications Developing Public Outreach Materials The CRD Parks Communications Checklist (Appendix 11) should be consulted when developing communications material for this project. Material will include in-park signs to be used during restoration work.

In-park signs will be utilised during ongoing restoration work (including trail restoration) in order to: • Inform public about goals and methods of restoration work at Mill Hill Regional Park; • Show ‘before’ photos of restored areas to help show public – and remind staff – how work is making a difference; and • Build public support for the restoration program

Visitor Services should also consider developing a ‘Restoration’ interpretive program that will integrate with the ongoing work at Mill Hill Regional Park.

Other public involvement - First Nations Local First Nations should be consulted before restoration work is proposed for areas of the park containing middens and any other sites of cultural significance. First Nations should also be consulted for any information they may have on historical burns of the Mill Hill area, and for input on any proposals using fire as a management tool. (Use of prescribed fire should be approached with caution due to its potential to favour invasive plants. See 3.2, above.)

Other public involvement - Habitat Acquisition Trust’s Good Neighbour Program The Habitat Acquisition Trust’s (HAT’s) Good Neighbour Program is designed to promote a conservation ethic among landowners whose properties border on sensitive local parks and protected areas. This sort of work is a necessary complement to the Mill Hill Regional Park restoration plan. CRD Parks should keep HAT apprised of our restoration projects and request their involvement as appropriate.

4.9 Target Audiences for Outreach Target audiences for public outreach efforts should include the following: • Parks users • Local groups (e.g., Victoria Natural History Society, Habitat Acquisition Trust) • Parks neighbours • Politicians • Municipalities • Schools • First Nations

19 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Restoration

Conclusions This restoration plan describes a series of objectives to be met over three years (2002 to 2004). These objectives are necessarily short-term. As mentioned at the beginning of this report, conducting restoration work on this scale will be a learning experience for CRD Parks. It will also be a learning experience for regional parks’ users. Our objectives need to be realistic in order to make these experiences positive ones for parks staff and public alike.

As CRD Parks moves towards realising the objectives outlined here, it will be time to review what has been learned, and to move ahead with longer-term plans. This may mean coming up with more ambitious - but still realisable - objectives in order to meet the goals of sustaining the ecosystems and restoring populations of rare species at Mill Hill Regional Park.

Future restoration work should continue to utilise an adaptive management approach, to be science-based and ecosystem-based, and to involve parks users. Future restoration work may include objectives involving the following: • Setting specific recovery targets (i.e., desired population levels) for plant species- at-risk; • Addressing information gaps that were not addressed in Phase I of the restoration plan, e.g., more completely inventorying the flora and fauna of the park (perhaps through RNS students’ projects); • Continuing to control or remove invasive alien plant species from the park; • Investigating management approaches for invasive alien vertebrates (Eastern grey squirrel and Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus); • Experimenting with the use of fire and fire surrogates as management tools; • Working more actively with neighbourhood associations and other local groups; • Covenanting of adjacent lands, including residences; • Collaborative management of ‘zones of co-operation,’ particularly in relation to watershed management; • Working with ecosystem processes in the lower forested slopes of the park; • Managing for viewscapes In short, CRD Parks should treat Phase I of the restoration plan as an opportunity to learn how to better manage our parks through restoring rare and sensitive ecosystems. A report will be prepared in 2004 which will provide an evaluation of Phase I and provide recommendations for Phase II. CRD Parks should also endeavour to publish12 the results of the restoration and monitoring work that will be undertaken over the next

12 Results should be submitted for publication in the peer-reviewed literature, and/or presented at appropriate fora, e.g., the International Society for Ecological Restoration conference, to be held in Victoria in 2004.

20 three years, in order to meet this plan’s secondary goals of fostering a greater understanding of restoration and providing leadership in the field at large.

Synopsis of Key Recommendations The key recommendations are: 1. Set realistic and attainable restoration tasks and objectives. 2. Use an adaptive management approach, be science-based and ecosystem-based, and involve parks users. 3. CRD Parks should seek directed, task-specific funding (external and/or internal on an annual basis in order to ensure completion of Phase I by the end of 2004. Budgets should be drafted and funds applied for well in advance of the desired start date of each task. 4. Seek partnerships with other groups and agencies (e.g., the Restoration of Natural Systems program at the University of Victoria, Victoria Natural History Society, Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team, local First Nations) should be pursued and fostered. 5. Use a multi-service area approach to restoration. 6. Take this opportunity to be a restoration leader. Innovative projects, such as the development of an interpretive program on restoration and research into the use of fire or fire surrogates as management tools, should be implemented. The results of our restoration projects should be published so that our successes are shared with other groups and agencies. 7. Treat the restoration of Mill Hill Regional Park as a learning experience. A summary report needs to be prepared in 2004, reviewing achievements and assessing weaknesses of the restoration plan’s first phase, and providing recommendations on how to move ahead with Phase II.

21 6.0 Acknowledgements This restoration plan could not have been completed in its final form without the input of a number of people. All attendees of the Expert Workshop set up to review the draft outline of this document have contributed to its development. Special thanks are due to those who contributed further ideas and expertise: Brenda Beckwith, Don Eastman, Tim Ennis, Matt Fairbarns, Tracy Fleming, Marilyn Fuchs, members of GOERT’s Invasive Species Steering Committee, Marc Johnson, Carolyn McDonald, Dave Polster, Hans Roemer, and Joel Ussery. The Government of Canada Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk, the Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia all provided funding or in- kind support for the inventory work carried out during this restoration plan’s development.

CRD Parks would like to acknowledge the contribution of Louise K. Blight, acting Environmental Protection Specialist, for her instrumental role in the production of this Restoration Plan.

22 Literature Cited Bodman, M., D. Cullen, A. Kalabis, D. Schwarz, and T. Soberg. 2000. Technical analysis of trail erosion and flooding on the Auburn and Calypso Trails, Mill Hill Regional Park. HydroPath Consulting, Prepared for CRD Parks and Royal Roads University.

Capital Regional District Parks. 2002. Project description: preparation of a restoration plan for Mill Hill Regional Park. Internal report, CRD Parks, Victoria, BC.

Capital Regional District Parks. 2001. An Ecological Inventory for Three Regional Parks: Mill Hill, Thetis Lake and Francis-King. CRD Parks, Victoria, BC.

Capital Regional District Parks. 2000. CRD Parks Master Plan. CRD Parks, Victoria, BC.

Conservation Data Centre. 1993. Garry oak ecosystems. Pamphlet ENV 322361.1093. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC.

Conservation Data Centre. 1997. Sensitive ecosystems inventory: East Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands. Map no. 92B.043. BC Conservation Data Centre, Victoria, BC and Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, BC.

Clewell, A., J. Rieger, and J. Munro. 2000. Guidelines for developing and managing ecological restoration projects. Society for Ecological Restoration, www.ser.org/downloads/ guidelines.pdf

Crocker, L. 2000. Mill Hill, Thetis Lake and Francis/King: a cultural history of three regional parks. CRD Parks, Victoria, BC.

Fuchs, M.A. 2001. Towards a recovery strategy for Garry oak and associated ecosystems in Canada: ecological assessment and literature review. Tech. Rep. GBEI/EC-00- 030. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region.

Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team. 2001. Recovery Strategy for Garry Oak and Associated Ecosystems and their Associated Species at Risk in Canada. M. A. Fuchs, ed. Foxtree Ecological Consulting, Victoria, BC.

Gayton, D.V. 2001. Ground work: basic concepts of ecological restoration in British Columbia. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership and Society for Ecological Restoration, Kamloops and Victoria, BC.

Hebda, R.J. and F. Aitkens. 1993. Foreword. Pp. v-vii in R.J. Hebda and F. Aitkens, eds. Garry oak meadow colloquium proceedings, 1993, Victoria, BC. Garry Oak Meadow Preservation Society, Victoria, BC.

23 Murray, C. and C. Pinkham. 2002. Towards a decision support tool to address invasive species in Garry oak and associated ecosystems in BC. Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd. for the GOERT Invasive Species Steering Committee, Victoria, BC.

Ward, P., G. Radcliffe, J. Kirkby, J. Illingworth and C. Cadrin. 1998. Sensitive ecosystems inventory: East Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands, 1993-1997. Volume 1: Methodology, ecological descriptions and results. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 320, Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, BC.

Westland Resource Group. 1999a. Report on the environment: monitoring trends in the Capital Regional District. Phase 3. Capital Regional District Roundtable on the Environment, Victoria, BC.

Westland Resource Group. 1999b. Millstream Watershed Management Plan. Report prepared for the Millstream Watershed Management Forum and CRD Environmental Services, Victoria, BC.

24 7.0 Appendices Appendix 1

Steps in Setting up a Restoration Project13

Research and Objective Setting • Identify project site location and boundaries; • Determine land ownership; • Identify the causes of damage; • Set preliminary restoration objectives; • Identify biogeoclimatic subzone, site series, and natural disturbance type; • Accumulate and review current maps and reports on area; • Do a search for archival materials or research on the site; • Do a biophysical survey of the site; • Create a detailed map (or series of maps) of the site; • Consult with local stakeholders and interest groups; • Become familiar with similar restoration projects; • Set final restoration objectives; • Establish monitoring plan; and • Seek funding and manpower sources.

Operational Phase • Make sure monitoring points are permanently marked and mapped; • Leave an untreated portion so that visual and numerical comparisons can be made; • Secure the site against vandalism and accidental damage; • Invite stakeholders and the interested public to a field day; • Periodically review monitoring data and compare against objectives; • Ensure that monitoring data are properly stored and analysed, and a detailed description of monitoring methods is on file; and • Compare results with similar restoration projects.

13 From Gayton 2001.

25 Appendix 2

List of Workshop Attendees, Developing a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park, 12 April 2002

Name Organisation e-mail Telephone Matthew Baldwin District of Langford [email protected] 250-474-6919 Brenda Beckwith School of Env. Studies, UVic [email protected] 250-472-4694 Robb Bennett Private citizen [email protected] 250-652-6593 Laesha Berry Volunteer coordinator, CRD Parks [email protected] 250-478-3344 Louise Blight CRD Parks [email protected] 250-478-3344 Larry Church CRD Parks C/o Doug Sinclair 250-478-3344 Brenda Costanzo Botanist [email protected] 250-472-6142 Pierre Destrube President, GOMPS [email protected] 250-477-2410 Don Eastman RNS Prog, Env. Studies, UVic [email protected] 250-472-4568 Tim Ennis NCC [email protected] 250-479-3191 Tracy Fleming CRD Parks C/o Doug Sinclair 250-478-3344 Jamie Freer CRD Parks C/o Doug Sinclair 250-478-3344 Marilyn Fuchs GOERT [email protected] 250-383-3224 Kim Manton CRD Parks C/o Doug Sinclair 250-478-3344 Andrew MacDougall UBC [email protected] 604-822-2700 Mike Meagher GOMPS [email protected] 250-363-6066 Dave Polster Polster Environmental Services [email protected] 250-746-8052 Doug Sinclair CRD Parks [email protected] 250-478-3344 Fran Spencer Friends of Gov. House Gardens [email protected] 250-370-2541 Joel Ussery CRD Water [email protected] 250-474-4105 Don Watmough CRD Parks [email protected] 250-478-3344 Diane Knight CRD Parks [email protected] 250-478-3344 Connie Morgan Halbert Morgan Consulting [email protected] 250-721-4426 Judith Cullington Judith Cullington & Associates [email protected] 250-391-8772

26 Appendix 3

Broom Density in Mill Hill Regional Park14

Introduction Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) was first introduced to southeast Vancouver Island by Captain Walter Grant, who planted the seeds on his farm in Sooke in 1850. Since then the plant has spread throughout the east side of Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the Lower Mainland. Being from Mediterranean habitats, it prefers the mild winters and summer droughts which prevail in the Capital Regional District. As a nitrogen-fixing plant, it can tolerate poor soils and prefers well-drained to dry conditions such as those found on the higher exposed aspects of the Victoria area hills. This same ecological niche is also inhabited by the sensitive Garry oak ecosystems, which are red-listed by the B.C. Conservation Data Centre. The invasion of broom into these fragile communities degrades them by outcompeting indigenous shrubs and wild flowers and threatening the high biodiversity found there (1, 2). Ecological processes are altered and natural aesthetics are changed, converting an open woodland setting into a broom patch.

Objective The objective of this fieldwork was to: 1. quantify the presence of broom and other woody invasives within the Garry oak communities in Mill Hill Regional Park; 2. map out their highest concentrations; and 3. suggest some possible management considerations.

Methods and Materials The open Garry Oak ecosystems were divided into usable polygons based on the Terrestrial Ecosystem Map polygons provided by CRD Parks. These polygons were systematically walked with percent coverage of broom assessed in random 400 meter squared plots using the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystems Classification (BEC) methodology. Any other woody invasives were noted and whenever possible subjective, visual confirmation was used to map the highest concentrations of broom while passing from plot to plot.

Results An overall broom density of 26% ground coverage in a total of 38 plots showed a consistent presence of broom throughout the study area. There was not much correlation revealed between slope, aspect and percent coverage of broom. High tree canopy closure in Polygons 5 and 9 correlated with decreased broom density (Table 1).

Accessibility from trails on foot was good in Polygons 1, 3, parts of 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, and parts of 12. Polygons 2, 5, 6, 8 and 13 have poor accessibility and are best suited for helicopter removal of broom (Table 1, Map 1*).

14 Marc Johnson report to CRD Parks, 2002 . * ‘Map 1’ refers to map labelled as Figure 4 in this restoration plan.

27 Table 1. Broom densities in Garry oak and associated ecosystems at Mill Hill Regional Park, Victoria, BC.

Mean % Canopy % Cover Woody Overall Broom Broom Polygon Plot # Aspect % Slope Closure (%) Broom Invasives Access by Plot Ranking 1 180 25 25 30 - good by 1 2 180 20 10 25 daphne trail; 31% HIGH 3 180 35 30 40 daphne trail 4 154 35 30 30 daphne removal 1 130 40 50 15 - poor by 2 2 120 40 25 25 - foot; 20% MED 3 120 40 30 25 - poor by 4 146 25 8 15 - air 1 135 20 15 25 - by trail or 3 2 120 10 35 40 - air 32.50% HIGH 1 110 35 15 20 - by foot 4 2 110 25 15 20 - in South; 3 110 15 10 15 - air 23% MED 4 110 35 15 20 - removal 5 130 15 30 40 - 5 1 110 25 60 7 - poor by 7% LOW foot/air 1 130 15 50 25 daphne poor by 6 2 120 30 15 20 - foot; 22.50% MED 3 120 20 35 30 - fair by 4 100 50 8 15 - air 7 1 340 20 6 35 - by foot; 35% HIGH 2 310 15 2 35 - by air 8 1 298 20 25 40 - foot and 35% HIGH 2 14 35 10 30 - air 9 - - - - 15 - foot only 15% LOW 1 270 30 10 20 - foot or 10 2 255 20 10 30 - air 25% MED 1 110 15 25 25 - by foot 2 180 20 30 30 - 11 3 20 0 50 15 - by trail 30% HIGH 4 220 20 25 30 - 5 240 25 30 50 - by air 1 260 15 5 15 - by foot 2 150 20 30 25 - 12 3 216 30 20 30 - by trail 27% MED 4 210 30 5 35 - 5 260 50 15 30 - by air 13 ------binocular - MED? s Average Cover 26.27% MED

28 Daphne (Daphne laureola) was found scattered in the mid-slope forests of the eastern aspects in, above and beyond Polygon 1.

Discussion The data gathered only determine the basic level of broom throughout the park, and expose a few high density areas. In fact, the distribution and density of broom can best be defined in terms of depth and availability of soil and the extent of shade from tree canopy closure.

Simply put: wherever there is soil there is broom, unless there is too much shade. The broom is always concentrated where soil has had a chance to collect no matter what the aspect or slope. Wherever the mossy bedrock dominates, broom is flourishing in the cracks, crevices, draws and soil pockets. If the slope is shallow, such as at the base of cliffs or on wide bedrock shelves, soil has a chance to accumulate and that is where the broom is established and spreading. The extensive eastern slopes of Polygons 3, 4, 5 and 6 exemplify this patchwork of broom shelves the best. Even if the bedrock is steeper, broom is sprouting in the cracks and concentrated where it is less steep. Such is the case in the western and southwestern aspects.

As this study’s priority was Garry oak sites, the shade factor was very obvious when the intervening forests were walked. Broom diminished or disappeared altogether in relation to the shade cast on it. The forests in the north end of the park beyond Polygons 8 and 9 shaded out the broom, while the less dense forests above and between Polygons 1 and 2 on the eastern slopes were full of broom. Of course the bright easterly aspect allows light to enter more readily and also seems to set up suitable conditions for daphne to survive and spread. Daphne was found sporadically throughout this Douglas fir forest and into the shaded areas of Polygon 6.

Management Considerations Target Areas Due to the consistent presence of broom throughout the park, management considerations should revolve around accessibility and aesthetic issues. Because the broom problem is so huge, removal should begin in the areas with easy accessibility, and in areas of high use where humans and dogs are enjoying the view and aiding in the spread of seed. Good places to start broom removal would be:

1. either side of Auburn Trail to the summit; 2. either side of Calypso Trail to the summit; and 3. the flat summit areas between the eastern lookout and the main cairn.

Clearing these areas first would get fast, visible results which the public could appreciate and perhaps facilitate.

Polygons 1, 3, 10, 11, and parts of 12 are the next easiest to access (see Map 1).

29 Polygon 1 - especially the finger which runs parallel to the Auburn Trail where the trail bends west. At the same time the Douglas Fir wooded polygon surrounding Polygon 1 could be walked and the daphne and holly (Ilex aquifolium) found there could be removed.

Polygon 3 - has the Auburn Trail paralleling the western boundary. Like most of the eastern polygons it consists of a series of broom-choked benches which are fairly easy to walk but sometimes hard to get to because of the steep grades between the benches. It can be entered by a secondary trail just south of the eastern lookout loop near a Douglas fir snag. Trail and helicopter removal possible.

Polygon 10 - includes the main cairn and runs west over easy to walk, mounding bedrock. Thee are some dense bands of broom here. Area is open enough for helicopter removal.

Polygon 11 - covers a large portion of the hill used by hikers who just want to walk to the summit and back. It has a beautiful, mossy southern aspect which for the most part could be walked easily and the broom thrown out to the trails. Dense areas are: between the trails near the summit south of the main cairn; west of the Calypso Trail below the main cairn; and the bedrock terraces below the east facing public bench.

Polygon 12 - shares some of the same aspects and features as Polygon 11. Its southern face is fairly open and easy to walk with removal possible, but not always easy, from either trail. Intermittent forest canopy and rugged territory along the Calypso Trail makes helicopter removal difficult. The southwest and western slopes are often very steep and difficult to access by foot or helicopter. This southwest corner prior to where the Calypso Trail descends into the lower forest is particularly dense with broom and native shooting stars (Dodecathon spp.), with some daphne spotted in the wooded polygon above.

The remaining polygons 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 are remote (see Map 1).

Polygon 2 - difficult to walk to or access by helicopter. The western portion is a series of high, round, outcroppings which ascent dramatically out of the forest. The eastern portion is steep and rugged, draining into a wooded draw and rising up the other side to the park boundary. No sign of daphne. Broom is abundant on these slopes and continuous into subdivison property to the east.

Polygons 4, 5 and 6 - make up the vast, eastern slopes. This is arguably some of the most attractive landscape in Mill Hill park. This mix of stunted oak and maturing arbutus stretches north from the eastern lookout, providing a stunning vista right through to the Island Highway and beyond to Victoria and Esquimalt. It is completely inundated with

30 broom. This series of sloping, vegetated benches with sometimes steep sides can be difficult to traverse on foot. Parts of it are open enough for helicopter removal but this will change as the plentiful arbutus canopy matures and spreads.

Polygons 7 and 8 - are somewhat isolated but readily reached from the trail with Polygon 7 being easy to walk on and Polygon 8 more steep where the hill dives into the northern forest. The broom here is in frequent, dense stands which would have to be removed by helicopter from the open, mounding areas of central Polygon 7.

Polygon 9 - was a walk-through visual confirmation. The whole outcropping is being closed in by the surrounding forest canopy. This forest polygon between 7 and 9 did not have significant broom concentrations near the trail, however, the west and eastern boundaries, where the slope was steeper and canopy thinner, had widespread broom infiltration.

Polygon 13 - was assessed with binoculars from the upper slopes of Polygon 12. The characteristic strips of broom were noted throughout the descent to the boundary subdivision. The lower portions would be easy to walk on with removal by helicopter or possibly burning on disturbed areas near the western boundary.

Conclusion This is a very large and well-established invasion of broom in a very rugged yet sensitive environment. Any management plan being considered would have to utilize the best ways to kill the broom while minimizing the impact to this delicate hillside and without unnecessarily encouraging the sprouting of latent seeds. Life cycle, time of year, and pulling or pruning techniques should be considered with subsequent follow-up procedures put in place and funding secured (1, 2).

This field project is only the beginning of a task which will take years to complete, but considering the rarity of Garry oak and associated ecosystems and the current loss of this hillside to subdivisions, it seems prudent to invest in the integrity of this beautiful park.

Bibliography

1. Carson, Elizabeth. 1998. Overview of Scotch Broom in British Columbia. Restoration of Natural Systems Program, University of Victoria. http://infoweb.magi.com/~ehaber/bc_broom.html

2. Prasad, Raj. 1999. Scotch Broom, Cytisus scoparius L. in British Columbia. Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, BC. http://www.pfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/biodiversity/broom%5Fe.html

3. McPhee, M., P. Ward, J. Kirkby, L. Wolfe, N. Page, K. Dunster, N.K. Dawe and I. Nyquist. 2000. Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory: East Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands, 1993-1997. Volume 2: Conservation Manual. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 345, Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, Delta, BC.

4. Ministry of Forests. 1996. Field Guide for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC.

5. Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon (eds.) 1994. Plants of Coastal British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, BC.

Appendix 4

Invasive alien plants found in Mill Hill Regional Park15

Common Name Scientific Name Garry oak– Associated in park? Shrubs Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius Y Daphne Daphne laureola Y English holly Ilex aquifolium Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolour Gorse Ulex europaeus Herbs Silver hairgrass Aira caryophyllea Y Early hairgrass Aira praecox Y Sweet vernal grass Anthoxanthum odoratum Y Field parsley-piert Aphanes arvensis Y Soft brome grass Bromus hordaceus Y Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Y Cornflower Centauria cyanis Y Field chickweed Cerastium arvense Y Thistle Cirsium sp. Hedgehog dogtail Cynosurus echinatus Y Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata Y Common draba Draba verna Y Hellibore orchid Epipactus helliborine Dovefoot geranium Geranium molle Y Common St. John’s-wort Hypericum perforatum Y Wall lettuce Lactuca muralis Common forget-me-not Myosotis discolor Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis ? Self-heal Prunella vulgaris ssp. vulgaris Y Sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella Y Field madder Sherardia arvensis ? Chickweed Stellaria media Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale Shepherd’s cress Teesdalia nudicaulis Y Foxtail fescue Vulpia myuros ?

15 Source: CRD Parks 2001.

33 Appendix 5

Rare plants on Record at the B.C. Conservation Data Centre as Occurring or Historically Occurring at Mill Hill Regional Park16

Common Name Scientific Name Recorded In Status in 1999 White-top aster^§§ Sericocarpus rigidus (Aster Mill Hill OK curtus) Deltoid Balsamorhiza deltoidea Thetis and Mill Hill OK § balsamroot^ (new location) Scalepod^ Idahoa scapigera Mill Hill OK Nuttall’s quillwort^^ Isoetes nuttallii Mill Hill OK Meadow Nemophila pedunculata Thetis and Mill Hill OK, but not located nemophila^^ in 1999 survey Purple sanicle^§§ Sanicula bipinnatifida Thetis and Mill Hill OK Poverty clover* Trifolium depauperatum var. Mill Hill OK depauperatum ^Provincial red list. ^^Provincial blue list § COSEWIC Endangered §§ COSEWIC Threatened * Although an uncommon occurrence, this species is currently not tracked by the B.C. Conservation Data Centre due its erroneous deletion from the tracking list. It has been confirmed with CDC staff that it will be reinstated to the blue list (H. Roemer, pers. comm.)

16 Source: CRD Parks 2001.

34 Appendix 6

Steps in an Adaptive Management Approach17

1. Problem Assessment Participants define the scope of the damaged ecosystem, synthesise existing knowledge about it, and explore the potential outcomes of alternative restoration actions. Explicit forecasts are made about outcomes to assess which actions are most likely to meet objectives. During this exploration and forecasting process, key gaps in understanding of the system (i.e., those that limit the ability to predict outcomes) are identified.

2. Design A restoration plan and monitoring program are designed that will provide reliable feedback about the effectiveness of the chosen actions. Ideally, the plan is also designed to yield information that will fill the key gaps in understanding identified in Step 1.

3. Implementation The restoration work is started. Effective restoration is usually a multi-step process, requiring not only installation, but many years of maintenance.

4. Monitoring Indicators are monitored to determine how effective the chosen actions are in meeting objectives, and to test the hypothesised relationships that formed the basis for the forecasts.

5. Evaluation The actual outcomes are compared to the forecasts; the reasons underlying any differences (between predictions and reality) are interpreted.

6. Adjustment Practices, objectives, and models used to make forecasts are adjusted to reflect new understanding. Understanding gained in each of these six steps may lead to reassessment of the problem, new questions, and new options to try in a continual cycle of improvement for a given project and for others like it.

Some of these steps will overlap, some will have to be revisited, and some may be carried out in greater detail than others. Steps should be planned in advance and may be modified later.

17 From Gayton 2001.

35 Appendix 7

Best Practices for Control of Scotch Broom18

A 5-hour workshop was held in Victoria on February 1, 2002, to provide a selection of experts the opportunity to discuss how they make decisions regarding whether to control Scotch broom in GOEs, and how they decide what techniques to employ. Much of the information discussed at the workshop is already incorporated into the DST framework in Chapter 3. The participants also generated some broad “rules of thumb” regarding best practices. While there was not enough time to thoroughly document all the conditions and caveats, and therefore this information should be taken only as a rough guide, it does provide a useful starting point for DST users who are trying to decide what techniques to employ to control for broom.

Pulling • This technique should be used when the root can be pulled out without: - disturbing the soil (if there are rocks in the root ball, you are taking too much soil), - compacting the soil, - breaking the backs of volunteers, or - trampling rare/endangered species (avoid this method if valued native plants are growing right beside the broom plants to be pulled). • Do not use regular weed wrenches; they encourage the pulling of plants that are too big for this method. Size of the plant is key: if you need a regular wrench, the plant is too big for this method. “Mini” weed wrenches can, however, be helpful. • Pulling can take place from when the rains start until the end of January. The soil is softest during this period, facilitating successful pulling. Later in the season there is a risk of damaging native plants as they begin to germinate.

Mowing • Mowing should be done in the dry season, when other plants are not blooming. This also ensures the mower doesn’t sink into the soil, or compact it. • Consider avoiding this technique if there are rare annuals present. • Set the mower blade high. • Obviously, only use this technique if the terrain permits (e.g. if the site is not too steep, and not too rocky).

Cutting with loppers • Use this technique in low density broom areas. • Use this technique on plants bigger than your finger. For smaller plants, use the pulling technique, unless the broom is beside native plants of concern. If that is the case, cut those broom plants too, even if they are smaller than your finger. • Cut before the broom plants flower.

18 From Murray and Pinkham (2002).

36 • It is better not to have a clean cut; scrape the bark if you can. • Cut the plant a bit above soil level; this makes it easer to kill the plant if it re-sprouts.

Brush Saw • Use this technique in higher density areas. • This technique works well on any plant a brush saw can be used on. Some plants are too small, but they get nicely damaged. • Cut the stems a bit higher than the soil surface, to ensure minimal damage to soil. • Consider putting herbicide on the cut stem, but be aware that this can be slow, and it is easy to miss plants.

Herbicides • Consider this technique on really disturbed sites where you are starting restoration efforts essentially from scratch. • Consider this technique on dense patches, where more than 1000 seedlings per square metre sprout back. • Use backpack sprayers or paint the herbicide on, to minimise drift. • Use this as a last resort? • Alternatives: try selective flaming, or a tagger torch.

Selective Flaming • Use this technique on an explosion of seedlings, post cut. • Make sure there is no other fuel load, to minimise the risk of fire. • This technique is easier on a small scale, but still possible on a landscape scale.

Fire • This technique is most effective, but also most risky, in the dry season. • Use this technique if there is no fuel load on the site. • Consider using this technique as a more holistic strategy to restore historic ecosystem processes, rather than a specific broom-control method. Burning should occur every 10-20 years or so.

Biological control • This technique is still experimental. Some examples: - Gall midge is being studied; but is itself an introduced species. - Current research is exploring fungus cultures from natural broom blights. - Aphids love broom, but an aphid release program would probably not be favoured by the general public.

Multiple techniques • Consider combining techniques.

37 • For example, cut or burn a site to stimulate broom seed growth, then hit it again when it grows (e.g. with plastic sheeting, or selective flaming.)

Afterwards • Consider using seed plugs of native fescue and forbs in the fall to jump-start seeding. (The need for this depends on native seed bank. Take soil samples first, to see what’s there.) • Consider mulching around the plugs to increase survival. • What to do with “the body”?* After a first-pass large-quantity broom removal, consider taking the biomass off site for disposal if possible and practical. On subsequent passes, leave the removed biomass on site.

* The impact of broom on soil chemistry is still being researched, and there was quite a bit of discussion [at the workshop] regarding different strategies. It was pointed out that removal decreases biomass/nutrients that would normally recycle back into the system. However, there are also concerns about leaving it. There is concern about potential leaching of phytotoxins from piles of broom, and chipping and spreading it may alter natural conditions and affect native flora. Burning piles of broom in the middle of the road is a method employed at one site.

38 Appendix 8

Inventory of Rare Plants on the Eastern Slopes of Mill Hill Regional Park19

Approximately eight hectares were added to Mill Hill Regional Park in 2001. This addition is located on the eastern slopes of Mill Hill and forms a new buffer between the main body of the park, including the summit area, and the subdivision developments off Crystalview Drive. In mid-May 2002, an inventory of rare plants was conducted in this new portion of the park and its immediate surroundings.

Description of the Study Area

Most of the new portion of the park occurs on steep to very steep east and southeast- facing slopes. A north-south oriented, narrow, rocky ridge forms the border of the new portion to the east. Between the main part of the parcel and this ridge is an equally narrow, steep cut which is now included in the park, with the boundary running along the very steep, rocky west side of the ridge. Other bedrock-related features in the new parcel roughly parallel this major cut, including draws which form important rare plant habitats. About one half of the parcel is covered by Douglas-fir forest and scattered Douglas-fir, while the other half is open rocky outcrops interspersed with Garry oak individuals and Garry oak woodlands.

Inventory Methods

Potential rare plant information was compiled by using existing occurrences supplied by CRD Parks and by reviewing the BC Conservation Data Centre’s rare species list for the South Island Forest District comprising 146 species. The latter was pared down on the basis of distributions and available habitats to 15 possible species which included the four rare species known to occur. However, it was recognized that the likelihood of finding more than two or three of the additional 11 possible listed plants was low. These 11 species are: Agrostis pallens, Carex feta, Cephalanthera austiniae, Epilobium densiflorum, Epilobium torreyi, Meconella oregana, Montia howellii, Piperia candida, Rupertia physodes, Toxicodendron diversilobum, Viola howellii.*

After plotting the parcel’s boundaries on stereo air photographs and stereo-viewing these, field work was begun by circumnavigating the boundaries. Compass and air photo

19 Hans Roemer report to CRD Parks, 2002.

* The possibility of finding Agrostis pallens, dune bentgrass, and Piperia candida, white-lip rein-orchid, remains because they will not be in evidence until later in the summer. Agrostis pallens (blue-listed) is frequently overlooked and Piperia candida (red-listed) is new on the tracking list. It would therefore be indicated to check the whole park for these species around the end of June.

39 interpretation were initially used to stay inside the boundaries. However, enough flagging and boundary markers were found later to make this largely unnecessary.

Subsequently, the interior of the parcel was criss-crossed, beginning east along the large cut and working up-hill to the west. All polygon types of the terrestrial ecosystem mapping were accessed. However, more time was devoted to typical habitats of rare species already known to occur elsewhere in the park, such as seepage areas and draws.

Upon detection of rare species populations GPS readings were taken, the location and physical setting of the occurrence were noted, a count/estimate of the number of individuals of the rare species and of the area occupied by them was made, and other species associated with the rare plants and immediately surrounding them were noted down. All this information was also entered in the Conservation Data Centre’s “Field Survey Forms (Plants)” copies of which are appended to this report.

Results and Interpretation

Table 1 provides a summary of the rare species occurrences and their locations. As shown on the following map (Figure 1), all rare plant occurrences are concentrated along the western boundary of the study area. This result can be explained as follows: Generally speaking rare plants are restricted to rare or special habitats. In this area (and indeed in most of British Columbia) rare plant occurrences are absent or few in coniferous forest areas. Locally, rare plant occurrences are also absent on barren or mossy, dry rock outcrops. On the other hand, in the Garry oak ecosystem rare occurrences are concentrated in non-forested, open areas which either have a certain minimum of soil depth, or have water seeps which can sustain plant life in non-shaded habitats through the spring, even without the soil depth.

Both these situations are restricted to the upper, less sloping part of the new parcel. The central and eastern parts of the parcel are too steep; dry and largely barren rock outcrops alternate with forested parts. Seepage areas are rare because of the rapid drainage on the steeper terrain.

The following are comments on the significance of these rare species occurrences:

Isoetes nuttallii, Nuttall’s quillwort (blue-listed) Among the coastal dry belt occurrences of this species, the Victoria area occurrences rank relatively low. With 12 and 17 plants the present occurrences are even smaller. There is a much larger occurrence of Isoetes at the outflow of the wet area near the summit. However, the present two occurrences are in a more undisturbed setting and are components of valuable seepage site communities. These sites are too wet to be significantly threatened by broom invasion.

Sanicula bipinnatifida, purple sanicle (red-listed) These occurrences are comparable in size to others in the park and will add significantly to the sites locally available for the protection of the species. Most plants encountered are

40 small and appear to be younger seedlings. The reason for this is not entirely obvious. One interpretation may be that they are recently established populations. Lower vigour of the plants can also be attributed to the absence of the higher nutrient levels which benefit the trail side specimens elsewhere in the park. Of interest is that occurrence #7 is in a seepage site, unusual for the species elsewhere. Monitoring of the plant development in these two sites may show if these are new and still increasing subpopulations. The removal of Scotch broom from the two locations and subsequent monitoring for broom is recommended.

Aster curtus, white-top aster (red-listed) Two (apparently new) occurrences found further outside the new addition when viewing the other occurrences with Louise Blight are included here. With 6 and 9 plants, these are small to medium-sized occurrences, while the third occurrence with 30 plants is more significant. This one and the 6-plant occurrence have Scotch broom and would benefit from local broom removal. Apart from this, these are good, undisturbed occurrences. They should also be monitored to prevent broom re-invasion after removal.

Trifolium depauperatum, poverty clover This species is included here, despite the fact that it is currently not listed. It was carried on the red list several years ago. It has been clarified with Conservation Data Centre staff that this species has been omitted inadvertently from the tracking list and that it will be reinstated to the blue list. Both occurrences inside the new addition are of low significance with only 2 and 3 plants. Despite the annual nature of the species which can bring with it very large flucuations in numbers from one year to the other, it appears that these two sites indicate more the potential for this plant’s occurrence rather than prime sites. This conclusion was reached because one of the known localities of this plant, at the outflow of the large summit seepage site (see under Isoetes) showed 60 or more flowering specimens at the same time.

Table 2 shows all species noted as being associated with the rare plants at issue. Species which are more consistently associated with each of the rare plants considered are entered in bold. These associated species could in turn be used to locate more sites of the rare plants, especially after firming up the associations by sampling more known sites for each rare species and adding the data to the table.

41 Figure 1. Schematic representation of rare plant population locations at the new addition to Mill Hill Regional Park.

42 Table 1. Mill Hill Addition - Rare Plant Locations

#* Species Number of plants, habitat, associated species (in Location description, relative to new parcel’s Lat Long Precis order of decreasing cover) boundaries ion +/- 5/4 Isoetes nuttallii 12 plants, in open, stony seepage area. With Triteleia W of W boundary, ca ¾ toward N end of 48o 123o hyacinthina, Dodecatheon hendersonii, Camassia boundary, in shallow N-S oriented draw ca. 25 27’24.7 28’38.6” 4.7 m quamash m of boundary; bouldery, wet area ¾ Isoetes nuttallii 17 plants, in open seepage area among stones. With Near southern end of W boundary; E of old wire Triteleia hyacinthina, grasses, Dodecatheon fence, W of park boundary markers 27’17.5” 28’42.4” 4.0 m pulchellum, Camassia quamash 6/2 Sanicula 12 plants, 2 flowering, rest smaller. Under scattered About ¼ up W boundary; shallow N-S oriented bipinnatifida Quercus, with Camassia quamash and leichtlinii, draw W of boundary at old wire fence. Slope 18 27’16.3” 28’43.5” 5.6 m variety of herbs & grasses deg. > S 7/2 Sanicula 15 plants, none flowering, some small, in seepy, lush About ¼ up W boundary, exactly on boundary bipinnatifida draw. With Holodiscus discolor,Camassia quamash, line in narrow N-S oriented draw, sloping S ca 27’16.6” 28’42.1” 4.4 m Triteleia hyac. 25% 1/1 Aster 9 plants in small flat area surrounded by rock NW of NW corner, outside of new part Curtus outcrops. With Quercus, Holodiscus, Camassia, 27’29.4” 28’39.4” 4.3 m Erythronium, Carex inops 2/1 Aster 6 plants in slightly sloping, seepy area. With SW of NW corner, outside of new part Curtus Quercus, Cytisus, Camassia qu., Anthoxanthum 27’25.4” 28’39.4” 5.7 m odoratum, Dodecatheon h. 4/1 Aster 30 plants, in nearly level, shallow draw; under small About halfway up W boundary, in near-level Curtus Quercus, with Cytisus, Antho-xanthum, Camassia q., draw paralleling W boundary; 5m W of pegs 27’20.2” 28”39.1 4.4 m Danthonia californica. 8/6 Trifolium 3 plants only, where seepage overflows rounded Inside pointed part of NW corner. Flattish depauperatum rock. With Aira, Selaginella, Trite- seepage over rock surrounded by outcrops 27’27.6” 28’35.1” 3.3 m leia, Montia font., Saxifraga integrifolia 9/6 Trifolium 2 plants only, on v.shallow soil, with Trifolium spp., SE of centre of parcel; small level-topped bluff depauperatum Dodecatheon h., Triteleia h., Collinsia, Veronica surrounded by forest and steep rocky terrain 27’18.2” 28’33.4” 4.4 m arv., Anthoxanthum odoratum

* First number: CDC sheet number / Second number: Species identification number on orthophoto map

43 Table 2. Detailed Species Combination of Rare Plant Sites (species with bold entries occur in 2 or all sites for a particular rare plant, i.e. tend to be more indicative)

Trifolium depauperatum site Trifolium depauperatum site Isoetes nuttallii site Isoetes nuttallii site Sanicula bipinnatifida site Sanicula bipinnatifida site Aster curtus site Aster curtus site Aster curtus site CDC Field Survey Form # => 4 1 2 7 6 3 5 8 9 Triteleia hyacinthina, fool’s onion x x x x x x x Camassia quamash, common camas x x x x x x x Anthoxanthum odoratum, vernal grass x x x x x x x Dodecatheon hendersonii, Henderson’s shooting-star x x x x x x Zygadenus venenosus, death camas x x x x Ranunculus occidentalis, western buttercup x x x Quercus garryana, Garry oak x x x x Lomatium utriculatum, spring gold x x x Cytisus scoparius, Scotch broom x x x x Prunella vulgaris, self-heal x x x Lomatium nudicaule, Indian consumption plant x x x Hypericum perforatum, European St.John’s wort x x x Holodiscus discolor, oceanspray x x x Fragaria virginiana, wild strawberry x x x Danthonia californica, California oatgrass x x x Aster curtus, white-top aster x x x Vicia sativa, common vetch x x Trifolium depauperatum, poverty clover x x Sanicula bipinnatifida, purple sanicle x x Poa pratensis, Kentucky bluegrass x x Isoetes nuttallii, Nuttall’s quillwort x x Eriophyllum lanatum, woolly sunflower x x Dodecatheon pulchellum, pretty shooting-star x x Dactylis glomerata, orchard grass x x Camassia leichtlinii, great camas x x Achillea millefolium, yarrow x x Carex inops, long-stoloned sedge x x Veronica arvensis, field speedwell x Trifolium variegatum, white-tipped clover x Trifolium oliganthum, few-flowered clover x Trifolium microdon, thimble clover x Teesdalia nudicaulis, shepherd’s cress x Taraxacum officinale, dandelion x Symphoricarpos albus, common snowberry x Selaginella wallacei, Wallace’s selaginella x Saxifraga integrifolia, entire-leaf saxifrage x Sanicula crassicaulis, Pacific sanicle x Ranunculus orthorhynchos, straight-beaked buttercup x Plectritis macrocera, long-spurred plectritis x Plectritis congesta, seablush x

44 Plantago lanceolata, ribwort plantain x Perideridia gairdneri, yampah x Montia fontana, blinks x Mimulus alsinoides, chickweed monkeyflower x Linanthus bicolor, bi-coloured flaxflower x Galium aparine, cleavers x Fritillaria affinis, chocolate lily x Erythronium oreganum, white fawn lily x Elymus glaucus, western wildrye x Delphinium menziesii, Menzies’ larkspur x Cynosurus echinatus, hedgehog dogtail grass x Collinsia parviflora, blue-eyed Mary x Arbutus menziesii, madrone x Aira praecox, early hairgrass x Agrostis cf.pallens, dune bentgrass x

45 Appendix 9

Proposed work plan and budget for Habitat Stewardship Program funds

Project Goal: This project will contribute to the restoration of the Garry oak ecosystems at Mill Hill Regional Park, Victoria, by removing Scotch broom and other key invasive alien plant species from these ecosystems. Restoration of these ecosystems is an important component of the recovery of the plant species at risk that occur at Mill Hill.

Context and Work Plan Table:

Context: CRD Parks is preparing a restoration plan for Mill Hill Regional Park. One of the focal activities of this restoration plan is to maintain or enhance extant populations of the plant species at risk found there. Federally listed Balsamorhiza deltoidea, Sanicula bipinnatifida, and Sericocarpus rigidus [Aster curtus] occur at Mill Hill Regional Park, as do provincially listed Lotus purshianus, Idahoa scapigera, and Trifolium depauperatum. The primary known threat to these populations within the park is habitat alteration by invasive exotic species such as Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius). This project will focus on removing broom and other woody invasives from Garry oak ecosystems at Mill Hill, particularly in the vicinity of plant species at risk. It will also monitor the effectiveness of these removal efforts through photopoint monitoring of treatment sites (pre- and post-treatment photo-documentation of target sites) and through pre-treatment inventory/post-treatment monitoring of at-risk populations.

Objectives - to maintain populations of plant spp at risk through removal of invasive alien plant species, e.g., broom - to commence task of removing reproductive-age broom from all Garry oak ecosystems in park - to determine longer-term effectiveness of broom removal strategies vis-à-vis broom recurrence - to remove all cut broom from park (cut broom piled on the ground leaches phytotoxins into the soil and eliminates flora/new plant growth for several years) - to remove all reproductive-age daphne (Daphne laureola) from park’s Garry oak ecosystems - to determine responses of plant species at risk populations to removal of invasive exotic plants from their immediate habitat - to locate new populations of plant species at risk in the park, and set invasives removal priorities accordingly

Activities - hire work crews to remove broom and daphne from priority areas of park - Garry oak ecosystems, particularly those containing at-risk plant species. Priority areas within GOEs (those in vicinity of species at risk) determined through broom/ecosystem mapping undertaken with 2001 HSP funds - remove all daphne (currently in low numbers) from park, utilising map of daphne occurrence developed with 2001 HSP funds - hire helicopter to remove broom from inaccessible areas of park

46 - monitor volume of broom and daphne being removed from park - set up photopoint monitoring plots throughout treatment areas - undertake photopoint monitoring, pre- and post-broom and daphne removal. - Undertake post- treatment photopoint monitoring on a seasonal basis (4x/yr) - Conduct pre-treatment inventory in park’s new land addition (8 ha., purchase partially funded by GBEI $$) for new populations of plant spp. at risk, and to determine the extent of known populations there. - Conduct post-treatment monitoring of known populations of at-risk plants in old sector of park.

Outcomes - permanent photopoint monitoring plots set up - photopoint monitoring of plots pre- and post-treatment completed (to document extent and effectiveness of invasives removal) - pre-treatment inventory completed for new populations of plant species at risk (in recently- acquired park area) in order to direct next phase of invasives removal activities accordingly. - Complete removal of reproductive-age broom from vicinity of all known populations of plant species at risk in old sector of park - Commencement of broom removal from all Garry oak ecosystems in park - Removal of all cut broom and daphne from park, by helicopter from remote areas or by other vehicles in vicinity of main trail - Completed pre-treatment inventory for at-risk plant species in new sector of park - Development of priority areas for broom removal in new sector based on results of this inventory - Completed post-treatment inventory of at-risk plant populations in old sector of park

Evaluations - 10 permanent photopoint monitoring plots set up in GOEs - pre-treatment photo-documentation of these sites - post-treatment photo-documentation of these sites for summer, autumn, winter - report on post-treatment status of 17 known populations of plant species-at-risk in old sector of park - report on pre-treatment inventory of at-risk plants in new sector of park - development of priority areas for invasives removal based on inventory results - removal of reproductive-age broom from 5 ha of park (vicinity of at-risk plant populations) - removal of reproductive-age broom from a further 10 ha of GOEs in old sector of park - removal of all cut broom and daphne from park - report on number of tonnes of broom and daphne removed from park - elimination of all reproductive-age daphne from all GOEs in park’s old sector

ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS Anticipated Result 1. Long-term status of park’s plant species at risk improved due to habitat enhancement (removal of key invasive alien plants). 2. Garry oak ecosystems enhanced/restored by removal of key invasive alien plant species.

Assessment Method 1. Pre-treatment inventory, post-treatment monitoring of populations of rare plants. 2. Sites established to allow for future monitoring of reestablishment of native vegetation. This will provide information on the effectiveness of the restoration methods, e.g., invasives removal.

47 Proposed Cashflow Statement Mill Hill Regional Park Restoration Plan Invasives removal and plants at risk recovery

Item April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 03 Feb. March TOTAL Labour - invasives removal $3,750 $3,750 $7,500 Helicopter $1,200 $1,200 $2,400 3h Photopoint monitoring $600 $300 $300 $300 $1,500 5d+equip Pre-treatment inventory $2,500 $2,500 5d Post-treatment SAR monitoring $1,100 $1,100 2d Cumulative $2,500 $3,100 $8,050 $13,300 $13,600 $15,000 $15,000 Quarterly (June, Sept, Dec, Jan) $2,500 $5,550 $5,550 $1,400

Requested Cash Flow Signing 01-Jul 01-Oct 01-Jan completion of project* $2,500 $5,550 $5,550 $1,400

Appendix 10

HCTF proposal for developing a restoration plan for Millstream Creek

Seed Funding Proposal Form

Project File # Proponent Information

Contact/Project Leader Louise Blight, M.Sc.

Government Capital Regional District Parks Branch Department Public Organization Name Address 490 Atkins Road

City / Province / Postal Code Victoria BC V9B 2Z8 City Prov Postal code

Email Address [email protected]

Phone (250) 478-3344 Fax 478-5416 Project Information Amount Requested $4530 from HCTF

Project Name Riparian restoration project, Mill Stream, vicinity of Mill Hill Park.

Description ASSESSMENT/INVENTORY WORK IN RIPARIAN AND INSTREAM AREAS AND PREPARATION OF STREAM RESTORATION PLAN (MILL HILL PARK AREA), IN WATERSHED CONTEXT.

Please provide a two-line summary of the project

LOCATION Check (9)where Check (9) from where project is located project will be administered Located Administered

Victoria Victoria Vancouver Island Vancouver Island Lower Mainland Lower Mainland Thompson Nicola Thompson Nicola Kootenay East Kootenay East Kootenay West Kootenay West Cariboo Cariboo Skeena Skeena Omineca - Prince George Omineca - Prince George Peace / Liard - Fort St John Peace / Liard - Fort St John Okanagan Okanagan Issue/Problem to be Addressed CRD Parks is in the process of developing a restoration plan for 49

Mill Hill Regional Park. This will involve habitat restoration work in and around fish-bearing (coho, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout) Mill Stream where it flows through the Park and adjacent Park Reserve lands. Problems in the riparian areas include: soil compaction, loss of riparian vegetation, modified stream channels, sedimentation. Although a limited budget restricts the current proposal to these areas, a watershed-based approach would be emphasized. Requested monies would fund background work towards developing a restoration proposal, and work will be done with ongoing input sought from WLAP Fisheries Branch (e.g., Tracy Michalski, contacted 29/10/01).

Objectives 1. To assess instream and riparian areas in Mill Hill Regional Park and Park Reserve in order to identify riparian and instream restoration priorities; 2. To develop a detailed instream and riparian area restoration plan for the study area, using this project's field data as well as extant reports and data, including detailed 1983 DFO/ex-MELP stream assessment, historical and current CRD water quality data, and a 1996 CRD stream assessment. Restoration plan development would include determining any permit requirements; 3. To identify community partners to participate in the Mill Hill restoration work and in future planning initiatives for the Mill Stream watershed; 4. To develop appropriate communications tools, to be used during the Mill Hill restoration work, for educating the park-visiting public about stream protection and enhancement; 5. To minimize project costs by handling certain project elements, e.g., water testing and communications plans, in house.

Amount requested from Trust Fund $4530 (Please provide breakdown of expenses)

Consultants' fees, project orientation - 0.5 d @ $250 $500/d. Consultants' fees, field work - 2.0 d $1000 " " ", office-based research (historical data, $1250 contacting gov't, NGOs, etc) – 2.5 d Consultants' fees, report writing and development $1500 of restoration plan – 3.0 d Report production and contingencies $250

GST on consultants' fees $280

Signature of Applicant (or Signing Officer) Name Louise Blight Phone (250) 478-3344

Date 30 October, 2001

Appendix 11

CRD Parks Communications Checklist

Communications Checklist

Terms of reference What IS the communications project and scope? - - Who is the sponsor/project manager/internal client? - What other key persons should be involved in communications? - - What are the key target dates for communications? - - Are existing resources available? - - What key approvals are necessary for this project? - - Problem statement Describe the communications problem in plain language (a short, simple statement). - - - Objectives and expected results What do you want to accomplish with this communications project? - - - What, if any, measurable changes in the audience will indicate success? - - Messages Reduce messages, or media lines, to one or two simple statements that mean the most to the largest audience. - - - Audience/Market Who are you trying to reach? A general audience? Or a specific target audience? - - -

Constraints What external factors could influence recommended action? Politics? Management direction? What are the givens? - - - Approach What cost-effective solutions already exist? Can this be piggy-backed with other initiatives and solutions? - - - - Will this project benefit from a separate brain-storming session? If so, identify when and who should be there. - - - What specific products will result? A media release? Public Service Announcements (PSAs)? Posters? A communications plan? - - - Budget If possible, estimate the amount of funding required to complete communications. - - - Evaluation Have you reached your objectives? - - How do you know when you're getting the intended results? - - Follow-up What follow-up activities are required? Brochure distribution? Media interviews? - - - Who else needs to know? What other staff are affected by this project? - - -

Appendix 12

Workshop Report

Workshop Developing a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park1 Friday 12th April 2002 CRD Parks, 490 Atkins Ave. Victoria

Introduction CRD Parks hosted a workshop on April 12th, 2002 to begin the process of developing a Restoration Plan for Mill Hill Regional Park (MHRP). The discussion focussed on: the proposed purpose, goals and principles for a restoration plan; key elements of the restoration plan, and identifying issues and actions; establishment of a working group to assist in the review of the draft restoration plan, next steps.

There were 24 participants, eleven representing Capital Regional District (CRD) Parks, six from non government organisations (NGOs), two representing other jurisdictions, three from academic institutions and two private citizens. The participants list is attached as Appendix 1.

Regional Park Restoration in the Context of the Parks Master Plan Don Watmough of CRD Parks discussed the influence of the Parks Master Plan adopted by the CRD Board in 2000. According to the CRD Parks Master Plan, the role of CRD Parks is two-fold: To establish and protect a network of regional parks in perpetuity that represent and help maintain the diverse range of natural environments in the Capital Regional District; and, To provide opportunities for outdoor experiences and activities that foster appreciation, enjoyment and respect of the region's natural environment. While regional residents have indicated that they want CRD Parks to emphasise both parts of its mandate, they consider protecting the natural environment to be CRD Parks' primary responsibility.

Seven strategic directions are defined in the Parks Master Plan to guide the management and planning of parks for the next several years. The first strategic direction is to “protect and maintain the natural environment in existing regional parks."

The following statements of goals are taken from the CRD Parks Master Plan: To maintain healthy, viable ecosystems in regional parks; To minimise negative effects of human activities on the natural environments of regional parks and trails;

1 Workshop convened and report prepared by Judith Cullington and Associates

To undertake research and management activities that improve understanding of park ecosystems and our ability to sustain them; The CRD Parks Master Plan also outlines some general guidelines for the protection of the natural environment. Below are those relevant to this restoration plan: An ecosystem-based approach will be followed in the management of regional parks and trails in the CRD; Conservation, enhancement and restoration of biological systems will promote naturally functioning ecosystems; Conservation of rare, threatened or endangered species of plants and animals and their supporting habitats will take precedence over other uses and activities, if CRD Parks determines that they would have a significant adverse effect.

Mill Hill Regional Park is categorised as a Regional Conservation Area in the Master Plan because it has regionally significant natural environments and contains sensitive and threatened ecosystems, and rare or endangered plant and wildlife species. The primary purpose of parks under this classification is protection of the natural environment. Regional Conservation Areas need to be of sufficient size to ensure natural features can be protected and remain viable over the long term. For these reasons, outdoor activities in these parks will be limited so that their impact on the natural environment is minimised or eliminated. Overall, the Master Plan supports the implementation of ecological restoration in regional parks, and sets the stage for a Restoration Plan such as the one proposed here.

Project Description Louise Blight of CRD Parks reviewed the Project description, purpose and background of the Restoration Plan and information already existing for the park.

The CRD Parks Master Plan (2000) provides for the protection of the natural environment as a primary responsibility. The inclusion of environmental protection in the CRD Parks Master Plan was a result of public consultation. There is recognition by CRD residents that ecological integrity is as important a function of parks as the recreation component. This primary responsibility leads to the following three directions for parks planning: Planning for all parks is based on ecosystem management. Parks should promote naturally functioning ecosystems through conservation, enhancement and restoration. Conserving rare flora and fauna and their habitats will take precedence over other uses and facility development.

There are several reasons for completing a restoration plan for Mill Hill Regional Park: There are a number of populations of rare plants as well as red-listed ecosystems. It fits in with broader objectives such as those of GOERT and ecosystem recovery. It allows CRD Parks to set restoration priorities and remain focused on them. It provides for a comprehensive approach rather than a piecemeal one. It provides a logical, trackable rationale - i.e. accountability in decision-making.

It provides a template for future restoration work in other CRD parks.

Preliminary work in MHRP has identified the following primary restoration issues: Invasive alien species. Adjacent residential development fragmenting ecosystems and resulting in species loss. Increasing park use, including unofficial trail development. More intensive park use, including inappropriate usage such as mountain biking. Water quality in Mill Creek - general degradation of riparian area.

In general, invasive species management (and concurrent rare plants recovery work), trail management, and riparian restoration have been identified as the key short-term areas to focus restoration efforts.

So far, CRD Parks has completed the following steps in developing a restoration plan. Completed a Project Description in March 2002. Drafted a Table of Contents/Restoration Plan Outline. Started baseline data collection.

Through work completed by CRD, academic researchers and NGOs, the following databases have been established: Ecological information (3 Parks Inventory). Species lists (plants, butterflies, songbirds, other vertebrates, etc.). Location of rare plant populations. Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) polygons. Topographical mapping (5 m intervals) by Victoria Orienteers. Historical accounts of human use. Broom distribution and abundance in Garry Oak Ecosystems (GOEs). Water quality.

The next steps are to determine further information needs, inventories, and reference ecosystems as well as set restoration priorities. To develop an effective restoration plan, CRD needs the expert opinions and restoration plan ideas generated by this workshop. It also needs to identify a working group to assist with the draft plan. CRD Park planners and operations staff also need to establish appropriate work plans for the MHRP Restoration Plan.

CRD Parks is committed to the MHRP Restoration Plan. The CRD Board recently budgeted $20,000 for a conservation fund. This money is an annual fixture in the budget (core dollars) and can be used to create funding opportunities with other organisations to increase its dollar value.

In the discussion that followed the presentation, there were several suggestions and comments on the proposed project. These are summarised below: Mill Hill is a significant site to the Songhees First Nations. They should be included in the planning process. Note that Mill Hill is a midden site. Include historical natural disturbance regimes. Include Garry Oak Ecosystem Recovery Team's (GOERT) approach - essential ecosystem characteristics (EECs). Include high-resolution soil samples - can contribute to inventories and identify fire frequency over time.

Discussion: Scope of a Restoration Plan Discussion focussed on expanding the draft Table of Contents for the MHRP Restoration Plan. These changes are noted in blue in Appendix 2.

In addition to the specific comments on the Draft Table of Contents, there were several suggestions for subjects to be included in the report. These are: 1. Include a vision statement that is prosaic, not technical. 2. Restoration activities are complex processes. Outline these processes in broad terms, encompassing everything, then focus on the doable. 3. Include a literature review and general cultural knowledge, especially the oral histories of First Nations. 4. A management plan for continuing research on the sixteen plots established by Brenda Beckwith for her PhD research.

Discussion: Restoration Goals and Principles Goals are where you want to be while objectives describe how to get there. Goals are both long term (20 years from now) and short term (5 years from now). The group suggested the following goals and objectives:

Goal - Restore and Sustain Ecological Integrity • Restore SAR • Invasives removal • Management of damaging activities (trails) • Sustain and enhance viability of native ecosystems and species. • Ongoing learning/research/adaptive management. Supporting Goals/Objectives • Provide Leadership • Demonstrate success • Effective use of resources • Realistic short term activities • Encourage Partnerships • With community, other agencies Foster Public Understanding • Support for project • Better understanding of need for restoration

The key point made in this discussion is the recognition that the value of the restoration project goes beyond MHRP. It meets the needs of GOERT and SARA. It also will provide a template for other restoration plans in CRD Parks.

In summary, the goal should cover four elements:

1. Ecological - invasives - SAR - learning/research 2. Leadership - effective use of resources - learning - international - template - funding 3. Partnerships - funding - GOERT, other jurisdictions. 4. Educational - demonstration project to other park users and public - gain public support.

Field Trip to Mill Hill Regional Park The field trip to MHRP provided a first-hand look at areas of concern. Some of the highlights included - Millstream creek riparian area - First Nations midden area - Brenda Beckwith's research plot for camus - Trail erosion - Invasive species, including broom and daphne - Species at risk sites

Key Issues and Actions: Small Group Discussions Participants divided into two groups to discuss specific goals and information needs for riparian/terrestrial restoration and recreational use/public education.

Recreation Use and Public Education Group The discussion identified human impact as the key issue in terms of recreation use and public education. The concern is how to better manage human impacts to minimise the effects on the ecosystems and maximise the recreation opportunities. The discussion focused on the challenges, the opportunities and the successes.

Challenges: • Diminishing funding resources (less provincial money available) • Sensitivity of ecosystems (long time to regenerate) • Planting of invasive species (e.g. daphne) • Invasive 'cute' vertebrates (e.g. squirrels) • Use of herbicides and pesticides • Domestic animals (e.g. dogs, cats) • Fragmentation with too many trails and roads • Trails (people wandering off established trails on foot or bikes) • Hydrology (inappropriate dumping)

Opportunities: • Partnership with neighbouring schools • Education of neighbourhood groups, special interest groups (e.g. cyclists), park visitors • Education before legislation/enforcement • Trail and road closures • Seasonal closures for breeding or plant species at risk • Engineering design/education/enforcement • Volunteer program expanded to include active solicitation in park neighbourhood • Promote MHRP as a restoration site. • Link with education curriculum (e.g. Garry Oak Ecosystem Education Kit - GEEK) • Include on staff interpretive education and communications experts. • Cooperation between volunteer and union staff • Increased funding from federal sources.

Successes • In general, people are better behaved. There is less littering and less wandering off beaten track. • Agencies are more responsible for providing services such as park planning including trail construction, education programs, garbage containers, etc. • More cooperation between competing users (e.g. the local cycling group requested an article to educate mountain bike users).

Long Term Goals (5 - 10 years) • An active neighbourhood group that loves and cherishes the park; are actively involved in restoring the park. • A generation of school kids that love and cherish the park; are actively involved in restoring the park.

• MHRP is the model for other restoration sites in the CRD and other regions. • All park visitors are well educated and motivated; are self-monitoring of visitor behaviour. • A MHRP with a healthy natural ecosystem and positive human participation. • A park that serves the hiking needs of the recreation public as well as education opportunities. • An informed, educated public and staff. • Harmonious understanding of past, present and future of human interaction in park. • Areas of the park where 'target' invasive species are under control or well managed. • MHRP provides appropriate recreation activities.

Short Term Goals (2 years) Informed and educated staff and volunteers. - Conferences/Workshops - Outside education opportunities - In-house education programs, in particular supervisors. Neighbourhood - Include in the process - Recruitment as volunteers Schools - Partnership with Crystal View School - Partnership with Savory Elementary Public Education - Brochures - Internet - websites - GEEK - Interpretive signage - Trail engineering (e.g. platforms and fencing) - GOERT 'fact sheets'

Information accumulation should include networking with other agencies as well as in- house work. Potential funding partners include the Outdoor Recreation Council, GOERT, and foundations.

In conclusion, the group was positive that MHRP could be restored while still providing recreational opportunities for CRD residents.

Riparian and Terrestrial Restoration Discussion Group This group discussed a variety of issues and success relating to the restoration of terrestrial and riparian ecosystems in MHRP.

Issues - Ecosystems: The numerous issues discussed can be grouped into three categories: people impacts, ecosystem challenges and restoration challenges.

People Impacts - Development adjacent to park - Getting people to change attitudes (e.g. lawns) - Numbers of people/use - Trampling/compaction - Unauthorised trail use - Pet control - Upstream issues that impact on park Ecosystem Challenges - Invasives (plants and animals) - Ecosystem structure and integrity - Species at Risk - Disturbance regimes - Fragmentation - Climate change, air quality - Permeable/impermeable - Water quality - Hydrology Restoration Challenges - Baseline inventory - Budget/time/ability to deliver - Capacity building - Need for ecosystem approach - Ecosystem sustainability - Lack of/need for connectivity - Impacts during restoration - Loss of altered ecosystem (species balance) - Making conscious choices to manipulate - value choices (choosing ecosystem, # trails management) - Remove impacts of non-native species - Ability to manage outside park - Socially acceptable actions (e.g. fire, cutting Douglas Fir) - Do we have to do restoration forever? - Need for political support/labour

Successes The discussion of successes can be grouped into three categories: Gaining Support, Baseline and Successes, and Indicators of Success.

Gaining Support - This workshop (all sections of the CRD are represented)

- Species at risk are still present in the park - Opportunity to reintroduce species at risk to the park - Support (e.g. for broom mapping) - Volunteer pool of labour - Trail avoiding SAR - Parks Master Plan (2000) recognises importance of conservation Baselines and successes - Models elsewhere (e.g. Cowichan Preserve) - TEM mapping, inventory - Recent addition to park - Applied research (e.g. Brenda Beckwith's PhD research on camus) - Most green spaces are CRD parks Indicators of success - Build self-sustaining ecosystems (not gardening forever) - Stable or increasing populations of SAR would be measure of success.

Short Term Goals and Activities: There are three categories grouping the discussion of goals and activities. These are: Baseline Data Goals and Activities, Immediate Goals and Actions, Support Generating Goals and Activities. Baseline Data Goals and Activities - Ecosystem approach – essential ecosystem characteristics - Do photo monitoring and baseline inventory - Get baseline information and start restoration - Identify adaptive management sites (to practice various techniques on!) - Inventory ongoing (plants, maybe some insects) – covenant area – NCC protocols - Set criteria for priority areas Immediate Goals and Actions - Decide adaptive management actions - Set up adaptive management experiments - Encourage UVic Restoration of Natural Systems program to include Garry Oak curriculum – do research here - Aqua-Tex Consulting survey of riparian zone – proper functioning condition - Identify priority restoration sites and criteria to use - Act - don’t wait – calculated risk. Document everything - Figure out how to deal with seedbank - Whack invasives – plants - Eradicate daphne clumps –prevent reproduction and complete an intensive survey within park. Remove outliers. - Remove broom from priority areas - ACT – showcase success. Get people excited. Show it can be done. Have demonstration sites close to trail. Strategic approach. - Gathering information for plants propagation. Think genetic diversity. Support Generating Goals and Activities - Signage and public outreach (e.g. with school – get into curriculum such as GEEK, Project Wild) - Training and capacity building – coordinator to manage - Identify priority zones

- How, who, how much for workplans - Realistic work goals - Staff training (union involvement) - Public demonstration project with interpretive signage focus not on SAR (general - not specific) but on camus instead. - Funding – look for seed funding and then other sources. Encourage others to be involved in work.

Future Directions The discussions from this workshop will be incorporated into the Restoration Plan currently being prepared by CRD Parks. The draft plan will be released in July and the public meetings will be scheduled for September.

CRD Parks will circulate the draft Plan to the participants of this workshop for their comments before releasing the document. A sub-group will be asked to participate in establishing the criteria for site selections for initial restoration work and photo monitoring.

There were three key recommendations by the workshop participants. Select sites now, delaying the report if necessary. Now is the window of opportunity for identification of SAR locations. If this opportunity is passed then must wait until next spring. Set micro sites to create opportunities for success. Hire a professional photographer to do the photo monitoring to ensure good quality every time.