French Creek Estuary: Assessment of its Historical ...French Creek is known as a marine community...

French Creek Estuary: Assessment of its Historical, Community, and Ecological Values

Prepared by: Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region Research Institute

October 2018

French Creek Estuary Assessment

Page 2 of 51

Acknowledgements

The Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region Research Institute (MABRRI) at Vancouver Island University

(VIU) conducted all of the primary research and report writing for this project. This research has been

conducted under the supervision and guidance of MABRRI Research Director, Dr. Pamela Shaw PhD

MCIP RPP FRCGS. This project was supported by Graham Sakaki MCP, MABRRI Research and Community

Engagement Coordinator, and Larissa Thelin, MABRRI Assistant Research and Community Engagement

Coordinator.

We would first like to thank Quinn Griesdale of French Creek Estates Ltd., the owners of the property

discussed throughout this report, for meeting with us numerous times, for allowing us to conduct

research on the property, and for being open and excited about the prospect of potentially turning the

property into a public park.

We would also like to thank: Lorraine Bell, Office Administrator at the Qualicum Beach Museum, for

finding us historical information regarding the French Creek area and allowing us to use it in this report;

staff of the Geographic Information Centre at the University of British Columbia for lending us historical

aerial photos of the French Creek area; Kathleen Reed, Assessment and Data Librarian at Vancouver

Island University, for helping us to order these photos; and staff of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services who

gave us permission to include one of them within this report. We would also like to thank Christopher

Stephens, Volunteer Caretaker of the Little Qualicum Estuary to Nanoose Bay Important Bird Area, for

providing us with a report that lists the birds that use the French Creek estuary and recommendations

for restoration opportunities at the study site.

Finally, we would like to extend a warm thank you to the members of the Friends of French Creek

Conservation Society for their extensive help throughout the duration of this project. This project began

because of their desire to involve students in their initiative to conserve a sensitive and beautiful area,

something that we were more than happy to get behind. Members of the Society met with us on a

regular basis to help with the direction of this project and even joined us during a number of field days.

Their community survey also helped to add an important aspect to this report.


Page 3 of 51

MABRRI Research Project Team

The following lists all members of the MABRRI team that were involved in various aspects of this project.

Names are listed alphabetically by last name.

Contributing Authors

Mandy Hobkirk, Work-op student

Jessica Pyett, Senior Research Assistant

Graham Sakaki, Research & Community Engagement Coordinator

Lauren Shaw, Projects Coordinator

Kidston Short, Senior Research Assistant

Larissa Thelin, Assistant Research & Community Engagement Coordinator

Cartography



Ariel Verhoeks, GIS & Remote Sensing Specialist

Field Team

Alan Cavin, Research Assistant

Roxanne Croxall, Research Assistant

Kayla Harris, Research Assistant

Alex Harte, Research Assistant

Mandy Hobkirk, Work-op student

Graham Sakaki, Research & Community Engagement Coordinator

Chrissy Schellenberg, Research Assistant


Brian Timmer, Research Assistant

Haley Tomlin, Projects Coordinator


Ashley Van Acken, Coordinator of the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region


Page 4 of 51

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2

MABRRI Research Project Team 3

Table of Contents 4

List of Figures & Tables 6

1.0 Introduction 8 – 11

1.1 The Community 8

1.2 The Stream 9

1.3 Project & Study Site 10

2.0 History 12 – 16

2.1 First Nations 12

2.2 Settlement 12

2.3 Decrease in Mature Forested Areas 15

2.3.1 Methodology 15

2.3.2 Results 15

3.0 Current Land Use 16 – 26

3.1 Study Site 17

3.1.1 Community Survey 17

3.1.2 Trail Counter Analysis 19

3.1.2.1 Methodology 19

3.1.2.2 Results 20

4.0 Ecology 26 – 38

4.1 Climate Variation 26

4.2 Critical Habitats 27

4.2.1 Important Bird Area 27

4.2.2 Sensitive Ecosystem Areas 28

4.3 Ecological Threats 30

4.3.1 Invasive Species 30

4.3.2 Low Streamflow 31

4.3.3. Land Use 33


Page 5 of 51

4.4 Estuary Snapshot Survey 33

4.4.1 Wetland Mapping Methods 33

4.4.2 Fauna Bioblitz Survey Methods 34

4.4.3 Flora BioBlitz Survey Methods 34

4.4.4 Flora Transect Survey Methods 34

4.4.5 Estuary Snapshot Survey Results 36

5.0 Conclusion 39 – 41

5.1 Summary of Report 39

5.2 Recommendations 39

6.0 References 42 – 44

Appendices 45 – 51

Appendix A: Trail counter field notes 45

Appendix B: Summary of trail counter data 46

Appendix C: Fauna Bioblitz data collection sheet 47

Appendix D: Flora BioBlitz data collection sheets 48

Appendix E: Transect survey data collection sheets 50


Page 6 of 51

List of Figures & Tables

Figure 1: Location of French creek and surrounding communities on Vancouver Island 8

Figure 2: Boundary of the French Creek Watershed 10

Figure 3: Location of study site 11

Figure 4: Location of Qualicum and Snaw-naw-as (Nanoose) First Nations in relation to 12

French Creek

Figure 5: Construction crew building St. Anne’s Church in 1894 13

Figure 6: French Creek wharf and boat basin in 1951 13

Figure 7: Aerial photo of French Creek and surrounding area in 1949 14

Figure 8: Aerial imagery of French Creek and surrounding area in 2016 14

Figure 9: Decrease in forested areas near the French Creek estuary between 1949 and 2016 16

Figure 10: Current land use regulations of the area surrounding the study site 17

Figure 11: Results of the FFCCS Community Survey regarding the current community 18

uses of the French Creek estuary property

Figure 12: Location of trail counters at the French Creek study site throughout the eight 20

weeks that they were installed

Figure 13: Comparison of data between FC Counter 1 and FC Counter 2.2 21

Figure 14: Illustration of discrepancy in the data of FC Counter 1 21

Figure 15: Data and trendline of FC Counter 2.2 22

Figure 16: Comparison of data between FC Counter 2 and FC Counter 3 22

Figure 17: Comparison of data between FC Counter 1.3 and FC Counter 3.2 23



Figure 20: Comparison of data between FC Counter 1.4, FC Counter 2.3, and FC Counter 2.4 25

Figure 21: Biogeoclimatic zones and winter precipitation types of the French Creek watershed 27

Figure 22: Parks and protected areas within the Little Qualicum Estuary to Nanoose Bay 28

Important Bird Area

Figure 23: Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory results for the FC estuary study site 29

Figure 24: Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory disturbance results in the FC estuary study site 30

Figure 25: Distribution of giant hogweed in French Creek 31

Figure 26: Hydrometric parameters of French Creek from July to September, 2018 32


Page 7 of 51

Figure 27: Estimated mean monthly flows of French Creek compared to flow optimums for fish 32

Figure 28: Location of quadrats placed along transects 35

Figure 29: Approximate locations of forest and wetland transects in the study site 35

Table 1: French Creek flora survey results 36

Table 2: French Creek fauna survey results 38

Figure 30: Train Wreck Bridge in Whistler, BC 41


Page 8 of 51

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Community

French Creek is located on Vancouver Island between Parksville and Qualicum Beach (Figure 1). The

community is part of Electoral Area ‘G’ within the Regional District of Nanaimo (Regional District of

Nanaimo [RDN], 2008). In addition to French Creek, Electoral Area ‘G’ also includes the communities of

San Pareil and Dashwood, making up an area of 50.73km2 (RDN, 2008). As of 2006, Electoral Area ‘G’

housed a population of 7,023 (RDN, 2008). Over the next ten years, this number increased by just 442;

by 2016, Electoral Area ‘G’ had a total population of 7,465 (Regional District of Nanaimo [RDN], 2017). In

2016, the two closest communities, Qualicum Beach and Parksville, housed 8,943 and 12,514,

respectively (RDN, 2017). This area of Vancouver Island, known collectively as Parksville Qualicum

Beach, is made up of “friendly and small communities” (Parksville Qualicum Beach Tourism, 2018).

French Creek is known as a marine community (Parksville Qualicum Beach Tourism, 2018). Its harbor

houses a large federal dock (Parksville Qualicum Beach Tourism, 2018) and the community’s main

features include large commercial fishing vessels, charter operations for sightseeing and diving, a

specialty seafood store, and a restaurant (VancouverIsland.com, 2017).

Figure 1: Location of French Creek and surrounding communities on Vancouver Island.

Sources: Background imagery obtained by Esri and map created by MABRRI.


Page 9 of 51

The Electoral Area ‘G’ Official Community Plan identifies and supports the protection and enhancement

of important environmentally sensitive ecosystems (RDN, 2008), defined “areas of land and/or water

that are sensitive to human presence, development or interference” as well as “features, areas, or

habitats that are worthy of a higher level of protection as a result of vulnerability, or particular value in

maintaining essential ecosystem function” (RDN, 2008). The Plan highlights the importance of mapping

environmentally sensitive areas and features and designating Development Permit Areas to protect

those important features (RDN, 2008). It also contains policies for the protection of groundwater

resources, rain water management, coastal zone management, greenways, and natural areas (RDN,

2008). Finally, the Plan encourages sustainable development practices in order to improve the efficiency

of the built environment, conserve resources, and minimize the ecological footprint of development

(RDN, 2008).

In addition to the Official Community Plans significant efforts to protect natural areas and sensitive

ecosystems, Electoral Area ‘G’ also advocates for non-government agencies and conservation-based

organizations, such as the Friends of French Creek Conservation Society, and encourages them to work

with the Regional District of Nanaimo and the private sector to acquire and manage lands suitable for

conservation (RDN, 2008). Non-government agencies and conservation-based organizations are

encouraged to hold and enforce conservation-based covenants on behalf of Electoral Area ‘G’ residents

and the Regional District of Nanaimo (Regional District of Nanaimo, 2008).

1.2 The Stream

The community’s namesake, French Creek itself, drains a watershed approximately 68km2 and 17km in

length (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection & Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management,

2002) (Figure 2). The watershed is made up of steep forested headlands and the Nanaimo lowlands,

which are often used for farmland, rural residential, commercial and urban residential areas (Ministry of

Water, Land and Air Protection & Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, 2002). The watershed

is comprised of Coastal Douglas Fir and Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zones (Forest Service

British Columbia, n.d.). “Climatic variation within the watershed is illustrated by the variation in

biogeoclimatic classification. Biogeoclimatic zones are characterized by changes in forest cover and

understory indicator species that reflect climate and soil conditions” (Cooper & Moore, 2002). These

zones are of the mildest climates in Canada, thus giving the French Creek basin the ideal habitat and

growing conditions for many forest-based wildlife species and ecosystems (Ministry of Water, Land and

Air Protection & Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, 2002).


Page 10 of 51

Figure 2: Boundary of the French Creek Watershed (Regional District of Nanaimo [RDN], 2014).

1.3 Project & Study Site

This study is focused on a portion of an undeveloped lot located just north of the French Creek estuary

(Figure 3). In 2017, it was listed for sale by French Creek Estates Ltd. Members of Friends of the French

Creek Conservation Society (FFCCS) enlisted the help of Vancouver Island University, in particular Mount

Arrowsmith Biosphere Region Research Institute (MABRRI), to determine the possibility of working

alongside French Creek Estates Ltd. to establish a public park in the area.

In 2018, a portion of the lot was sold, leaving the remainder of the lot, which contains a pond and runs

alongside the estuary (outlined in red in Figure 3), open for potential development or the possibility of

establishing the aforementioned public park. Consultation with French Creek Estates Ltd. suggested

interest in the formation of a public park, as long as liability of the land could be transferred to an

organization who would take on the management of a park indefinitely. In order to help with this

process, MABRRI committed to developing this report, which attempts to outline the historical,

ecological, and community values of the property. This report is meant to illustrate the value of this

space, in hopes of showcasing the importance of protecting it as public parkland.


Page 11 of 51

Much of the information gathered for this report was done so through an extensive literature review.

Additional historical information was gathered through an analysis of historical aerial photos and

historical photos. Further ecological information was gathered through on site field work, and

supplementary information regarding the community was obtained through the use of trail counters.

Exact methodologies for each are described in more detail in the sections below.

Figure 3: Location of study site

Note: The red site boundary illustrated in this figure is approximate.

Sources: Background imagery data obtained by the City of Parksville, RDN Community Park data obtained by the

City of Parksville, Site Boundary data obtained by French Creek Estates Ltd., trail data obtained in the field via GPS

tracking, map created by MABRRI.


Page 12 of 51

2.0 History

2.1 First Nations

French Creek is a site of cultural value and importance. Historically, the area was inhabited by First

Nations’ Coast Salish peoples before European settlement in the 1800s (Destination BC Corp, 2017). It

was common for Coast Salish peoples to use the land for hunting, gathering, digging, watch-outs, fishing,

and other traditional customs (e.g., canoe pulling, drumming, etc.) (Nanoose First Nations, 2017). Today,

French Creek lies within the traditional territories of two Coast Salish Nations: Qualicum and Snaw-Naw-

As (Figure 4). Many traditional practices still take place in the area including hunting, fishing, gathering,

and shellfish aquaculture (Nanoose First Nations, 2017).

Figure 4: Location of Qualicum and Snaw-naw-as (Nanoose) First Nations in relation to French Creek (Government

of Canada, n.d.).

Note: This map does not reflect the boundaries of each of these Nations’ traditional territories

2.2 Settlement

In addition to First Nations cultural practices, the area has had other historical land uses. Following

European settlement, development slowly started to increase in the French Creek area. By 1894, a post

office and a church were established (Figure 5) (Nicholls, 1994). In 1911, Charles Robert Tryon bought a

large parcel of land near the sea and built a 30-room house (Leffler, 2000). The house burned down in

1923, but was replaced by an old Tudor style house that remains in French Creek to this day (Leffler,

2000). By 1950, the French Creek harbor was built (Figure 6).


Page 13 of 51

Figure 5: Construction crew building St. Anne’s Church in 1894 (Royal BC Museum, n.d.).

Figure 6: French Creek wharf and boat basin in 1951 (Qualicum Beach Museum, 2018).

When viewing aerial photos of the area, it is clear that by the late 1940s, the forests existing in the

French Creek area begun to be cleared for various land-use reasons, such as agriculture, urbanization,

and forestry (Figure 7). Since then, agricultural farmland, urbanization, and forestry has increased

substantially in the region (Figure 8), with development occurring at a faster rate along the coastline.

Interestingly, the undeveloped lot near the French Creek estuary has remained untouched (Figure 3).


Page 14 of 51

Figure 7: Aerial photo of French Creek and surrounding area in 1949 (Ministry of Citizen Services, 1949).

Note: The red circles provide examples of the clearing of forested areas for urbanization and agriculture.

Figure 8: Aerial imagery of French Creek and surrounding area in 2016.

Sources: Background imagery data obtained by Esri and map created by MABRRI.


Page 15 of 51

2.3 Decrease in Mature Forested Areas

2.3.1 Methodology

The aerial photos above (Figures 7 & 8) showcase a significant decrease in the forests of the French

Creek area. To better understand this phenomenon, we mapped the change in mature forested area

with the use of historical aerial photos and geographic information systems (GIS) technology, specifically

ArcMap 10.5.1.

An aerial photo from 1949 was used, as it was the oldest historical aerial photo available for the area.

The photo was georeferenced to the basemap – aerial imagery freely available through ArcMap from

2016. A 2km radius of the site was drawn; the trailhead located just southwest of the parking lot at the

site (Figure 3) was used as the centre point of the radius so as not to use an arbitrary point in the middle

of the undeveloped lot. This buffer was used in order to limit the scope of this particular exercise, as

resources and time were limited, but also to showcase the most likely areas that residents of the French

Creek area would most frequently visit.

For both the georeferenced historical aerial photo from 1949 and the most recent imagery from 2016,

mature forested areas that fell within the 2km radius were digitized. Mature forested areas were chosen

due to the ease of differentiating these areas from other greenspaces in both images – darker shades in

the 1949 image and darkest greens in the 2016 image were most easily distinguished from other shades

and colours. Furthermore, if other greenspaces were included, we risked unintentionally including golf

courses, agricultural fields, or otherwise “unnatural” areas. Although there is still the risk that replanted

areas within forestry lands were included, this helped to showcase a decrease in more natural spaces

over time. Areas that appeared to be just a single line of trees, or single trees in a resident’s backyard,

were not digitized, as we wanted to illustrate a change in forested areas, rather than a change in single

trees or those that were planted as decoration (e.g. alongside a road or pathway).

The digitized polygons were then displayed over the most recent imagery (2016) and the areas of each

were calculated to quantify the change in mature forested areas within the study area.

2.3.2 Results

The map below (Figure 9) illustrates a significant decrease in forested areas between 1949 and 2016 due

mainly to the substantial increase of urbanization in the area. In fact, we calculated a 71.36% decrease

(or a decrease of 3.14km2) in these areas between these two dates (4.40km2 in 1949 compared to just

1.26km2 in 2016).

Interestingly, some areas that were not mapped as mature forested areas in 1949 were mapped as

mature forests in 2016, such as within the study site (outlined in white in Figure 9). This suggests the

replanting of these areas at some point between 1949 and 2016. Regardless of this replanting, however,

it is clear that mature forests within the French Creek area have been decreasing and becoming more

fragmented over time.


Page 16 of 51

Figure 9: Decrease in forested areas near the French Creek estuary between 1949 and 2016.

Sources: Background imagery data obtained by Esri, 1949 historical aerial photo obtained by the Geographic

Information Centre (UBC), and map created by MABRRI.

3.0 Current Land Use

Surrounding the study site are an assortment of current land uses (Figure 10). Most of it is surrounded

by residential areas categorized as Residential 1 (RS1), which permits home based businesses,

residential use, and secondary suites (Regional District of Nanaimo [RDN], 2015). The large zone to the

right of the lot, the harbor, is zoned as Water 3 (WA3), which allows for boat building and repair, log

storage and sorting yards, marinas and supplementary fueling stations, as well as shipping yards (RDN,

2015). The area listed as CM6 is a zoned as Commercial 6, and can house a variety of commercial uses,

such as hotels, pubs and restaurants, offices, or retail stores, among others (RDN, 2015).

Just south of the highway (Island Highway W), which borders the lot to the south, is an area classified as

PU1 (Figure 10). Public 1 (PU1) areas can include personal care facilities, public utility areas, residential

areas, or schools (RDN, 2015).


Page 17 of 51

Figure 10: Current land use regulations of the area surrounding the study site (Regional District of Nanaimo [RDN],

2018).

3.1 Study Site

The study site itself houses lots 3, 4, and 5 (Figure 10). These, along with lot 2, which is currently part of

the area that has been sold for development, are collectively known as District Lot 28 (RDN, 2008). The

lots are categorized under the zoning bylaw of Residential 5 (RS5) within Subdivision District R (RDN,

2000; RDN, 2015). RS5 permits multiple dwelling unit development while Subdivision District R permits a

minimum parcel size of 500m2 with the community water and sewer system or 1.0 ha without either

service (RDN, 2000).

Although the study site itself is privately owned, members of the surrounding communities often use it

as though it is a public park. In order to understand the extent of this usage, we included the results of a

survey conducted by the Friends of French Creek Conservation Society (FFCCS), as well as conducted our

own analysis using trail counters installed on site.

3.1.1 Community Survey

From July 2 to 16, 2018, FFCCS hosted an online survey to ascertain the community’s awareness and

opinions of the currently undeveloped land surrounding the French Creek estuary and its potential to

become a park (Bowles, 2018). The survey explained that almost half of the total undeveloped area was

sold for development purposes, while the remainder was currently being considered for the formation

of a public park (Bowles, 2018). It aimed to understand how the surrounding communities felt about this

idea, as well as gained insight into the respondents’ uses of the property (Bowles, 2018).

Of the 342 respondents to this survey, 69.6% were residents of French Creek, 10.2% of Parksville, 10.9%

of Qualicum Beach, and 9.0% of other areas within the Regional District of Nanaimo (Bowles, 2018).


Page 18 of 51

Overall these respondents were up-to-date on the state of the property. In fact, 74.2% had been

informed that about half the property was recently sold for development, and 70.0% were aware that

the rest of the property is still owned by French Creek Estates Ltd. and is currently proposed to become

public parkland (Bowles, 2018). An overwhelming majority of 93.4% of those surveyed supported the

French Creek estuary park proposal (Bowles, 2018).

Many of the participants were personally familiar with the property given 71.8% of respondents

indicated they have already visited it, and most of whom do so 1-5 times or more per month (Bowles,

2018). These community members frequent the area for walking, bird watching, and a variety of other

activities (Figure 11) (Bowles, 2018). Some participants added that they also like to visit the area for

wildlife viewing, foraging, picnics, and photography (Bowles, 2018).

Figure 11: Results of the FFCCS Community Survey regarding the current community uses of the French Creek

estuary property (Bowles, 2018).

Note: Respondents were able to choose more than one option for this particular question, which is why the

percentage of respondents add up to more than 100%.

Finally, 182 participants responded to the open comment section (Bowles, 2018). Much of this feedback

concerned protection of critical habitat on the property, as well as specific ecological features such as

the salmon, migratory birds, and wetland (Bowles, 2018). Some respondents believed human activity

should be restricted, either entirely or by fencing trails and forbidding dogs, to prevent disturbance of

the property’s natural state (Bowles, 2018). An additional 11 respondents felt that the best way to

conserve the property is to do nothing and leave it alone (Bowles, 2018). If the property is turned into a

park, 21 people suggested it could be improved with amenities, specifically signage, picnic tables, waste

bins, and an expanded trail network (Bowles, 2018). However, others worried that this proposal could

exacerbate traffic problems in French Creek and that any park plan will have to address parking and

accessibility (Bowles, 2018). There were 32 different comments suggesting that parks should be created

at every opportunity to combat the rapid development occurring in French Creek (Bowles, 2018).

Several others commented that hosting environmental education programs on the property would raise


Page 19 of 51

awareness about ecologically significant issues, which could further limit development in the area long-

term (Bowles, 2018).

3.1.2 Trail Counter Analysis

3.1.2.1 Methodology

From July 12, 2018 until September 14, 2018, three trail counters were installed at various locations

throughout the study site to determine the current uses of the site. TRAFx trail counters, specifically

Generation 4 Infrared trail counters in weatherproof field cases, were used. The supplementary TRAFx

Dock in a weatherproof field case was used for configuring the trail counters and downloading their

data.

The three counters were moved approximately every two to three weeks (Appendix A) over the nine

week period. They were either placed near entrances to the study site, to determine how many people

were entering and leaving, or at what appeared to be common areas that people went off-path, in

hopes of understanding how many people were going off path (Figure 12).

Each time that a trail counter was moved, the time of removal and the time that it was set up at its new

location were recorded so that any data recorded between those times could be removed in case the

trail counter was recording this movement. The locations of each trail counter were also recorded.

Location data were continually added to a map of trail counter locations (Figure 12) and frequently

uploaded to Avenza Maps, a map-based app for smart phones. In the field, each updated map on

Avenza Maps was used to ensure that the trail counters were always placed in new locations (i.e. a

location was never duplicated). Each time that the trail counters were moved, their data were

downloaded using the TRAFx Dock and the counter was “emptied” to ensure that no information from

the previous location would show up as data for the new location.

For ease of recording this information, each trail counter was given a name – FC Counter 1, FC Counter

2, and FC Counter 3. Each time that the trail counter was moved, a new decimal number was used after

the name so that we could keep track of which trail counter was placed at what location and on which

date. In other words, FC Counter 1 on the map below illustrates the first location that this trail counter

was placed at, while FC Counter 1.2 shows the second, FC Counter 1.3 shows the third, and FC Counter

1.4 shows the fourth (Figure 12; Appendix A).


Page 20 of 51

Figure 12: Location of trail counters at the French Creek study site throughout the eight weeks that they were

installed.

Note: Location numbers listed in the legend outline the order that the trail counters were installed. For example,

Location 1 was the first location that the trail counters were installed at and Location 2 was the second. These align

with the “Location ID” column in Appendix A and B, while each label on the map (e.g. FC Counter 3.3) aligns with

the column entitled “Counter Name on Map” in these same appendices.

Source: Background imagery data obtained by City of Parksville, RDN community park boundary dataset obtained

from the City of Parksville, site boundary data obtained from French Creek Estates Ltd., and map created by

MABRRI.

In the office, any discrepancies in the data were removed from the trail counter datasets, such as counts

that may have occurred while moving counters from one location to the next. Then, the data were

analyzed in order to determine the identified uses of the study site. A summary table of all the data was

developed (Appendix B) and different trail counter results were compared in the results section below.

The colours used in the following graphs are correlated with those used in the map of trail counter

locations (Figure 12) for each of discussion.

3.1.2.2 Results

When looking at the parking lot on the east side of the property, it is clear that there are two directions

that users could travel – either northwest via FC Counter 1 or southwest via FC Counter 2.2. In other

words, walking by these two trail counters are the only directions that visitors using the parking lot

could go. Interestingly, the counts of both are fairly similar (Figure 13). Throughout the time that the


Page 21 of 51

trail counters were installed, these two entrances were the most frequently used of all the entrances

included in this study (Appendix B). It is important to note, however, that the trail counters used do not

measure direction, and so it is difficult to say whether these people were counted leaving or entering

the site.

Figure 13: Comparison of data between FC Counter 1 and FC Counter 2.2.

It is also important to note here that some of this data may be incorrect, and without field cameras

being installed on site, it is impossible to determine the cause of discrepancies in these datasets. For

example, in the span of 6 hours in one day (from 10:00am to 4:00pm), FC Counter 1 recorded 205

counts. It is highly unlikely that this many people travelled through this area in that short amount of

time; it is much more likely that the counter was noticed by people during this time frame and they

stopped to look at it. If this were to occur, the trail counter would incorrectly record their movements as

though they were multiple people passing by. As an example, Figure 14 showcases the discrepancies in

the data for FC Counter 1 mentioned above – the tall spike in the middle of the graph illustrates the 205

counts recorded in such a short amount of time.

Figure 14: Illustration of discrepancy in the data of FC Counter 1.


Page 22 of 51

Interestingly, this same apparent discrepancy does not exist in the dataset for FC Counter 2.2 (Figure

15). This counter instead showcases a fairly flat trendline, shown in red in Figure 15. This suggests not

only a very regular use of this particular trail, which runs parallel with the river (Figure 12), but also that

it likely is the most frequently used trail on site (Appendix B).

Figure 15: Data and trendline of FC Counter 2.2

Visitors that access the property via Viking Way, could take the easterly pathway, and pass by FC

Counter 3, or could take the westerly pathway, and pass by FC Counter 2 (Figure 12). Throughout the

time that they were installed, the trail that passes by where FC Counter 2 was installed was used more

frequently (Figure 16). This counter tracked anyone who would be wanting to view the pond – in fact,

just beside the tree that FC Counter 2 was installed on, is the only easily accessibly way of viewing the

pond area. When visiting the site, it was clear that this was a popular spot for visitors to stop and view

the natural area, particularly the many birds that frequent this small body of water. It is important to

note that the same limitation regarding direction discussed above applies to this scenario as well. In

addition, because these two trail counters were installed throughout the same time frame, some of

these visitors may have been counted twice – once on FC Counter 2, and once on FC Counter 3.

Figure 16: Comparison of data between FC Counter 2 and FC Counter 3.


Page 23 of 51

Access to the site is also available through the area that has recently been sold for development

(undeveloped area not outlined in red in Figure 12). Unfortunately, the counter used to capture this

data (FC Counter 3.3) malfunctioned and did not capture any data throughout its installment at this

location. However, FC Counter 1.3 and FC Counter 3.2 captured the two directions that visitors could

travel via pathway after passing by FC Counter 3.3. From the graph below it is apparent that both of

these routes were used fairly evenly by visitors either entering or leaving the site via the undeveloped

lot (Figure 17). However, throughout the duration of their installment, these trails were not used as

much as those monitored by FC Counter 1 and FC Counter 2.2 (Figure 13).

Figure 17: Comparison of data between FC Counter 1.3 and FC Counter 3.2

Visitors accessing the site via the highway would be captured by either FC Counter 1.2 or FC Counter 3.2

(Figure 12) – a pathway allows for foot traffic to travel from the sidewalk along the highway down to the

site. Throughout the time that the trail counters were installed, more people passed by FC Counter 1.2

than they did by FC Counter 3.2 (Figure 18). This seems quite intuitive, however, as FC Counter 1.2 was

located on the pathway that goes along the river. This pathway is the most heavily used, according to

our analysis of FC Counter 2.2 above (Figure 15), suggesting that many visitors visit the park for the

natural scenery of the river and estuary.


Page 24 of 51


As stated above, the trail along the river appears to be the most frequently used. FC Counter 1.2 and FC

Counter 2.2 captured any visitors travelling along this pathway (Figure 12). Between the two counters,

there were a total of 1,405 counts out of 3,961 (35.5%) (Figure 19). Unfortunately this data is

misleading, as these two counters were installed throughout the same time frame and so there is a

possibility that many of the visitors were counted twice.

In addition, it appears that many people using this trail do not head southwest as far as the bridge (by FC

Counter 1.2 – Figure 12), as there is a significant difference in the total counts between each end of the

trail (956 for FC Counter 2.2 and 449 for FC Counter 1.2). Regardless, the portion closest to the mouth of

the river appears to be the most frequently used part of the park.



Page 25 of 51

Three trail counter locations were used to understand if people were accessing areas off-trail: FC

Counter 1.4, FC Counter 2.3, and FC Counter 2.4 (Figure 12). FC Counter 1.4 was placed at the entrance

to an opening of a stand of trees and shrubs (Figure 12) – within the opening we found evidence of

human use (e.g. food wrappers and drink containers) and we were interested in understanding if this

was a frequented area. Opposite to what we expected, this area was only used during the weekdays

(Figure 20) and was overall hardly used.

FC Counters 2.3 and 2.4 were used to monitor potentially sensitive areas. FC Counter 2.3 was situated

near an entrance to a meadow-like area (Figure 12) that housed many native plant species. We suspect

that people accessing this area were attempting to gain access to blackberry bushes that line the

meadows, although their foot traffic could have a negative impact on the native species that exist there.

In addition, this activity can lead to the spreading of invasive Himalayan blackberry. An average of 1.55

people visited this site throughout the timespan that the counter was installed, suggesting that this is a

popular site for visitors.

FC Counter 2.4 was located near the only other potential access to the pond (Figure 12) – a small

opening in shrubbery could allow for visitors to access its south end. Although this trail counter recorded

the most counts out of the three trail counters listed (Figure 20), it is highly likely that this data was

recorded incorrectly. The entire dataset were recorded on one day, September 13. We suspect that

someone may have noticed the trail counter and stopped to look at it, causing the counter to take

multiple recordings. Therefore, this access to the pond from this direction does not appear to be used

much, if at all.

Figure 20: Comparison of data between FC Counter 1.4, FC Counter 2.3, and FC Counter 2.4

A summary of the trail counter data is illustrated in Appendix B. It is clear from this summary that the

study site is frequently used by the public. In fact, we counted an average of almost 1 (0.97) counts per

hour, and an average count of 23.02 per day. Interestingly, the latter is almost equally distributed

between weekends and week days – 23.54 per weekend day and 22.80 per week day. According to a

2016 census, the average age of residents within the Regional District of Nanaimo is 52.8 years and

approximately 36% of residents who answered the survey are over 65 years of age (Statistics Canada,


Page 26 of 51

2016). Thus, it is safe to say that a large portion of the population in the area is likely retired, and

therefore can visit the property during any day of the week, rather than being restricted to weekends

when most people do not have to work.

4.0 Ecology

4.1 Climate Variation

According to the French Creek Watershed Study that was conducted in 2002, the French Creek

watershed is comprised primarily of biogeoclimatic subzones of Coastal Douglas Fir and Coastal Western

Hemlock, specifically the very dry maritime subzone that is limited to Vancouver Island (Cooper, 2002).

Coastal Douglas Fir and Coastal Western Hemlock zones are typified by warm dry summers and mild wet

winters, which enable a long growing season (Cooper, 2002). However, pronounced seasonal water

deficits can be a limiting factor to productivity on zonal and drier sites. The French Creek Watershed’s

climactic conditions and associated biological units are produced by the rain shadow of Mount

Arrowsmith (Cooper, 2002).

Biogeoclimatic zones are assigned based on indicator species from the forest cover and understory that

reflect the climate and soil conditions (Cooper & Moore, 2002). Variation of climate within the

watershed is portrayed by the distinct classifications (Figure 21). At the watershed’s highest altitude of

900 m above sea level, there is a very small area classified as sub-alpine Mountain Hemlock in the

windward moist maritime subzone which consists of mountain hemlock, amabilis fir, and yellow-cedar

(Cooper & Moore, 2002; Ministry of Forests, 1997). Further downslope, Mountain Hemlock communities

make way for the western hemlock, amabalis fir, and Douglas fir characteristic of the Coastal Western

Hemlock moist maritime subzone (Cooper & Moore, 2002). As elevation continues to decrease, the

subzone shifts into variants of Coastal Western Hemlock very dry maritime where Douglas fir, western

hemlock, and western red cedar dominate (Cooper & Moore, 2002; Chourmouszis et al., 2009). Finally,

the estuary and the rest of the watershed beneath 120 m in elevation is within the Coastal Douglas Fir

moist maritime subzone. Average annual precipitation is approximately 1100 mm in the lower

watershed (Cooper & Moore, 2002). Here, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesiii), grand fir (Abies grandis),

and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) occupy representative zonal sites with salal (Gaultheria shallon),

dull Oregon-grape (Mahonia nervosa), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and oceanspray (Holodiscus

discolor) in the understorey, although Garry oak (Quercus garryana) and arbutus trees (Arbutus

menziesii) can also be found in dry rocky sites (Cooper & Moore, 2002).


Page 27 of 51

Figure 21: Biogeoclimatic zones and winter precipitation types of the French Creek watershed (Ministry of Water,

Land & Air Protection, n.d.).

4.2 Critical Habitats

4.2.1 Important Bird Area

Due to its rocky shoreline with a variety of unique sand tidal flat, pool, eelgrass bed, and mud habitats,

the French Creek estuary is one of the most important migratory bird habitats in Canada (Important Bird

Area [IBA] Canada, n.d.). It is the home of over 135 native and 5 introduced avian species (Stephens,

2018). Many of these birds migrate seasonally to French Creek from all over Asia and the America’s for

its mild, maritime climate and year-round biological productivity (Environment Canada, 2017). In spring,

the herring run attracts concentrations of over one million birds to the Georgia Strait (IBA Canada, n.d.).

Because this site supports threatened, range restricted, habitat restricted, and large groups of birds, it

has been internationally recognized as an Important Bird Area (IBA) – a discrete site of significant bird

habitat (IBA Canada, n.d.). This area has been specifically identified as meeting the IBA criteria for

congregatory species and colonial water bird concentrations (IBA Canada, n.d.).


Page 28 of 51

IBAs contain private and public land and may overlap with protected areas, but do not independently

enforce any protection. IBA status has previously been used in Canada to prioritize areas for land

acquisition projects, but this has occurred in less than 20% of the Qualicum-Nanoose IBA. There is some

overlap with the Qualicum National Wildlife Area (NWA) and Rathtrevor Provincial Park (Figure 22).

Where this overlap occurs, NWA status prohibits activities that threaten sensitive terrestrial habitat

bordering aquatic habitat, such as unleashed domestic animal activity, boating, soil or plant removal,

and more (Environment Canada, 2017); while provincial park status protects Rathtrevor beach from

hunting, harvesting, marsh filling and draining, and more (Ministry of Environment and Parks, 1987).

The French Creek estuary is not currently included in any protected areas, meaning it is vulnerable to

development and disturbance (IBA Canada, n.d.). The estuary’s habitats and resources that support

birds, such as the eelgrass beds that sustain the herring run, are particularly threatened by shoreline

development, urban pollution runoff, and recreational activities such as marinas, docks, and aquaculture

(IBA Canada, n.d.).

Figure 22: Parks and protected areas within the Little Qualicum Estuary to Nanoose Bay Important Bird Area.

Sources: Background imagery data obtained by Esri, Rathtrevor Provincial Park boundary dataset obtained from BC

Parks, IBA boundary dataset obtained from IBA Canada, NWA boundary dataset obtained from the Canadian

Wildlife Service, and map created by MABRRI.

4.2.2 Sensitive Ecosystem Areas

In 1992, the province of British Columbia contracted AXYS Environmental Consulting to conduct a

Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI) on the east coast of Vancouver Island. The project’s purpose was to

create a baseline of knowledge that would aid in the conservation of remaining valuable habitats and

ecosystems (Axys Environmental Consulting Ltd [AECL], 2005). This information was intended to support

land acquisition for responsible stewardship and wildlife conservation. In the original inventory, air

photos from 1984 to 1992 revealed that only 7.9% of the regional land base could be considered


Page 29 of 51

sensitive ecosystems (AECL, 2005). Two sensitive ecosystems were found in the French Creek estuary

study site, which were classified as tidal marsh wetland and riparian areas (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory results for the French Creek estuary study site.

Sources: Background imagery obtained by City of Parksville, SEI data obtained from the Ministry of Environment

and Climate Change Strategy – Knowledge Management, and map created by MABRRI.

In 2004, the SEI was updated using air photos taken in 2002 to determine what disturbances had

occurred and how many sensitive ecosystems remained (Figure 24) (AECL, 2005). Of the original

inventoried environments, they found 2.0% of wetlands and 4.6% of riparian areas had been lost (AECL,

2005). The French Creek ecosystems remained intact, although they underwent disturbances by trails

and recreation, and rural use (AECL, 2005). The tidal marsh was fragmented by house construction,

which must have been isolated or built in low density on large properties to be classified as rural use

(AECL, 2005). The installation of dikes in the riparian area alienated parts of it from creek influence and

the addition of trails also contributed to disturbance in the riparian area; in total the riparian parcel

suffered 6-25% fragmentation (AECL, 2005).


Page 30 of 51

Figure 24: Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory disturbance results in the French Creek estuary study site.

Sources: Background imagery obtained by City of Parksville, SEI data obtained from the Ministry of Environment

and Climate Change Strategy – Knowledge Management, and map created by MABRRI.

4.3 Ecological Threats

Some of the primary ecological threats in the French Creek Watershed are invasive species, low summer

streamflow, and land use activities that affect wildlife habitat.

4.3.1 Invasive Species

Invasive plant species have detrimental impacts on ecosystems throughout French Creek, but riparian

areas are particularly at risk to disturbance from giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum). Giant

hogweed is an invasive and hazardous plant species that was introduced into the French Creek

watershed before the early 1960s (Hallworth, Lilley & Page, 2009). According to the Giant Hogweed

Management Strategy for the French Creek Watershed, French Creek likely has the oldest population of

giant hogweed in western Canada and is considered to be the epicenter of hogweed invasion on

southeastern Vancouver Island (Hallworth, Lilley & Page, 2009). When mapping giant hogweed in 2009,

the Invasive Alien Plant Program identified 53 sites in the French Creek Watershed that contained this

toxic plant, all of which were within 50 m of the main stem of French Creek (Figure 25).


Page 31 of 51

Figure 25: Distribution of giant hogweed in French Creek (Invasive Alien Plant Program, 2007).

4.3.2 Low Streamflow

Low flow is the biggest limiting factor to aquatic productivity in the French Creek watershed (Axford,

2001). This is a common issue on east coast Vancouver Island due to long-term industrial forestry and a

natural low-flow regime which has been exacerbated in French Creek by unsustainable land use and

development (Reid, Michalski & Reid, 2000). Today, low flow is a product of limited water supply and

disproportionate municipal and agricultural demands. Monthly precipitation norms from 1951 to 1980

were 23.1mm, 43.6mm, and 45.2mm in July, August, and September respectively (Bryden, Welyk &

Gannon, 1994); in comparison, the hydrometric station installed in French Creek in July, 2018 by the

RDN measured 0.0mm, 0.8mm, and 80.5mm of rainfall in July, August, and September respectively

(Figure 26). Altogether, the late summer rainfall in 2018 reached just 72.7% of previous averages.


Page 32 of 51

Figure 26: Hydrometric parameters of French Creek from July to September, 2018.

Note: The dataset begins at the date of the station’s installation on July 16th 2018 and ends on the date of data

retrieval on September 30th 2018 (Hydromet Stations, n.d.).

In 1994, the French Creek Water Allocation Plan found that all streams in the French Creek watershed

flow at less than 10% of their mean annual discharge from June to September, which is limiting to fish

production and habitat maintenance (Figure 27) (Bryden, Welyk & Gannon, 1994). According to data

collected between 1961 and 1993 all stream discharges reach or come close to zero flow (or 0 litres per

second per square kilometre [l/s/km2]) in the late summer, except for a minor flow in the lower reaches

of French Creek which is sustained by natural depression storage in Hamilton Marsh (Bryden, Welyk &

Gannon, 1994). Hatchery fish need to be released in Hamilton and Dudley Marsh, because streamflow is

too low in French Creek to support an enhanced population (Bryden, Welyk & Gannon, 1994).

Figure 27: Estimated mean monthly flows of French Creek compared to flow optimums for fish (Cooper, 2001).


Page 33 of 51

4.3.3 Land Use

Anthropological land use has had the largest detrimental impact on French Creek’s wildlife and habitat.

During the initial removal of old growth forest in French Creek, logging occurred straight down to the

stream banks (Hennigman & Caskey, 2001). Since the popularity of French Creek has grown and

development increased, habitat losses and modifications have accelerated and changed. Development

in the French Creek Watershed has diverisfied and separated the area into three approximate regions of

land use: a working forest in the upper region, agriculture in the middle section, and urban activity in the

lower watershed (Hennigman & Caskey, 2001). A few of the consequences of these activities have been

road building, wetland removal and infill, stream channel entrainment – a lessening of deep pools and

edge habitat – and vegetation removal for residential and agricultural development (Hennigman &

Caskey, 2001). Nonpoint source residential pollution has become the leading cause of water quality

degredation (Axford, 2001).

Due to the combined effect of the aforementioned ecological threats, previously native species such as

the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmatorus), the endangered water shrew (Sorex

bendirii) and the blue-listed Vancouver Island ermine (Mustela erminea anguinae), have become

extirpated from French Creek (Hennigman & Caskey, 2001). The watershed likely still supports black

tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti), black bear

(ursus americanus), river otter (Lontra canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), and two species of bat

(Hennigman & Caskey, 2001). There are also some wetland species at risk that could possibly occur

within the watershed, including: black-tipped darner (Aeshna tuberculifera), western mannagrass

(Glyceria x occidentalis), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) (Hennigman & Caskey, 2001). However,

the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) population is declining despite being stocked since 1982, and

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) populations are severly

depressed (Axford, 2001). Protection for the estuary and restoration of its contributing streams would

provide more suitable habitat for these, and other potentially vulnerable, species.

4.4 Estuary Snapshot Survey

On June 15, 2018, thirteen MABRRI researchers completed several surveys at the French Creek estuary

site to document the presence of flora and fauna, as well as the water parameters and status of the

wetland. The Avenza Maps app was used to ensure researchers stayed within the study site and covered

all accessible areas. Researchers also had data collection forms, field guides, GPS units, tape measures,

quadrats, hip waders, and an auger on hand to complete each survey. Compiled, this data provides an

overall snapshot of the estuary’s ecology within the study site (Figure 3). Due to limited time and

resources, researchers did not record the amount of each species found, but simply gathered lists of as

many species found on the site, using a variety of methods.

4.4.1 Wetland Mapping Methods

Three researchers conducted a survey of the species found in the pond (Figure 29). Using methods

established by the BC Wildlife Federation, three transects were run into the marsh with quadrats set up

at the half-way point for each wetland class (e.g. one in the forested swamp and one in the marsh) in

order to inventory the flora species and estimate their percent cover. The approximate starting point of

each quadrat is illustrated in Figure 29 below.


Page 34 of 51

For each transect, a 5m2 quadrat was used to inventory tree species, a 3m2 quadrat to inventory shrubs,

forbs, grasses, sedges, rushes, and aquatic species, and finally a 1m2 quadrat was used to inventory

mosses and lichens. The Plants of Coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon & Alaska

(Pojar & Mackinnon, 1994) and Wetland Plants of Oregon & Washington (Guard, 1995) were used to aid

in the identification process. Then, a soil sample was collected next to the marsh and its physical

properties were assessed using the Von Post scale to determine the structure of the wetland (e.g.

seasonal drying, productivity, etc.). Additionally, a rapid biological survey of the shallow water wetland

and meadow was conducted to gain a better understanding of the overall biodiversity.

4.4.2 Fauna Bioblitz Survey Methods

MABRRI researchers were joined by members of FFCCS to conduct a fauna survey of the estuary

(Appendix C). They divided the site into a few general areas based on their ecological features (e.g.

wetlands, meadow, forests, and shrublands), and spent roughly an equal amount of time in each. The

areas were scanned for fauna species during a walkthrough, using binoculars to spot and identify bird

species. Many of the fauna were identifiable based on researchers’ expertise, but the Peterson Field

Guide to the Birds of North America app and the e-Bird app were also used to identify some. A few bird

species were identified solely by their calls, which were verified using the sample calls on the birding

apps. The e-Bird app was also used to keep track of species seen, and to submit the sightings to the

global e-Bird community, in order to advance knowledge of birds in the area and around the world.

Some insect species were identified via internet search, and fish species were identified based on what

was visible from shore. Points of interest were recorded using a handheld global positioning system

(GPS) device.

4.4.3 Flora BioBlitz Survey Methods

Two groups of three researchers conducted observational surveys of the site, beginning in different

locations but both covering the entire area accessible by trail, to find and identify as many vegetative

species as possible (Appendix D). The Plants of Coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon &

Alaska by Pojar and Mackinnon was used to confirm species identification. When plants were

unrecognizable by researchers in the field, photos and samples were taken to determine the species

using additional resources in the office (e.g. asking experts, using online guides and photos, etc.).

Location and percent cover of vegetation was not recorded because researchers were only interested in

the area’s general biodiversity.

4.4.4 Flora Transect Survey Methods

Finally, two transect surveys were conducted to identify and determine the abundance of flora in the

forested area that was inaccessible by trails (Appendix E). Three researchers for each transect ran a 75m

baseline through the forest and laid quadrats every 25m along the tape within which the presence and

percent cover of vegetation was documented (Figure 28). At the 25m mark, all mosses and lichens

within a 1m2 quadrat and shrubs within a 2m2 quadrat were recorded. At 5m along the baseline a 1m2

quadrat was placed to identify mosses and lichens and a 2m2 quadrat for shrubs, and additionally tree

species within 20m2 were recorded. Finally, at the end of the 7m tape, mosses and lichens within a 1m2

quadrat and shrubs within a 2m2 m quadrat were recorded. The final quadrats at 75m were not

completed for one transect because the forest had transitioned into wetland after the 50m mark. For

both transects the front bearing (angle from the point of commencement to the point of termination)


Page 35 of 51

and back bearing (angle from the point of termination to the point of commencement) as well as the

latitude and longitude of the point of commencement and each location where quadrats were placed

were recorded, so that the transects can be replicated in the future if necessary (Appendix E).

Figure 28: Location of quadrats placed along transects.

Note: squares labeled 1, 3, and 6 are 1m2 quadrats; 2, 4, and 7 are 2m2 quadrats; and 5 is a 20m2 quadrat.

Figure 29: Approximate locations of forest and wetland transects in the study site.

Sources: Background imagery obtained by the City of Parksville and map created by MABRRI.


Page 36 of 51

4.4.5 Estuary Snapshot Survey Results

From the BioBlitz, transect, and wetland surveys, 50 flora were reported within the study site (Table 1).

Many of the expected indicator species for the Coastal Douglas Fir moist maritime zone were observed,

including: Douglas fir, western red cedar, grand fir, red alder (Alnus rubra), oceanspray, red huckleberry

(Vaccinium parvifolium), sword fern, and Oregon beaked moss (Kindbergia oregana). There was a

notable lack of salal and a dominance of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), which is unusual, although not

unheard of, for this subzone. Ten invasive species were found, but there was no identified presence of

giant hogweed within the site. Additionally, researchers identified northwest cinquefoil, also known as

graceful cinquefoil (Potentilla graceilis var. gracilis) in the area, a red-listed species that is a popular

pollinator wildflower (Young-Matthews, 2012).

Table 1: French Creek flora survey results.

Category Common Name Scientific Name Invasive Native Survey method

Coniferous trees

Western redcedar Thuja plicata BioBlitz

Grand fir Abies grandis BioBlitz, transect

Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis Transect

Douglas fir Psudotsuga menziesii Transect

Deciduous trees

Red alder Alnus rubra BioBlitz, transect, wetland map

Willow spp. Salix spp. BioBlitz

Pacific crabapple Malus fusca BioBlitz

Choke cherry Prunus virginiana BioBlitz

Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum BioBlitz, transect

Cascara Rhamnus purshiana BioBlitz

Pacific willow Salix lucida Wetland map

Hooker's willow Salix hookeriana BioBlitz, wetland map

Shrubs

Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor BioBlitz, transect

Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium BioBlitz, transect

English holly Ilex aquifolium BioBlitz

Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis BioBlitz, wetland map

Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus BioBlitz, transect, wetland map

Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor BioBlitz, transect

Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus BioBlitz

Oval-leafed blueberry Vaccinium ovalifolium BioBlitz

Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera BioBlitz

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius BioBlitz

Common hawthorn Crataegus monogyna BioBlitz, wetland map

Hardhack Spiraea douglasii BioBlitz

Daphne Daphne laureola Wetland map

Dull Oregon-grape Mahonia nervosa Transect

Ferns Sword fern Polystichum munitum

BioBlitz, transect

Lady fern Athyriuk filix- femina BioBlitz, wetland map


Page 37 of 51

Wildflowers

Baldhip rose Rosa gymncarpa BioBlitz

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare BioBlitz

Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale BioBlitz

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens BioBlitz, wetland map

Nootka rose Rosa nutkana BioBlitz

False lily-of-the-valley Maianthemum dilatatum BioBlitz, transect

Northwest cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis BioBlitz

Yarrow Achillea millefolium BioBlitz

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense BioBlitz

Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare BioBlitz

Sweet-scented bedstraw

Galium triflorum Transect

Grasses

Slough sedge Carex obnupta BioBlitz, wetland map

Small-flowered bulrush

Scirpus microcarpus BioBlitz

Common rush Juncus effusus BioBlitz

Creeping spike-rush Eleocharis palustris BioBlitz

Red fescue Festuca rubra BioBlitz

Aquatics

Common horsetail Equisetum arvense BioBlitz

Water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica BioBlitz

Duckweed Lemna minor BioBlitz, wetland map

Cattail Typha latifolia BioBlitz

Other

Tree moss Climacium dendroides Transect

Oregon beaked moss Kindbergia oregana Transect, wetland map

Unidentified Ivy N/A BioBlitz

The fauna BioBlitz and pond surveys identified 34 species in the area at the time of study, although

there are likely many more species that use the site intermittently or otherwise avoided detection from

researchers (Table 2). It is also important to note that most of the congregatory and water bird species

that classified French Creek as an Important Bird Area would not be present in the summer during these

surveys. Many invasive American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana) were found within the wetland, and

in other wet areas on the site, which was to be expected as they are well established in this region. The

only other introduced fauna spotted in the site was the California quail (Callipepla californica), which are

generally not considered a nuisance species. The blue-listed animals identified within the estuary were

great blue heron, purple martin (Progne subis), and blue dasher dragonfly (Pachydiplax longipennis).

Interestingly, researchers witnessed a flock of approximately 5 or 6 great blue heron flying from the

same stand of trees. This may suggest that the site houses a group nesting area (B.C. Conservation Data

Centre, 1996). Researchers also found a rabbit that they noted was not the European invasive species,

but could not differentiate it in the field between the two native rabbit species, the blue listed Nuttall’s

cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii) or red-listed white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii).


Page 38 of 51

Table 2: French Creek fauna survey results.

Category Common Name Scientific Name Invasive Native Survey method

Birds

Great blue heron Ardea herodias BioBlitz

Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BioBlitz

Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi BioBlitz

Chestnut-backed chickadee Poecile rufescens BioBlitz

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus BioBlitz

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BioBlitz

California quail Callipepla californica BioBlitz

Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna BioBlitz

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus BioBlitz

Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii BioBlitz

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys BioBlitz

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater BioBlitz

Northwestern crow Corvus caurinus BioBlitz

Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina BioBlitz

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor BioBlitz

Mallard duck Anas platyrynchos BioBlitz

American robin Turdus migratorius BioBlitz

Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus BioBlitz

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus BioBlitz

Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii BioBlitz

Purple martin Progne subis BioBlitz

Red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber BioBlitz

House wren Troglodytes aedon BioBlitz

Unidentified warbler N/A BioBlitz

Unidentified nuthatch N/A BioBlitz

Mammals

North American river otter Lontra canadensis BioBlitz

American beaver Castor canadensis BioBlitz

Wild rabbit N/A BioBlitz

Amphibians & Reptiles

American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeiana BioBlitz

Fish Unidentified juvenile salmon N/A BioBlitz

Insects

Pacific banana slug Ariolimax columbianus BioBlitz

Blue dasher dragonfly Pachydiplax longipennis BioBlitz

Cardinal meadowhawk dragonfly

Sympetrum illotum BioBlitz


Page 39 of 51

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 Summary of report

Our study clearly outlines the values associated with the undeveloped lot just north of the French Creek

estuary – values that are linked to it staying undeveloped in the future.

Historical information was difficult to gather for this project, as archival information was limited to

surrounding communities rather than French Creek itself, and we were unable to secure ethical

approval in an appropriate time frame to speak with Qualicum and Snaw-naw-as First Nations about

their cultural values of the area. It is clear, however, that the lot still has historical value, even just in

that it is houses one of the last larger swaths of mature forests in the French Creek area.

Although a private property, it is clear that French Creek residents, and those of the surrounding

communities, have valued the lands for its capacity to provide a place for a variety of nature-focused

activities. From nature viewing, to biking, to bird watching, the site provides ample opportunity for

locals to connect with nature.

Finally, and most significantly, the site provides a home to a multitude of flora and fauna species.

Although the estuary is but a stopover for some of them, such as the purple martin, it is clear that it is an

incredibly important spot for biodiversity in the area. The undeveloped area alongside the river and

estuary provides a space of limited human influence for these species to flourish. In fact, securing the

estuary as an area of conservation significance would enable land use planning to protect and improve

its value as a habitat (Stephens, 2018). Direct users of the estuary would benefit from the restoration of

their immediate habitat and downstream users would benefit from general water quality, foraging, and

migratory improvements (Stephens, 2018).

For these reasons, we fully support the development of a public park in this area, and suggest a few

recommendations to do so.

5.2 Recommendations

French Creek’s undeveloped lot has a series of trail systems that allow residents to explore, exercise,

and socialize. Properly planned and constructed trails are vital to better protect the natural area,

promote minimal disturbance, and prevent environmental degradation that typically arises when users

create rogue trails (City of Toronto, 2013). Our trail counter results showcased that the most heavily

used trail is that which parallels the river. Unfortunately, this pathway may negatively impact bird

species that depend on the river and estuary for habitat (Stephens, 2018). In addition, trails such as this

can have an impact on the integrity of the streambank itself and cause issues such as erosion, which may

increase in turbidity in the water below. We suggest further researching the potential impacts of human

activity this close to a water body, and the consideration of both shifting this pathway a few meters

from the streambank and replanting native vegetation along the water to re-naturalize the stream

(Stephens, 2018).

A well-designed trail should ensure paths are sustainable, universal for many different users, simple to

maintain, and low-cost (Trails for all Ontarians Collaborative, 2006). Although natural surface or dirt

trails blend in well with surroundings and have a cheap initial cost (Recreation Sites and Trails BC, 2001),

it is important to carefully choose the trail route to avoid sensitive soils. When soil is not suitable for


Page 40 of 51

consistent trail usage, it can result in negative environmental impacts (e.g. erosion, changes to

vegetation composition, soil compaction, etc.) (City of Toronto, 2013). There are many areas throughout

the site that hold water throughout the year, and trails in these spots are can become muddy and

difficult to use, which can cause visitors to veer off-path. In order to avoid this, boardwalks are a good

alternative. Although boardwalks are more costly to build, they are relatively low maintenance and

minimal impact on the environment (i.e. boards are separated from the underlying surface, allowing

vegetation to be preserved and limiting ground contact) (Recreation Sites and Trails BC, 2001).

Our trail counter analysis suggested that users are going off-path for other reasons as well, and

potentially impacting ecologically sensitive areas. Interpretive signage that showcases where sensitive

areas are, and why it is important to not damage them, can help to educate people on these issues and

limit them from accessing sensitive areas.

Sometimes it can be difficult to entirely limit people from gaining access to certain areas. But, allowing

them access in a restricted way can help limit negative impacts. For example, observation decks installed

along the river or near the pond, could allow people to view birds and other natural sightings, while

restricting their ecological “footprint”. According to the FFCCS Estuary Park Survey Summary (2018), a

large percentage of users participate in bird watching (Figure 11). Other users commented on using the

area to observe and photograph nature. Observation decks are often used to disguise observers from

birds and improve viewing conditions (Kusler, n.d.), as well as help protect the natural area. An elevated

and panoramic view of the flora and fauna encourages users to stay within the boundaries rather than

creating their own rouge trails.

In addition to improving the trail networks for both the benefits of users and the natural environment,

we suggest the removal of invasive species, such as the Himalayan blackberry and American bullfrogs

that are both rampant in the study site. Although it is clear that many residents enjoy picking the

blackberry for their use, as this activity was seen often when we visited the site in late-August and early-

September, this invasive species can have very negative impacts. Apart from out-competing native

vegetation, Himalayan blackberry can also cause streambank erosion as their shorter root systems do

not stabilize banks as well as some native plants do (Invasive Species Council of BC, n.d.b). In addition,

they create impenetrable walls that restrict the movement of larger animals that could use the study

site as habitat (Invasive Species Council of BC, n.d.b). American bullfrogs simply displace smaller native

frogs in areas they inhabit by diminishing local food sources (Invasive Species Council of BC, n.d.a).

Finally, conversations with French Creek Estates Ltd. suggested that the development of a footbridge

across the river would be a major benefit for residents in the area. Currently, the only way for residents

to cross the stream and access the harbor, with its store and restaurant, is via a sidewalk along the

highway bridge. Apparently the busy traffic and the small sidewalk space make this route a tough choice

for residents, and the study site provides the perfect place for a foot bridge to be constructed. We

suggest the development of a small, sustainable footbridge in this area to enhance the space as a public

park and to provide connectivity between the residential area and the amenities provided at the

harbour. A sustainable bridge involves low-impact materials, less material, less machine hours to build,

and a long lifetime (Broek, 2012). For these reasons, it is recommended to build a suspension bridge in

the undeveloped lot. Suspension bridge construction requires very few materials (e.g., anchorages,

cables, and bridge deck) (Kasuga, 2011). In addition, material could be locally-sourced and recycled,

allowing the bridge to blend in with the natural surroundings. During the building process, there is very


Page 41 of 51

little excavation and minimal tree clearings needed at the site and on nearby paths (Kasuga, 2011). For

example, in Whistler, British Columbia, a pedestrian suspension bridge was recently built with a very

small ecological footprint (Figure 30). The bridge was created using light steel and cedar wood that was

assembled without heavy equipment (Klohn Crippen Berger, 2018). They also used rock anchors to

eliminate the need for concrete. The bridge provides long-term safe access across the river, which is

enjoyed by many locals and tourists visiting the area.

Figure 30: Train Wreck Bridge in Whistler, BC (Klohn Crippen Berger, 2018).

In summary, with a few upgrades, and careful consideration of the natural integrity of the study site, the

undeveloped lot just north of the French Creek estuary can provide a wonderful opportunity for the

development of a public park.


Page 42 of 51

6.0 References

Axford, R. (2001). Status of Fish and Aquatic Habitat. In French Creek Watershed Study (pp. 90-101).

Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/van-

island/es/french_creek/pdf/French%20Creek%20Technical%20report%20April%202002.pdf

Axys Environmental Consulting Ltd. (2005). Redigitizing of Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory Polygons to

Exclude Disturbed Areas. Retrieved from:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r2124/SEI_9914_rpt03_1121372905029_38e5

303b86224411aaa1a8ae539da434.pdf.

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. (1996). Species Summary: Ardea Herodias. B.C. Ministry of Environment.

Retrieved from: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/reports.do?elcode=ABNGA04010

Bryden, G., Welyk, T., & Gannon S. (1994). French Creek: Water Allocation Plan. Retrieved from:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/water-

planning/water_allocation_french_creek.pdf

Cooper, W., & Moore, D. (2002). Climate and Streamflow. In French Creek Watershed Study (pp. 1-3).

Retrieved from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/van-


Destination BC Corp. (2017). Super Natural British Columbia Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.hellobc.com/qualicum-beach/culture-history.aspx

Environment Canada. (2017). Qualicum National Wildlife Area. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/national-wildlife-areas/locations/qualicum.html

Forest Service British Columbia. (n.d.). Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Program. Retrieved from: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/becweb/resources/maps/FieldMaps.html

French Creek Seafood. (2018). French Creek Fresh Seafood. Retrieved from: http://www.frenchcreek.ca/

Government of Canada. (n.d.). Welcome to the First Nation Profiles Interactive Map. Retrieved from: http://fnpim-cippn.aandc-aadnc.gc.ca/index-eng.html

Hallworth, J., Lilley, P., & Page, N. (2009). Giant Hogweed Management Strategy for the French Creek Watershed. Retrieved from: https://www.coastalisc.com/images/french_creek_hogweed/FrenchCreekGHStrategy2009.pdf

Hennigman, M., & Caskey, M. (2001). Wildlife Impact Statement. In French Creek Watershed Study (pp 121-127). Retrieved from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/van-island/es/french_creek/pdf/French%20Creek%20Technical%20report%20April%202002.pdf

Hydromet Stations. (2018). French Creek Water Level. Retrieved from: http://www.pacfish.ca/wcviweather/Content%20Pages/FrenchCreek/WaterLevel.aspx

IBA Canada. (n.d.). IBA Site Listing: Little Qualicum Estuary to Nanoose Bay. Retrieved from: https://www.ibacanada.ca/site.jsp?lang=EN&siteID=BC056.

Invasive Species Council of BC (n.d.a). American bullfrog. Retrieved from: https://bcinvasives.ca/invasive-species/identify/invasive-animals/american-bullfrog

http://www.frenchcreek.ca/

https://www.coastalisc.com/images/french_creek_hogweed/FrenchCreekGHStrategy2009.pdf


Page 43 of 51

Invasive Species Council of BC (n.d.b). Himalayan Blackberry. Retrieved from: https://bcinvasives.ca/invasive-species/identify/invasive-plants/himalayan-blackberry

Ministry of Citizen Services. (1949). French Creek [photograph]. Geographic Information Centre,

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Ministry of Environment and Parks. (1987). Rathtrevor Beach Provincial Park Master Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/rathtrevor/rathtrevor_mp.pdf?v=1539196744040

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, & Nanaimo Regional Office. (2002). French Creek Watershed Study. Retrieved from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/van-island/es/french_creek/pdf/French%20Creek%20Technical%20report%20April%202002.pdf

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection & Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. (2002).

Introduction. In French Creek Water Study (pp. iii-v). Retrieved from:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/van-


Nicholls, M. (1994). Early Anglicans at French Creek. B.C. Historical News, 27(2), 19-21. Retrieved from:

https://search.proquest.com/docview/204989079?accountid=12246

Parksville Museum. (2018). Heritage Buildings. Retrieved from https://parksvillemuseum.ca/heritage-

buildings

Parksville Qualicum Beach Tourism. (2018). Communities. Retrieved from:

https://www.visitparksvillequalicumbeach.com/communities

Regional District of Nanaimo. (2015). Bylaw No. 500, Land Use and Subdivision. Retrieved from:

https://www.rdn.bc.ca/dms/documents/rdn-bylaws/land-use-and-subdivision-bylaw-no.-500,-

1987-(per-pda-bylaw-no.-1692)/full_bylaw_500_consolidated_version.pdf

Regional District of Nanaimo. Planning Department. (2008). Electoral Area ‘G’ Official Community Plan

BYLAW No. 1540, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.rdn.bc.ca/electoral-area-g-san-pareil-

french-creek-and-dashwood.

Regional District of Nanaimo. (2018). French Creek. Retrieved from http://www.rdn.bc.ca/french-creek

Regional District of Nanaimo. (2014). Watershed 3: French Creek. Retrieved from:

http://www.rdn.bc.ca/watershed-3-french-creek

Regional District of Nanaimo. (2017). Population Statistics. Retrieved from:

https://www.rdn.bc.ca/population-statistics

Royal BC Museum. (n.d.). BC Archives Collection Search. Retrieved from: http://search-

bcarchives.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/construction-crew-st-anns-church-french-creek

Statistics Canada. (2017, Nov 16). Census Profile, 2016 Census. Retrieved from:

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-

https://search.proquest.com/docview/204989079?accountid=12246

https://parksvillemuseum.ca/heritage-buildings

https://parksvillemuseum.ca/heritage-buildings

https://www.rdn.bc.ca/dms/documents/rdn-bylaws/land-use-and-subdivision-bylaw-no.-500,-1987-(per-pda-bylaw-no.-1692)/full_bylaw_500_consolidated_version.pdf

https://www.rdn.bc.ca/dms/documents/rdn-bylaws/land-use-and-subdivision-bylaw-no.-500,-1987-(per-pda-bylaw-no.-1692)/full_bylaw_500_consolidated_version.pdf

https://www.rdn.bc.ca/population-statistics

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?B1=All&Code1=590190&Code2=59&Data=Count&Geo1=DPL&Geo2=PR&Lang=E&SearchPR=01&SearchText=French+Creek&SearchType=Begins&TABID=1


Page 44 of 51

pd/prof/details/page.cfm?B1=All&Code1=590190&Code2=59&Data=Count&Geo1=DPL&Geo2=

PR&Lang=E&SearchPR=01&SearchText=French+Creek&SearchType=Begins&TABID=1

Stephens, C. (2018). Bird Use of the French Creek Estuary & Related Conservation Planning

Recommendations.

Young-Matthews, A. (2012). Plant fact sheet for slender cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis). USDA- Natural

Resources Conservation Service, Corvallis: OR.

VancouverIsland.com. (2017). French Creek. Retrieved from: http://vancouverisland.com/plan-your-

trip/regions-and-towns/vancouver-island-bc-islands/french-creek/



http://vancouverisland.com/plan-your-trip/regions-and-towns/vancouver-island-bc-islands/french-creek/

http://vancouverisland.com/plan-your-trip/regions-and-towns/vancouver-island-bc-islands/french-creek/


Page 45 of 51

Appendix A

Trail counter field notes

Location ID Data FC Counter 1 FC Counter 2 FC Counter 3

1

Date of setup 12-Jul 12-Jul 12-Jul

Time of setup completion (24 hr) 12:23 11:50 12:08

Counter Name on Map FC Counter 1 FC Counter 2 FC Counter 3

Location (Decimal degrees) 49.3506, -124.3625 49.3505, -124.3638 49.3510, -124.3630

2

Date of removal (Location 1) and setup (Location 2)

25-Jul 25-Jul 25-Jul

Time of removal (24 hr) 9:21 9:29 9:12


Counter Name on Map FC Counter 1.2 FC Counter 2.2 FC Counter 3.2


3


10-Aug 10-Aug 10-Aug





4


29-Aug 29-Aug 29-Aug





N/A Date of final removal 14-Sep 14-Sep 14-Sep

Time of final removal (24 hr) 15:06 14:46 14:57


Page 46 of 51

Appendix B

Summary of trail counter data

Loca

tio

n ID

Counter Name on Map

Totals Averages

Total days it was

installed

Total hours it was installed

(approximate)*

Total Counts

Total weekday

counts

Total weekend

counts

Average count per

day

Average count

per hour

Average count per weekday

Average count per weekend

day

1

FC Counter 1 14 331 862 647 215 61.57 2.6 64.7 53.75

FC Counter 2 14 332 485 347 138 34.64 1.46 34.7 34.5

FC Counter 3 14 331 301 218 83 21.5 0.91 21.8 20.75

2

FC Counter 1.2 17 404 449 285 164 26.41 1.11 23.75 32.8

FC Counter 2.2 17 405 956 633 323 56.24 2.36 52.75 64.6

FC Counter 3.2 17 405 355 229 126 20.88 0.88 19.08 25.2

3 FC Counter 1.3 20 479 363 262 101 18.15 0.76 18.71 16.83

FC Counter 2.3 20 479 31 27 6 1.55 0.06 1.93 0.67

4

FC Counter 1.4 16 389 29 29 0 1.81 0.07 2.64 0

FC Counter 2.4 16 389 37 37 0 2.31 0.1 3.36 0

FC Counter 3.4 16 389 130 81 49 8.13 0.33 7.36 9.8

Totals for all counters

Total days they were installed

Total hours they were installed

Total counts

Total weekday

counts

Total weekend

counts

Average count per

day

Average count

per hour

Average count per weekday

Average count per weekend

day

67 1605 3961 2795 1205 23.02 0.97 22.80 23.54

*Note: These are rounded to the nearest hour

Note: Two statutory holidays occurred during the installation of the trail counters. These dates were

recorded as weekend days rather than weekdays.


Page 47 of 51

Appendix C

Fauna BioBlitz data collection sheet Common Name Scientific Name Comments

Birds

Great Blue Heron Ardea Herodias

Spotted 6-7 coming from FC Meadow. Possible colony? May

have found heron droppings @ FC back wetland (they were full

of fish bones and other marine animal bones – had a fishy smell)

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 1 seen, at FC back wetland

Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi 2 or 3 seen

Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens 3 or 4 seen. Many more heard in treetops

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 6 seen

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 4 seen

California Quail Callipepla californica 3 seen. 1 heard

Anna’s Hummingbird Calypte anna 2 seen

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 3 seen

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 1 seen. Several heard

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 1 seen

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 2 seen

Northwestern Crow Corvus caurinus 4 seen

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina 1 seen

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 1 seen

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 2 seen. ( 1 male & 1 female)

American Robin Turdus migratorius 5 seen. Many more heard

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus Several heard

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus 7 seen. A few more heard

Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii 3-4 seen. Many more heard (possibly could have been House

Wrens)

Purple Martin Progne subis 2 seen.

House Wren Troglodytes aedon 2 seen.

Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber 1 seen.

Unidentified warbler N/A 2 seen. (Yellow body, grey wings)

Unidentified nuthatch N/A Several heard. (Might have been Red-breasted Nuthatch)

Mammals

Wild rabbit ? 1 seen. May be responsible for chewed up plant shoots. (Not the

European species)

North American River Otter Lontra canadensis 4 seen. 1 found dead.

American beaver Castor canadensis None seen. 10-12 gnawed-on trees around pond, some quite

recently

Amphibians & Reptiles

American Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeiana Many seen in pond.

Fish

Three-spined Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Several seen adjacent to land in French Creek

Unidentified juvenile Salmon N/A Several seen adjacent to land in French Creek

Insects

Banana Slug (Pacific) Ariolimax columbianus 4 seen.

Blue Dasher Dragonfly Pachydiplax longipennis 10 seen.

Cardinal Meadowhawk

Dragonfly Sympetrum illotum 2 seen over pond. (mating pair)


Page 48 of 51

Appendix D

Flora BioBlitz data collection sheet: Team 1 Area Common Name Scientific Name Comments

Forest/Forest

Swamp

Cascara Rhamnus purshiana

Perimeter and blw-

dry+wetmarsh

Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus

salmonberry Rubus spectabilis

Common horsetail Equisetum arvense

Nootka rose Rosa nutkana

Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata

Common hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

Hooker’s willow Salix hookeriana

Red alder Alnus rubra

Red-oiser dogwood Cornus stolonifera

thimbleberry Rubus Parviflorous

Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus

Dry Marsh

with Algal mat

Cattail Typha latifolia

GPS Perimeter- Dry

marsh perim. 2

(DM)

Northwest (graceful) cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis var. gracilis

Common rush Juncus effusus

Creeping spike-rush Eleocharis palustris

Grass #1 (photo taken) N/A

Water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica

Hardhack Spiraea doulasii

Meadow

Yarrow Achillea millefolium

Oxeye Daisy Leucanthemum vulgare

Red fescue grass Festuca rubra

Canada thistle Cirsium avense

Scotchbroom (GPS Scotchbroom) Cytisus scoparius

Dominant species – unknown grasses N/A

Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus

Nootka rose Rosa nutkana


Forest Swamp

Surrounding

Meadow

Pacific willow Salix lucida

Common hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

Creeping buttercup Ranuculus repens

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Northwest (graceful) cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis var. gracilis


Cascara Rhamnus purshiana

Common rush Juncus effusus

Wet marsh

Water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica

Duckweed Lemna minor

Slough sledge Carex obnupta



Page 49 of 51

Flora BioBlitz data collection sheet: Team 2 Common Name Scientific Name Comments

Shrubs

Himalayan Blackberry Rubus discolor

Red Huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium

English Holly Ilex aquifolium

Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis

Trailing Blackberry Rubus ursinus

Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor

Thimbleberry Rubus leucodermis

Oval-leaved Blueberry Vaccinium ovalifolium Confirmed. Took leaf sample.

Red-osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera 80% confidence level. Took leaf sample.

Scotch Broom Cytisus scoparius

Common Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

Wildflowers

Baldhip Rose Rosa gymnocarpa

Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare

Common Dandelion Taraxacum officinale

Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens

Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana

False Lily-of-the-Valley Maianthemum dilatatum

Aster spp. N/A Unidentified

Grasses/Sedges

Slough Sedge Carex obnupta

Small-flowered Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus Somewhat unsure. See pics

Aquatics


Trees

Red Alder Alnus rubra

Willow spp. Salix

Western Redcedar Thuja plicata

Pacific Crab Apple Malus fusca Unsure. Took leaf sample

Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana Unsure. Took leaf sample

Grand Fir Abies grandis

Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum Unsure. See pic

Ferns

Sword Fern Polystichum munitum

Lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina


Page 50 of 51

Appendix E

Transect survey data collection sheets

Transect 1

Transect Information

Transect number 1

Point of Commencement (POC): UTM 10U 400820mE 5467139mN

Front bearing (from POC to POT) 78°

Back bearing (from POT to POC) 258°

25m point on transect: UTM 10U 400846mE 5467143mN



100 m point on transect: UTM N/A

Species List

Transect # Quadrat # Common Name Scientific Name % Cover Notes

1 1 Sword Fern Polystichum munitum 25

1 2 Himalayan Blackberry Rubus discolor 50


1 3 Oregon Beaked Moss Kinderbergia oregana 25


1 5 Red Alder Alnus rubra 30

1 5 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii spp. menziesii 3

1 5 Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum 20

1 5 Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis 10



1 7 False Lily-of-the-Valley Malanthemum dilatatum 4

1 7 Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 5

1 7 Trailing Blackberry Rubus ursinus 3


Page 51 of 51

Transect 2

Transect Information

Transect number 2

Point of Commencement (POC): UTM 10U 400820mE 5467139mN

Front bearing (from POC to POT) 5°

Back bearing (from POT to POC) 185°

25m point on transect: UTM 400844mE 5467160mN



100 m point on transect: UTM N/A

Species List

Transect # Quadrat # Common Name Scientific Name % Cover Notes


2 1 Sweet Scented Bed Straw Galium triflorum 1 Or less


2 2 Trailing Blackberry Rubus ursinus 3

2 2 Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 20

2 2 Dull Oregon-Grape Mahonia nervosa 0.01

2 2 Red Huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium 1

2 3 Tree moss 1


2 4 Red Huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium 30


2 5 Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis 1

2 5 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii spp. Menziesii 25

2 5 Grand Fir Abies grandis 4

2 5 Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum 45

Date post:	08-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

French Creek Estuary: Assessment of its Historical ...French Creek is known as a marine community...

Documents