University of Victoria

ER 390 - Final Project

Grassland Restoration in Princeton B.C.

By Gordon Bibby V00705663

August 16, 2011

Figure 1. Western Bluebird (Sialia Mexicana) visiting the birdhouse before the topsoil/compost mixture was spread. Source: M.Dobbs

ER 390 Final Project Page 1 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Table of Content

Page 2 Abstract

Page 3 Map and Location of Restoration Project

Page 3 Introduction

Page 5 Method – part 1 Site description

Page 5 Site Description

Page 9 Background information and Rationale

Page 12 Method - part 2 Restoration Plan

Page 14 Results and Interpretation

Page 15 Conclusion and Discussion

Page 16 Acknowledgement

Page 17-19 References

Appendices A) Proposal Letter to the Town

B) Funding request PSS PAC

C) Information for PSS administration

D) Letter to Parents

E) Newspaper Article

F) Restoration of Grasslands Project – Task Organization chart

G) Additional pictures of the project

H) General Requirements – Special Provisions - Project #465-103 page 1A-7

ER 390 Final Project Page 2 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Figure 2. Science 10 students at the end of the planting photo: M.Dodds

Abstract

The grassland restoration project was incorporated into the Science 10 ecology unit. In addition to the hands-on activities, students had presentations on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Invasive plants. The plot size is a 10 m x 10 m and is situated on unvegetated, sandy gravel with a 42% slope and facing south-southeast. It is located at 49° 28‟ 29.54” N, 120° 30‟ 26.41” and at an elevation is 753m. The disturbance resulted from a water upgrade, which include a water reservoir. The plot is part of an area which was hydroseeded with cultivar seed mix and 100% wood fibre slurry in the spring of 2010 (Appendix H) . The region‟s biogeoclimatic zone is PPxh1 variant 01. The objective of the restoration project was to revegetate the barren area with native plants: richardsons needlegrass (Achnatherum richardsonii) , pussytoes (Antennaria spp.) ,rough fescue(Festuca campestris) and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoregenaria spicatum) at a density of 30 000 per ha, along with saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia) (M.Keefer, pers.comm, Jan. 24, 2011). Before planting, the area was weeded, coarse woody debris was staked in place, western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) house erected, and a minimum of 5cm thick layer of a 2:1 blend of topsoil and composted steer manure was spread over the plot. Snowdrift fencing was erected to keep the cattle out and bone blood meal was scatter throughout the plot (A. Kennedy, pers. comm., Jan. 19, 2011) and dehydrated coyote urine was sprinkled along the perimeter of the fencing to discourage the deer. Shortly after planting, many of the seedlings were eaten by ravens (Corvus corax). To compensate for the missing plants, students transplant mature bunchgrasses and pussytoes that were carefully taken from an undisturbed area of the ranchlands. The project area is regularly monitored and weeded periodically. The current survival rate is >75% of the grassplugs that survived the ravens, and >80% of the transplanted mature, pot size plants have survived the first 2.5 months. In mid August, hand collected balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata) seeds were planted in spaces between the surviving plants in a manner described by M. Keefer (pers. comm., Jan. 28,2011)It is recommended that monitoring and periodic weeding continues through September.

ER 390 Final Project Page 3 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Location of Ecological Restoration Project

Figure 3. Location of Project source: google maps 2011

Introduction

The project area is located at 49° 28‟ 29.54” N 120° 30‟ 26.41” W and has an elevation of 757 m. The project area is located on disturbed lands resulting from an infrastructure upgrade which included construction

of a 700 m3 storage tank and 4.5 kms of new water lines (WEDC 2007). The actual contract was awarded July, 2009 and project completed April, 2010(S. McMahon, pers. comm., Aug. 6,2011).

After construction, the tank was backfilled, just leaving the roof exposed. All the disturbed area surrounding the reservoir and the fill and cut slopes of the access road was to be hydroseeded (Appendix H). The seed mix and composition was a standard slurry, which used cultivars, and did not address the semi-arid conditions which can occur in the Princeton (See table 1. & 2.).

Figure 4. base of the water reservoir being poured area source: gamestown2010.ca

Table 1. Seed Mix source Appendix H Table 2. Slurry composition and application rates/ha source: Appendix H

% Scientific name General name 25 Festuca duriuscula Hard Fescue 45 Festuca rubra Shade master Creeping Red Fescue 5 Agrostis gigantea Red Top Bentgrass 10 Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass 20 Trifolium repens New Zealand White Clover

Seed mix 75 kg Fertilizer – Pro 16-20-15 55% Slow release 300 kg Silva Tack-Organic Tackifier 60 kg Silva fibre 2000 kg

ER 390 Final Project Page 4 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Figure 5. View of Water Reservoir on August 1st, 2011 photo: G.Bibby

Figure 5 shows the ER390 project area at the top and surrounded by the snowdrift fencing. The majority of the hydroseeded area is green and is dominated by invasive weeds, two which are currently dominating the flora are: Mustard Tumble weed (Sisymbrium altissimum) and Great Mullein (Verbascum Thapsus). The area was chosen for the ER390 project because of its proximity to the high school, it was part of the Town of Princeton‟s water system; therefore, there was a possibility of financial and logistical support, and because grassland protection and restoration is a very relevant issue amongst ranchers in the Princeton area.

The project goals are:

1) Ecological goals: To restore a dramatically disturbed area to a native bunchgrass grassland ecosystem .

2) Educational goals:

Students learn the basics of the what, why‟s and how‟s of Ecological Restoration by working on an actual project in a meaningful and engaging fashion.

Students have a deeper understanding of ecological concepts, such as, food webs, habitats and relational roles.

Students are exposed to an aboriginal view of nature and view and gain an appreciation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge.

Students learn about what invasive plants are and the reasons behind controlling their spread.

3) Personal goals:

To plan and undertake a restoration project, including such tasks as, obtaining funding and working with various groups.

To Complete my ER390 requirements.

ER 390 Final Project Page 5 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

The challenge for implementing the project was trying to work within the time constraints of the school year and integrating it into the classroom lessons, connecting with various groups, logistical problems, such as, availability and transportation of plants and soil amendments, and locating funding. A read through the appendices in chronological order A – F will show that the ecological restoration plan changed over time from April to May. As to be expected, the plan was in a continuous state of flux, and seemed to change on daily basis in response to new developments. The original proposal was for a 300 m2 section involving the full face of the bank below the top of the water reservoir, but at a late date (April 5th, 2010) the Town of Princeton indicated regrettably that they couldn‟t support the project financially. Fortunately, the Princeton Secondary School PAC increased their financial contribution, and with some help from the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen (RDOS), this allowed the project to proceed, albeit, on a smaller scale.

Method for Site Description

The boundaries of the potential restoration area was identified and plotted using a Garmin handheld GPSmap 60Cx and Mapsource software, then imported into Google Earth Pro where the data integrated into the airphoto. The final size of the restoration plot (10 m x 10m) was determined by the practical limitations of grade 10‟s timetable, school schedule, and the available budget. Flagged stakes were driven in at each corner of the plot. The plot area‟s slope and aspect was measured using a Brunton Eclipse compass/clinometer and confirmed using Google Earth Pro‟s elevations and distances. The composition of the surficial materials in the restoration area was achieved with the use of Hubbard Scientific Sieve Kit. A bucket of material was separated using 4 different mesh sizes: 5(fine gravel) 10(Coarse sand) 60(medium sand) and 230(fine sand). The pH of the surficial material was determined by using a Passport pH test probe attached to Explorer ps2000 and calibrated using 5% acetic acid = pH 2.4, and distilled water = pH 7. The probe was stuck in a small hole in the dirt that was full of distilled water for 60 seconds, then value was read.

Before arriving at a final restoration plan, site specific factors that could negatively affect restoration efforts needed to be identified. Research was done to determine how to address these factors, as well as, what biogeoclimatic zone and its variant is the area. The book Plants of Southern Interior, British Columbia by Parish et. al, was used for any plant identification. In addition to extensive used of the UVIC on-line library and the worldwide web, experts were asked for ideas and restoration suggestions on various topics related to the site. Biologists Lisa Scott, Allison Kennedy, Mike Keefer, and Clint Smyth were consulted for their opinions on a variety of problems, such as invasive plant control, species selection and planting techniques. Ted Coyne, a local logger, supplied some practical suggestions about installation of coarse woody debris.

Description of Site:

The actual project area is 100 m2 has an aspect of south-southeast. The slope of the area is steep (40%-45%). According to (Lord & Green, 1979) the project area is located in a region where there is a mix of 30% Regosolic and 70% Brunosolic soils, located on steep slopes, along with rock outcrop and scree deposit. The undisturbed areas adjacent to the project area have soils best described as Regosolic, namely, because they have poorly developed „B” horizons 5 cm thick or less. The steep surface and low available soil moisture limits the amount of soil development.(CSSS website).

ER 390 Final Project Page 6 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

The underlying material is glacial-fluvial in origin and is composed of 6.5 % clay/silt, 66.3% sand , 27.2% gravel by mass.(see Table 6.) In addition, the sediments are mildly alkaline with a pH of 7.6.

Table 3. Distribution of grain size in sediment

mesh size mass(g) volume(cm3) %mass %volume gravel +5 859 575 27.18 25.77 coarse sand 5 to +10 665 460 21.04 20.62 medium sand -10 to +60 851 572 26.93 25.64 fine sand -60 to +230 579 452 18.32 20.26 clay and silt -230 206 172 6.52 7.71 Total mass 3160 g Total volume 2231m3

In Figure 6. the actual backfilled area is marked in yellow. The area was determined by using GPS locations imported into GoogleEarth to have an area of 1724 m2 (see Table 4.)

Figure 6. Map showing backfilled area source: Google Earth Pro– Mapsource ver.6.16 data

Table 4. GPS data for outline of unvegetated portion surrounding water reservoir.

025 N49 28.484 W120 30.386 758 m 026 N49 28.477 W120 30.386 758 m 027 N49 28.476 W120 30.411 757 m 028 N49 28.481 W120 30.411 758 m 029 N49 28.473 W120 30.413 755 m 030 N49 28.473 W120 30.413 755 m 031 28.469 W120 30.431 753 m 032 N49 28.466 W120 30.431 751 m 033 N49 28.465 W120 30.412 750 m

034 N49 28.464 W120 30.405 749 m 035 N49 28.464 W120 30.401 749 m 036 N49 28.464 W120 30.397 748 m 037 N49 28.464 W120 30.391 747 m 038 N49 28.467 W120 30.386 747 m 039 N49 28.470 W120 30.378 747 m 040 N49 28.473 W120 30.374 749 m 041 N49 28.479 W120 30.375 752 m 042 N49 28.483 W120 30.376 754 m

ER 390 Final Project Page 7 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

The region‟s biogeoclimatic zone is PPxh1 variant 01 (see Figure 9.). This variant has mostly Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) with smaller amount of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii) stands and low shrub covers, while the grasslands are dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass(Agropyron spicatum), roughfescue (Agropyron spicatum) and Balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata )(Lloyd et al., 2005). The Princeton area straddles two moisture regimes: Central Dry and Southern Very Dry (see Figure 7.). Figure 8. shows the possible biogeoclimatic zones present in relation to the elevation and aspect, the study area is similar to a wet exposure of the Southern Very Dry moisture regime.

. Figure 7. Moisture Regimes source: Lloyd et al., 1990 Figure 8. Selective Toposequences source: Lloyd et al., 1990

Figure 9. Distribution of PPxh1 source: Lloyd et al., 2005

As a comparison, Figures 10. and 11. displays historical monthly temperature and precipitation averages for 3 different locations in Southern BC. Princeton is close to Osoyoos in total precipitation 356 mm and 318 mm, but it‟s monthly temperatures are 4 ºC cooler. There is a significant moisture deficit in March and April, which could contribute to drier conditions later on in the Princeton area, because of the accumulated snowpack might not make up deficiencies because of drainage patterns, elevation and aspect of the slope. In the project area, any runoff will be quickly absorbed by the sandy gravel subsoil.

ER 390 Final Project Page 8 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Figure 10. 1971 – 2000 Average Monthly Precipitation (mm) Source: Environment Canada

Figure 11. 1971 – 2000 Average Monthly Temperature (ºC) Source: Environment Canada

The hydrology of the project area will be effected by the reservoir, because it will block any subsoil water flow from upslope, as well as not contribute any filtration (See Figure 12.). The parking lot, which has undergone compaction, will also resist filtration and contribute to excess run off.

Figure 12. Diagram showing affected hydrology in project area.

0

10

20

30

40

50

jan feb mar apr may june july aug sept oct nov dec

Princeton

Kelowna

Osoyoos

-10

0

10

20

30

jan feb mar apr may june july aug sept oct nov dec

Princeton

Kelowna

Osoyoos

ER 390 Final Project Page 9 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Background Information and Rational for Restoration Plan

Since the 1970‟s, the number of fires occurring is at 1% historical levels and has led to ecological conditions that are very different from those that existed in the past (Klenner et al., 2008). Periodic fires have been shown to increase biodiversity in disturbed area and returned the grassland to a state closer to an undisturbed Ponderosa-bunchgrass ecosystem (Laughlin et al., 2008). This along with, poor grazing practices, and increase demands on it from agricultural, rural development, resource extraction and its transportation routes (roads or pipelines) and changing climates has contributed to a increase need to protect and repair damaged grasslands (Primack, 2006 p.184; Baily et al., 2010). BC is losing 1% of its grasslands every year because of expanding forests (Trench Committee, 2006) Strictly speaking, without intervening, disturbed grasslands show little ability to repair themselves (Deserud et al., 2010). Most attempts at grassland restoration are commonly unsuccessful, because of inadequate restoration methods, seed reliability issues, competition from invasive plants, and weather patterns (Deserud et al., 2010).

An examination of the proposed restoration area revealed 9 features or characteristics that need to be considered when developing a restoration plan that has the potential of being successful (See Figure 13.).

Figure 13 Issues that must be considered.

ER 390 Final Project Page 10 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Grazing pressures can effect restoration by selecting certain species, while at the same time suppressing others, such as, in the situation of noxious invasives spreading, while edible invasives might be suppressed(Gayton, 2003) The degree that a species of grass will compensate in response to grazing will control its relative abundant (Kimball & Schiffman, 2003). In a typical grassland community, that is at a late to climax seral stage, there are 2 or 3 main species that dominates and the others fill in around them as seen in Wycloff Goose Lake grassland(Gayton, 2003). A comparison of the existing seral stage with the potential natural community of a climax seral stage is a measure of the ecological health of the grassland, while the amount of invasive plants measure the degree of modification (Practices Code of British Columbia Biodiversity Guidebook, 1995). Grazing pressures can effect grassland succession and increase the degree of modification.

The combination of hot and dry summers, south facing, steep slope and sandy gravel subsoil makes any

attempt at revegetating a challenge. The steep slope receives more sunlight; therefore, there is increased evapotranspiration, as well as, having more surface runoff (Nicolau, 2002). Simply seeding the area is inadequate. Low germination is common in restoration seeding projects in arid and semiarid rangeland (Grantz et al., 1998). The seed might germinate, but only 1/10 of these will actually make it to seedling stage. (James et al., 2011).

As explained in the introduction, hydroseeding was tried and fail in project area. The first possible reason is that germinated seeds send out roots for 6 mm before bending to go down in to the soil, and this exposure might allow the roots to dry up (Kelsey, 2000). An additional reason according to Matesanz et al. (2006), is that area that was hydroseeded was too close to other vegetation. The nearby vegetation is a problem because invasive plants will be able to either move in or there is already a seen bank which germinates after spraying. Finally, the composition of the slurry was not correct. The hydroseeding that was completed near the reservoir, used 100 % wood fibre, while current best practices in a dry, hot climate is to use 30% paper, 70% wood fibre and add a water absorbing polymer (I.A.H.P ,2010).

Due to the limited inefficiency of seeding, the use of transplants is encouraged (Bainbridge, 1995).

Transplants allow for relatively quick establishment of a species and the bigger the plant the better the survival rate (Davies et al., 1999). The spacing distance for the transplants is an important consideration. The further the gap, the less competition for resources, but later on, the vacancies can become colonized by invasive plants(Davies et al., 1999; Dremann & Shaw, 2002).

There is an absence of soil in the plot area and the surface material is a sandy gravel. The quality of the subsoil is not as critical because it is used mainly for rooting zone material (Misterek, 2003). The parking lot beside the water reservoir is highly compaction and water filtration will be reduced, while the sandy gravel which shows a moderate amount of rusting might cause phosphorous to be scavenged by the iron oxide. (Daniels & Amos, 1985) The sandy gravel has a lot of feldspar minerals and these will weather to release sodium and magnesium ions and affect the pH. To loosen up the soil and reduce density, tilling is recommended, however, it needs to be at a sufficient depth for roots to maintain a sustainable vegetation cover (Curtis & Claassen, 2009).

The possibility of using top soil from another location, would work on a small scale, but on a larger scale it would be too expensive, impractical, and natural soil is , in the short term, a non-renewable resource.

ER 390 Final Project Page 11 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

(Hüttl & Bradshaw, 2000; Séré et al., 2008). The advantage of using local top soil is that the soil can inoculate any soil on the site and assist in grassland succession (Middleton & Bever, 2010).

Instead of transplanted top soil; organic materials, such as, composted organic material, biosolids, mulches and inorganic materials, such as, sulfur, lime, silica sands, gypsum can be used. Soil amendments assist in increasing water holding capacity, nutrient cycling ability and texture of the soil (Bomke, 1980) It is recommended that the depth of the top soil mixture be 5 cm to 10 cm (Misterek, 2003). Composted organic matter is able to perform multiple functions in the soil which makes it such a useful amendment (Chambers et. al., 2002). The composted steer manure has a carbon to nitrogen ratio 27:1. and as the compost breaks down it release the nitrogen and other nutrients to the soil ( Bomke, 1980). There is a danger that the top soil mixture, will release nitrogen over a long period and effect the restoration‟s trajectory (Curtis & Claassen, 2009). The viability of weed seeds in composted steer manure is problematic, but the number of seeds can be reduced dramatically by making sure that during the composting process, the temperature stays above 55 º C, the compost is adequately turned so it is equally heated, and that the manure composts for 60 days minimum (Lahney & Blackshaw ,2003).

The slope of the project area is ~ 42%, which is still lower than maximum slope of 51% allowed in the reclamation plans for the Gregg River Coal Mine, near Hinton, Alta (Brand, 2004). In a dry climate, where there is excellent drainage, slumping or soil creep is not a problem, but runoff could be (see Figure 17a.) Grasses with their dense network of shallow roots are usually useful in protecting sites from surficial erosion (Gray & Sotir, 1996). A new idea which is literally taking root is bioengineering, is using plants to perform engineering function (Polster , 2006). Fixing Logs into the hillside (See Figure 14.) creates some small terraces to allow shrubs to take root, slows runoff water, and allow some extra moisture to be retained that will encourage more growth. The coarse woody debris (CWD) also serves many important ecological roles, such as nutrient cycling (Stevens, 1997)

In consideration of which species is appropriate for replanting, bluebunch wheatgrass, common to PPxhi var01, is very drought resistant, stands are persistent and it is adapted to stabilization of disturbed soils, flourishes in areas with 250mm to 500 mm of precipitation annually , but the species does poorly when highly competitive grasses are present(Grossman, 2004). Tilling should be done before planting bunchgrasses; the area should be weeded in the first year, mowed before the invasive plants seed and mow again in late August to simulate wild fire (Rogers,1981)

Figure. 14 Bioengineering idea for slope stabilization and revegetation source: Joy & Joy, 2010

ER 390 Final Project Page 12 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Method for Actual Restoration

The first step of the hands on part of the restoration project was to have the gr.10 students to prepare the site by weeding the entire plots. These weeds were put in a plastic garbage bag and composted. Five Logs (2.5 m to 4 m) long and 30-35 cm dia. were placed in shallow ditches, oriented slightly downhill (pers.comm. T.Coyne, March 20, 2011). The logs were held in place with wooden pegs. The entire plot area was tilled with polaskis (combination axe/hoe) and then rakes. A birdhouse, built by woodwork students, was installed in the manner described in the Ohio Bluebird Society‟s website( www.ohiobluebirdsociety.org).

A few days later, the students were on site again to listen to Lisa Scott , an invasive plant specialist, show and explained what invasive plants are, some of their names and characteristics that makes them so unpopular with ranchers and restorationists alike.

The following week, students, using shovels, blended composted manure and topsoil (1:2 ratio) and transported the soil amendments to the plot using manufactured slings, made from plastic tarpaulins fabric and 2”x2” lumber. Approximately 4.6 m3 of the soil was raked evenly over the restoration plot to a minimum depth of 5 cm.

To prepare for the actual planting, wooden stakes were driven at 1 m spacing down each side of the plot, and coconut twine strung between opposite stakes. There were a total of 12 lines, each 10 m in length. Groups of 3 students were each given a plastic tote tray containing ~ 30 plants, a dibbler, .5 m measuring stick and a watering jug made out of a 4 L milk container. Table 5. shows the species of the plants and their respective quantities.

Table 5. Species of plants and their respective quantities

latin name common name Quantity

Achnatherum richardsonii Richardsons needlegrass 58 Antennaria spp. pussytoes 48 Festuca campestris rough fescue 186 Pseudoregenaria spicatum bluebunch wheatgrass 58 Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon 12

Each group would follow their assigned twine line and plant the grassplugs or seedlings every .5 m, which was the optimal spacing ( M.Keefer, pers. comm., Jan. 24, 2011) (See Figure 15). Whichever student of the three person group had the watering responsibilities would have to return their empty container for a full one, and assigned students would keep refilling the containers from the tanks in the parking lot.

ER 390 Final Project Page 13 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Figure 15. Planting configuration 0.5 m spacing (source:G.Bibby)

Another group was responsible for erecting the snow drift fencing, using rebar and sledgehammers to support the fencing. This was done to keep the cattle out. After everything was planted and the fence installed, bone blood meal, A. Kennedy‟ suggestions (pers. comm., Jan. 19, 2011), was spread over the plot area and dehydrated coyote urine was also sprinkled around the perimeter of the plot to keep the deer disinterested. After this, there was a celebration BBQ sponsored by the local grocery store.

Figure 16. Students transferring the topsoil/compost mixture source: M. Dobbs Addition Pictures Appendix G

In the following week, the concept of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) was presented to the students by Richard Armstrong, a Knowledge Keeper from the En‟ochwin centre in Penticton. He spoke in the classroom, then he walked around outside sharing some of his knowledge of nature and local plants, as well as, the aboriginal sensitivity regarding nature and man‟s role in it. It was also discovered that the ravens had been on the property and “ate” most of the seedlings. It was a shock to say the least, but following the principle of adaptative management, mature bunch grasses were harvested in a sensitive manner from another area and replanted at 1 metre spacing. The students understood the necessity and worked hard in their groups of three to dig, plant and water the totes of pot-size bunchgrasses.

The last stage involved monitoring and continued and involved periodic weeding, checking the fence and hand watering. In mid-August, balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata) seeds were collected and planted in spaces between the surviving plants by gently raking them into the soil. (M. Keefer, pers. comm. , Jan. 28,2011)

ER 390 Final Project Page 14 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Results and interpretation

The plan did not consider the ravens as a stressor that needed to be addressed. The plan was only to deal with the threat from deer and cattle, yet the plot was only a 1.5 km “as the crow flies” to the landfill, and it is a regular occurrence to see ravens in the school yard or the nearby grasslands. The deer and cattle did not bother with the project, so it can be assumed that measures meant to keep them away work. . Deer were in the area in the weeks before planting; however the deer or their tracks were never seen inside the compound. On at least one occasion, a cow must have walked over the snowdrift fencing, because there were footprints and cow dung at a spot near the bottom, however, the plot did not receive much damage. In the days following the original planting, the cattle were observed moving in the area and walking down the bank and around the fence.

The actual planting went well, however, the students were rushing and some of the plants needed to be replanted. The weather was ideal for the planting, but not for teenagers, especially, those that refuse to wear warm clothing. The plants were probably watered too much, as there was 4 days to rain previous to planting and the actual day was cool, windy, and wet, the plants were thoroughly watered before they were planted in wet ground and watered again. At the time of this report, most of the young plants that survived the ravens are doing well which include members of each of the 5 species planted. Unfortunately, this only amounted to approximately 30 plants (<10% of original plugs planted). Most of the transplanted pot-size plants survived (>80%) supporting the notion that size does matter when it comes to the survival rate of transplants (Davies et al. 1999).

The area was weeded at 4 separate times. Although there wasn‟t a lot of weeds present, had it not been done regularly, the area would have been highly populated by late summer. Whether the weeds came in with the compost/topsoil mixture or were blown in remains to be seen. The transplant plants also could have brought some invasive weeds into the site. In contrase, Figure 17b. shows no vegetation on the site in the fall of 2010.

Figure 17. a. (Top) November 10, 2010 pre-project – with no weeds and ditches caused by runoff . b.(Middle) May 26, 2011 immediately after plant 350 grassplugs and seedlings. c. (bottom) Aug. 10, 2011 project area after weeding. Source: G. Bibby

ER 390 Final Project Page 15 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Discussion and recommendations

By undertaking this task, the author has gained a greater respect for the challenges of restoring grassland. Dremann (2010) outlined the multiple unsuccessful attempts to restore a 0.8 ha field near the highway in Southern California, which tried different combinations of mowing, seed mixes, seed planting methods/schedules over a seven years time span and costing $450 000. He asked the question “If it’s so hard to repair damaged grasslands, why should developers, grazing permittees or miners be allowed to destroy any more native grasslands?”

The main focus of this project was to give the students a sense that restoring nature is a necessary and complicated thing, and learn by doing, some of the basic principles of ecological restoration. By the end of the hands-on work, presentations from invasive plants and TEK specialists, and the ecology lessons in the classroom, the students, regardless of their personal learning styles, had a chance participated in an excellent opportunity. Involving the students in an ER project was a challenge, as the months of May and June are pretty hectic. Planning, coordinating, meeting with groups, sourcing out necessary materials and still be still able to be on point and convey the excitement and importance that this project disserves was difficult at times. The attack of the ravens was an emotional and ecological setback, yet what could be done, except practice adaptive management. The students were as upset as the teacher, but we were all keen to set it right, which was fortifying. The project also had its rewards, such as when a student, who had history of failure in the classroom, demonstrated an industriousness, infectious enthusiasm, and an understanding of the ecological reasons behind the different restoration steps.

From a restoration sense, the project was moderately successful, considering there are native plants growing in a place that there were not any before. There is a chance that the vacancies that occur between the plants, may be able to become occupied by other plants, hopefully, native ones, but realistically, without additional planting, these spaces will end of being filled up with invasive plants. For this reason, the planting of balsamroot seeds was undertaken in late summer. With the soil amendments and open spaces there is a real threat of invasive plants moving in taking over. This was to be expected as the plot was surrounded on 3 sides by cultivars and invasive weeds, and the water reservoir on the other. In retrospect, a better location for this project would be one that was closer to the bottom of the hill and towards the north. This would have the plot with its back to a undisturbed forest, where there might be a chance of native seed colonization.

The town missed an opportunity when they allowed the hydroseeding to proceed without consulting an ecological restoration professional for suggestions. The company contract to do the seeding, also, should advocate for the use of native seeds, instead of cultivars. Realistically, municipalities are looking to save money wherever possible, however, the financial costs of doing it the wrong way and doing the right way are not always that far apart. By giving permission for this project to go ahead on town property, there is hope that the local government might consider alternative ways when they revegetate disturbed areas in the future.

In conclusion, a message that the students often heard was “it’s very difficult to repair a disturbed area to its’ pre-disturbance state, so It’s better to avoid doing it in the first place, or at least try to minimize the disturbance”. By their involvement in this ecological restoration project, it is hoped that they will have a deeper understanding of the meaning behind the message.

ER 390 Final Project Page 16 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

Acknowledgements:

Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen Brad Hope –Area H Director

PSS Parent Advisory Council(PAC) Leslie Hassel – president

Princeton Secondary School (PSS) Sandee Blair - principal

Town of Princeton – Patrick Robbins – manager

SD#58 Maintenance dept. – Jim Garfield - manager

Presenters– Lisa Scott - Invasive Plant specialist EcoMatters consulting

Richard Armstrong- Knowledge Keeper - En'owkin Centre

PSS Science 10 Students

Adam Ali Eric Hardin

Emily Allison Nathan Howarth

Taylor Artis Clayton Jung

Kristen Ashley Randee Kassa

Ciara Bamford Sam Kastor

Benjamin Beeler Austin Konst

Jason Borkent Kendra Leiding

Colton Callihoo Angie Marshall

Wyatt Crimmon Keisha Miller

Skye Davis Brianna Musgrove

Melissa Dennis Ally Myers

Morgan Dobbs Derek Northway

Myles Dodd Clayton O'Bee

Orion Driver Rhett Ortwein

Dallas Earle Megan Pateman

Julia Reichert Richard Shuman

Taylor Gibb Austin Thibert

Jolene Goodman Michael White

Kirsten Haayer Colby Williams

Paige Wiren,

Bird house builders Alex Lopes‟ Woodwork students

Special Helpers Ivan Belov, Maureen Squakins, Guadelupe Ogrinc, Malcom Katz, Graham Bibby, Helen Bibby, John Schneider

Landscaping tools Ray Senger, Dave Smith, Dave Ranier, Basil Bottenfield, Larry Evans, Sue Hamilton, Ken MacLeod, John Cimbaro, and Hal Anderson.

Donations Blood Bone Meal - Home Hardware – Princeton – Peter and Cheryl Rubingh (Managers)

BBQ Supplies - Coopers foods – Princeton - Rob Betts (Manager)

Plant supplier Tipi Mountain Native Plants

Project Advice Ted Coyne, Clint Smyth , Mike Keefer, Ali Kennedy

ER 390 Final Project Page 17 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby

References:

Bailey, A.W., McCartney, D.H., and Schellenberg, M.P. 2010 . Management of Canadian Prairie Rangeland. published by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC (Factsheet)

Bainbridge, D. A., Fidelibus, M. and MacAller, R. 1995. Techniques for plant establishment in arid ecosystems. Restoration and Management Notes vol.13 pp.190–197.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 1995. Biodiversity guidebook. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia. Victoria, B.C. Bomke, A. A. 1980. Fertilizers and soil amendments in mine reclamation. Proceedings of the 4th Annual British Columbia Min Reclamation Symposium in Vernon, BC,

Bradshaw, A.D .1997.Restoration of mined lands – using natural processes. Ecological Engineering. vol. 8, no.4, pp.255–269. Brand, D.W. 2004. Completion of Reclamation of the Gregg River Mine, Alberta Hinton, Alberta Canada SERC website

Chambers, B. J., Royle, S., Hadden, S. and Maslen, S. 2002. The use of biosolids and other organic substances in the creation of soil-forming materials. Journal of the Charted Institution of Water and Environmental Management. vol.16, pp.34–39.

CSSS website http://www.soilsofcanada.ca/orders/regosolic/index.php

Curtis, M.J. and Claassen, V.P. 2009. Regenerating Topsoil Functionality in Four Drastically Disturbed Soil Types by Compost Incorporation. Restoration Ecology Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 24–32

Daniels, W. L. and Amos, D.F. 1985. Generating productive topsoil substitutes from hard rock overburden in the southern Appalachians. Environ. Geochem. and Health vol.7, pp. 8-15.

Davies, A., Dunnett, N.P. and Kendle, T. 1999. The importance of transplant size and gap width in the botanical enrichment of species poor grasslands in Britain. Restoration Ecology vol.7, pp.271–280.

Desserud, P, Gates, C.C., Adams, B. and Revel, R.D. 2010. Restoration of foothills rough fescue grassland following pipeline disturbance in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Environmental Management vol.91 , pp.2763-2770

Dremann, C.C. and Shaw, M. 2002. An Innovative Approach to Restoring a Coastal California Ecosystem by releasing seedbed by taking out the weeds .Ecological Restoration vol. 20, no. 2, pp 103 – 107.

Dremann, G. 2010. Project sets cost of California Native Grassland Restoration at $225,000 per acre! – web article - http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html

Environment Canada. National Climate Data and Information Archive www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca

Gayton, D. V. 2003. British Columbia Grasslands :Monitoring Vegetation Change FORREX– Forest Research Extension Partnership.

Grantz, D. A., Vaughn, D.L., Farber et. al. 1998.Transplanting native plants to revegetate abandoned farmland in the western Mojave Desert. Journal of Environmental Quality . vol.27, pp.960–967.

Gray, D.H. and Sotir ,R.B. 1996. Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization: A Practical Guide for Erosion Control. Wiley& Sons, Inc., New York

ER 390 Final Project Page 18 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby Grossman, J. 2004. Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata - Plant Guide. US dept. Agriculture – Nation Resources Conservation Service–

Hüttl, R.F. and Bradshaw, A.D. 2000. Aspect of Reclamation Ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning. vol. 51, pp.73–74. I.A.H.P (International Association of Hydroseeding Professionals), 2010. Website forum. Internet: www.hydroseeding.org/ James, J.J., Svejcar, T.J. and Rinella, M.J. 2011. Demographic processes limiting seedling recruitment in arid grassland restoration Journal of Applied Ecology . vol. 48, pp. 961–969.

Joy, S. and Joy, T. 2010. Active Remedy Ltd Stabilising Eroded Land http://activeremedy.org.uk/pages

Kelsey, T. 2000. Trials and Experiences in New Hampshire .Natural Resources Conservation Service Durham, New Hampshire. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

Kimball, S. and Schiffman, P.M. 2003. Differing effects of cattle grazing on native and alien plants. Conservation Biology . vol.17, pp. 1681-1693.

Klenner, W., Walton, R., Arsenault, A. and Kremsater, L. 2008. Dry forests in the Southern Interior of British Columbia: disturbances and implications for restoration and management. Forest Ecology and Management .vol.256, p. 1711-1722.

Larney, F.J. and Blackshaw, R.E. 2003. Weed seed viability in composted beef cattle feedlot manure. Journal. Environmental Quality. vol.32, pp.1105 -1113. Laughlin, D. C., Bakker, J. D., Daniels, M. L., Moore, M. M., Casey, C. A. and Springer, J. D. 2008. Restoring plant species diversity and community composition in a ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Plant Ecology. vol.197, p. 139–151 Lloyd, D.,Angove, K.,Hope, G. and Thompson, C. 1990. A Guide to Site identification and Interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C.

Lloyd, D.,Ryan, M.,Brand, N.,Doney, M., Larson, V. and MacDonald, J. 2005. Site Classification for 52 Biogeoclimatic Units in the Soutthern Interior Forest Region. Draft . British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C.

Lord, T.M. and Green, A.J. 1979. Soils of the Princeton Area : Report No. 14. British Columbia Soil Survey. Research Branch Agriculture Canada

Matesanz, S., Vallagares, F., Tena, d., Tenorio, M. and Bote, D. 2006.Early Dynamics of Plant Communities on Revegetated Motorway Slopes from Southern Spain: Is Hydroseeding Always Needed? .Restoration Ecology. vol.14, no.2, pp. 297–307.

Middleton, E.L. and Bever, J.D. 2010.Inoculation with a Native Soil Community Advances Succession in a Grassland Restoration Restoration Ecology – (in press)

Misterek, D. 2003. Using Soil Substitutes for Nonmetallic Mining Reclamation: Mining Reclamation Newsletter – NR 135 Nicolau, J. M. 2002. Runoff generation and routing on artificial slopes in a Mediterraneancontinental environment; the Teruel coalfield, Spain. Hydrological Processes . vol.16, pp.631–647. Parish, R., Coupe, R and Lloyd, D. 1996. Plants of Souther Interior, British Columbia .Lone Pine Publishing (Vancouver, B.C.)

Polster 2006 -Powerpoint presentation. – Polster Environmental Services

Primack, R. 2006. Essentials of Conservation Biology 4ed. Sinauer Associate Inc Sunderland Ma.

ER 390 Final Project Page 19 Grassland restoration by G.Bibby Rogers, D. 1981. Notes on Planting and Maintenance of Bunchgrasses. FREMONTIA A Journal of the California Native Plant Society, 1981, vol.9, no.1, pp.24-28.

Séré, G., Schwartz, C., Ouvrard, S., Sauvage, C., Renat, J.C.and Morel, J.L.: 2008: Soil Construction: A Step for Ecological Reclamation of Derelict Lands. Journal of Soils Sediments. vol.8, no.2, pp. 130 – 136.

Stevens, V., 1997. The Ecological Role of Coarse Woody Debris. Ministry of Forests Division Services Branch, 1997

Trench Committee (Rocky Mountain Trench Steering Committee). 2006. Restoration of Open Forests and Grasslands in the Rocky Mountain Trench, British Columbia - report

WEDC (Western Economic Diversification Canada) news release. 2007. Internet: www.wd.gc.ca/eng/77_9789.asp

January 27, 2011

Dear Mayor and Council,

I am writing to request $1000 funding for a exciting project idea involving local high school students and

in the reclamation of a disturbed area resulting from the construction of the water tower west of the

Airport runway.

Over the last two years, I have been completing courses leading to a UVIC diploma in Restoration of

Natural Systems (RNS). The RNS program teaches methods which can use to repair disturbed or

damaged areas so that they may return to a pre-existing natural state. The final course in this program

requires that I participate in planning and implementing an actual restoration project.

The proposed project will involve restoring a 300 m2 un-vegetated area on the East side of the new

water tower. The surface material will be amended with topsoil/composted steer manure and ~900

plant plugs will be hand planted. Students will be directly involved in tilling the soil, planting the plugs,

weeding the project area and monitoring growth, as well as learning important lessons on: issues

related to Invasive plants , Ecological Restoration methods, and Identification of some common native

grasses and forbs.

Other organizations will also be involved in a secondary support capacity. The RDOS area H rep , Brad

Hope, has committed support in the form of supplying the composted steer manure, sponsoring a BBQ

at the end of the planting, as well as possibly, supplying native seed mix that can used in an adjacent

plot as a comparison.

In conclusion, the potential for an amazing learning situation to occur is real. There are direct and

indirect benefits varying from actual hands-on experiences by our students to the potential of a restore

piece of property that might serve as a template for later ecological restorations.

I thank you for your considerations and look forwards to your response.

Sincerely,

Gordon Bibby

Budget:

Description Unit cost # Items Cost

Grassplugs - per plug Pussytoes,Idaho fescue, Junegrass, Bluebunch wheatgrass) + anti-deer treatment $0.80 900 $720.00

shipping cost (unknown) $0.00 0 $0.00

shrubs - #5 size $35.00 4 $140.00

top soil - per yards $20.00 12 $240.00

composted manure $0.00 8 $0.00

total: $1,217.00

Schedule:

February/March Classroom Lessons, Presentations and Special speakers

May (weeks 1 and 2) make sure that materials are delivered to site and plot boundaries determined

May 17, 2011 (AM) Science 10 Students prepare soil (till top soil with surface material and composted

manure)

May 24, 2011 (AM) Science 10 Students install grasses plugs and spread bone meal – BBQ follows.

June 1st week ( Students - weeding and monitoring)

June 3rd week (Students - weeding and monitoring)

July 1st week (weeding and monitoring)

July 3rd week (weeding and monitoring)

Aug.1st week (weeding and monitoring)

Aug.3rd week (weeding and monitoring)

Over the last two years, I have been completing courses leading to a UVIC diploma in Restoration of

Natural Systems (RNS). The RNS program teaches methods which can use to repair disturbed or

damaged areas so that they may return to a pre-existing natural state. The final course in this program

requires that I participate in planning and implementing an actual restoration project.

The proposed project will involve restoring a 300 m2 un-vegetated area on the East side of the new

water tower. The surface material will be amended with topsoil/composted steer manure and ~900

plant plugs will be hand planted. Students will be directly involved in tilling the soil, planting the plugs,

weeding the project area and monitoring growth, as well as learning important lessons on: issues

related to Invasive plants , Ecological Restoration methods, and Identification of some common native

grasses and forbs.

The majority of cost will be carried by the Town of Princeton. The RDOS area H rep , Brad Hope, has

committed support in the form of supplying the composted steer manure, sponsoring a BBQ at the end

the planting, as well as possibly, supplying native seed mix that can used in an adjacent plot as a

comparison.

The involvement of students is essential to the success of this undertaking. There are 3 components to the project: Classroom component: (Occurs in Late April)

Look at the Princeton Area in respect to its assigned Biogeoclimatic zone

Teach Students some of the fundamental tenets of ecological restoration, such as use of native plants and reduce use of fertilizer

Learn to identify native and invasive plants local to our area (RDOS sponsored – invasive plant specialist Lisa Scott)

On site presentation by Native Elder regarding importants of certain plants to their culture

PPT presentation of Native plant nurseries (supplied by Keefer Eco.)

Rehearse steps needed to install plugs Revegetation and Soil Prep component (Occurs in Mid to Late May)

Students will use hand rakes to spread and till in a layer of top soil and composet, as well install Coarse Wood debris

Students will plant plugs at the pre-arranged density , planting Saskatoon seedlings and Trembling Aspen, Install Bluebird house on site.

Celebration will occur on site

Project Monitoring component (Occurs in June)

On at least 2 occasions, students will weed the test area and inspect plant.

Contributors: The Town

Allow access to the site Facilitating water supply used for planting

The RDOS Responsible for providing Invasive plant expert and $100 dollars for the purchasing of 4 yards of Topsoil Brad Hope Supplying 2 yards of composted steer manure PSS parent advisory council Providing 500 dollars funding, which will cover the native plant costs, as well as coyote based - deer repellent and misc. material cost Home Hardware Donated two bags of Blood – Bone meal to be used as deer repellent. SD58 maintenance Providing use of the dumptruck to pick up soil and manure and deliver it to site Gord Bibby will responsible for:

Proper storage and treatment of grass plugs and shrubs

Coordination of Resources necessary for ER and Implementation of Project

Networking with necessary agencies (Town of Princeton, RDOS, and SD58)

Supervision of Planting, Soil prep, and Monitoring ( May to Sept.)

Personally will monitor plant mortality in July and August.

Responsible for write-up, publications, and presentation of project and results.

Dear Parents,

The Science 10 students are participating in a grassland restoration project located at the new water tank located west of the air strip near PSS. I

would like all students (both semester 1 & 2 ) to have a chance at participating in this project in some capacity. Their participation will vary (see

table below). The participants will be required to dress appropriately (sensible footwear and clothing) and bring work gloves if they wish, as they

will be required to rake, shovel, or plant depending on the day. Finally, it is expected that the student will respect and obey all school rules. In

most cases, the students will be walking to the site, but with certain activities, to maximize the time on site, the school van will be used to ferry

students to the location..

date Periods activity Plan10 (semester 2) Sc10 (semester 2) Sc10 (semester 1)

May 10 1-2 Slope preparation – set and wood debris on site X

May 12 1-2 Invasive plants presentation – Lisa Scott - onsite X X X

May 19 1-2 Spreading Soil/Compost - onsite X

May 26 1-2-3 Planting of grasses and shrubs – onsite – plus BBQ X X X

June 7 1-2 Weeding X

June 14 1-2 Weeding X

Thank you

G. Bibby Science Teacher PSS

ER390 Gordon Bibby V00705663 Restoration of Grasslands Project August 10, 2011

Restoration Stage

Task Who (G.Bibby unless state)

Resources Budget Schedule

Establish the context and objectives of the area

Preliminary Discussions with Town of Princeton and broadly outline possible ER projects Get Project approval from RNS department

Nov. 2010

Complete detailed site description and determine the characteristics of a similar, but undisturbed, area.

Visit actual site create list of restoration issues that will need to be addressed in plan Determine size of disturbed area Determine characteristics of remaining material. Measure the % slope and aspect Research Literature which related to identified restoration issues Determine the characteristics of an undisturbed area with similar biogeoclimatic zone and variants

Garmin handheld GPS+ GoogleEarth Set of Screen sieves + Passport pH test probe Brunton Eclipse compass/clinometer MetaLib access + www MetaLib access + www

Nov. 2010 Dec 2010 – Mar 2011

Carry out analysis of data

Contact Experts for ideas regarding possible solutions to restoration issues: Mike Keefer ecological consultant Ted Coyne - Forester Clint Smyth – Professional Agrologist Lisa Scott – invasive plant specialist

Email access, phone, personal conversation

Jan -April. 2011

Develop and finalize restoration plans

Locate funding sources Make presentations to

o Town of Princeton

o PSS PAC,

speak to RDOS area H director -Brad Hope

Send letter and speak to Valleyfirst credit

union Check on availability of soil amendments and the determine appropriateness of them. Decide on types of grasses, forbs, shrubs Confirm that certain responsibilities will be taken care of by the Town of Princeton, such as water tank availability, access to property, and snow drift fencing/rebar Speak to School District #58 maintenance to see if they are willing to deliver the soil amendments. Contact Cooper’s food to see if they are willing to sponsor a BBQ for the science class. Identify possible Special presenters and make contact so that arrangements can be made.

Brad Hope Maureen Squakim

Jan 27 Feb. 7 April 13 April 8 April 20

Pre-restoration Complete proper fieldtrip plans and get permission slips and information letters hand out to parents and returned Acquire necessary products:

Dehydrated coyote urine 2 @ 5 Kg bags of Blood Bone Meal

(donated) Locate 5 suitable Logs, make stakes, and deliver to site. Build soil slings Survey the boundaries of project plot and lay out guide lines at 1 m spacing Cut 12@50 cm marks sticks and make 14 dibblers Acquire landscaping tools 50 m of snowdrift fencing + 24 rebar stakes delivered Water truck Order and Delivery of soil amendment 4 yards of topsoil and 2 yards of composted steer manure. Order and Pick up Grass plugs and Seedlings.

S. Blair G.Bibby T.Johnson G.Bibby Graham Bibby Malcon Katz Graham Bibby Malcom Katz Graham Bibby Malcom Katz Helen Bibby G.Bibby Town of Princeton Maintenance dept. Town of Princeton Maintenance dept. SD#58 maintenance L.Richards G. Bibby

Mazda and trailor, powersaw Cut off saw (Gas) 12’ x 16’ tarp + 6 @ 10 ft 2 x 2 Olaf knife, stable, cut off saw 100 m of Coconut hemp + 20 stakes Flagging tape Sledge hammer 50 m measuring tape Old broom handles, cut off saw, rotary sander. Mazda+utility trailer (gas) Small Dump truck Mazda

50.00 0.00 15.00 75.00 10.00 0.00 15.00 100.00 378.00

April 14– May 7 April 25 April 26 April 27 May 6 – May 8 May 26 May 26 May 9 – May 10 May 14

Carry out restoration

Weeded, Raked, place CWD , install birdhouse and perch. Invasive plant specialist , Lisa Scott does presentation Spread topsoil and manure Complete all planting and install Fencing, spread deer repellants Celebration BBQ in the classroom and back parking lot. Check plants and fix/correct deficiencies and hand water. TEK specialist, Gerry Armstrong, does presentation.

Science 10 class Brad Hope Planning 10 class Planning 10 class John Schneider and student helpers G.Bibby Graham Bibby Maureen Squakim - organizer

Landscaping tools and snacks and drinks Snacks and drinks Slings, spades, rakes Totes of grassplugs and seedlings Dibblers Measuring sticks Water jugs and water tank Snacks and drinks 2 @ Gas BBQ , hotdogs, toppings, buns for 35 kids + juices

20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 - 0.00

May 10 May 12 May 19 May 26 May 26 May 28 June 3

Monitor the site and making adjustment

Additional planting of mature pot size grasses Weeding and Addition Watering Weeding Planting Balsamroot seeds between plants

Science 10 class G.Bibby Graham Bibby Ivan Belov G.Bibby Graham Bibby G.Bibby Graham Bibby

Same tools as earlier planting Water containers + water tanks rakes

May 31 June 18 July 13, 31 Aug. 15

Total cost: $733.00