2011 Annual Report on Invasive Weed Control and Eradication Activities in Inyo and Mono Counties

Transcription

1 2011 Annual Report on Invasive Weed Control and Eradication Activities in Inyo and Mono Counties Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 207 W South Street Bishop, CA

2 Roses are red, Violets are blue; But they don't get around Like the dandelions do Slim Acres, American Poet 2011 Season Staff: Program Coordinator Nathan Reade Field Technician II Carlos Paz Account Technician II Jennifer Sarten Field Assistants Scott Gadea Josh Tyerman Cody Himes Nelson Sanchez Oyarzo Grant Higgenbotham

3 Counties of Inyo & Mono George L. Milovich Agricultural Commissioner Director of Weights and Measures 207 W. South Street, Bishop, CA Telephone (760) Fax (760) Annual Report Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Activities in Inyo and Mono Counties Contents Introduction Summary of Activities Projects Managed by the Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office: Inyo and Mono Counties Weed Eradication and Control Project Eastern Sierra Weed Management Area Noxious Weed Project Walker River Cooperative Watershed Project..11 Inyo and Mono Counties A/B Rated Weed Project Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner/LADWP Agreement...13 Fish Slough ACEC Weed Control and Spring Restoration Project Population Trends by Species..19 APPENDIX A Site Data APPENDIX B Site Photos

4 I would rank agricultural weeds as number one and rats as number two Professor David Pimentel, Cornell University, on the global destructive potential of non-native species

5 Introduction Non-native invasive plant species create many problems. These problems can be local or regional, and consequences can span from environmental to economic. In California invasive weed species are responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses, with over $80 million spent each year on control efforts alone. Effective management of this biological pollution is very important to our way of life in Inyo and Mono Counties, the Eastern Sierra region, and statewide. Linkages often exist between the environmental impacts of weed infestation and larger environmental problems. When observing one impact, such as erosion due to poorly adapted root structures, there are usually other issues resulting from the initial impact, such as decreased flood control capacity or increased sedimentation within a watershed. Viewing the impacts of weed infestation in one area relative to a region can be abstract and difficult to quantify, but important to consider when evaluating overall consequences. The graphic below illustrates some of the problems associated with weed infestation. Wildlife Habitat Impacts Lower Species Diversity Native Plants Threatened Working Landscape Impacts Local Agricultural Economy Threatened Lower Property Values Water Quality Impacts Aquatic Species Threatened Increased Sedimentation Municipal Water Supplies Threatened Air Quality Impacts Increased Dust Events Public Health Endangered Recreation Impacts Tourism Losses Access Impeded Fire Issues Changes in Fire Regimes Affect all of the Above Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 1

6 Environmental Consequences Non-native weeds did not evolve in areas they invade outside of their natural habitat, and therefore have different (and usually more aggressive) adaptations for survival. This results in environmental harm to areas in which these weeds colonize. Many threats that invasive plants pose lead to other issues, and the impacts stemming from these species often reach a watershed or regional scope. Most of these species colonize rapidly once spread by wind, water, wildlife, and disturbance. Some examples of damage resulting from invasive plant infestation include: o Increased streambank erosion o Decreased water quality (sedimentation) o Decreased flood control capacity o Lowered water table o Decreased biodiversity o Damaged wildlife habitat o Fire severity and frequency alteration o Increased peril to threatened and endangered species When chemical pollution or the exploitation of an ecosystem ceases, an ecosystem begins a recovery process. However, when invasive organisms (biological pollutants) are introduced into a new ecosystem, they can grow, adapt, proliferate and spread...indefinitely, causing ever increasing economic and environmental damage. Society always pays for invasive plants, either sooner or later Economic Consequences Robert E. Eplee, U.S. Department of Agriculture A 2001 study by David Pimentel of Cornell University estimated the cost of invasive species worldwide at $1.4 trillion. 1 Professor Pimentel ranked agricultural weeds as the number one threat among all invasive species types. In California, at least $82 million is spent each year on control measures alone to manage weed populations. 2 This represents almost 70% of the total amount of dollars spent nationwide on this endeavor. This figure does not include the costs of lost crop yields, property values, or losses due to exacerbated natural disaster consequences. Inyo and Mono counties both derive the majority of their economic activity from the tourism and agriculture sectors. These two economic drivers are affected by invasive plant species. The effects on the local agricultural industry are easier to discern than those on the tourism industry, such as crop yield losses, costs of control, and loss of usable land. The tourism economy is nonetheless impacted by weeds through loss of access to recreation, loss of wildlife habitat that affects bird watching, hunting or fishing, and increased threat of catastrophic fire. Some examples of the economic cost of weeds include: 1 Alister Doyle, Alien pests wreak vast economic damage: UN, Reuters, 21 May, Cal-IPC, Cost of invasive weeds in California, Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

7 o Agricultural losses o Tourism losses o Costs associated with worsened fires, floods and other disasters o Property devaluation o Control costs o Costs associated with watershed damage o Public health costs o Water supply quality and quantity costs In U.S. agriculture, weeds cause an overall reduction of 12% in crop yields. In economic terms, this reduction represents about $33 billion in lost crop production annually Collaboration United States Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1996 The Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office (AgComm) is the administrative member of the Eastern Sierra Weed Management Area (ESWMA) group. The mission statement of this group reads: The Eastern Sierra Weed Management Area (ESWMA) will cooperate and coordinate activities necessary for the prevention and control of noxious and invasive weeds within the boundaries of the ESWMA, in Inyo and Mono Counties. The emphasis of these activities shall be focused on prevention, detection, and eradication of noxious and invasive weeds, through education and integrated pest management. Interaction between members of this group promotes cooperation with weed management projects and activities. Viewing invasive plant issues without the lens of jurisdictional or other boundaries helps managers see the issue of these weeds as it truly is - a regional or watershed issue. Members of the ESWMA include: Inyo/Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner California Department of Food and Agriculture CalTrans District 9 Bishop Paiute Tribe Environmental Office Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Inyo/Mono Resource Conservation District Natural Resource Conservation Service Toiyabe National Forest Inyo County Water Department BLM, Bishop Field Office BLM, California Desert District Inyo/Mono Cattleman s Association Calfire California State Parks Inyo National Forest Two ESWMA meetings were conducted in 2011 with representatives from most of the above entities attending at least once. Over 35,000 people were reached through the various outreach and information efforts outlined on the previous section. Several regional land management meetings were attended by representatives of ESWMA to maintain Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 3

8 communications with other groups, and to ensure invasive plant issues are represented in discussions on such matters. ESWMA coordinates and communicates with bordering weed management groups. Representatives from the ESWMA attended meetings of the Mojave Weed Management Area (MWMA) group and the Walker River Basin Cooperative Weed Management Area (WRBCWMA) group during 2011 to facilitate this type of collaboration. ESWMA meetings were attended by representatives of these groups as well. Another example of collaboration between agencies is the California Conservation Corps (CCC) visit that occurred again in 2011, funded by CDFA. These crews specialize in weed management, and cycle through counties within the state helping WMAs to tackle tough projects. The CCC crew assisted with controlling of a dense Perennial pepperweed population, allowing ESWMA to allocate valuable labor resources elsewhere. This assistance saved the ESWMA three weeks of labor. Weed Management Methods AgComm uses several methods of detection and control to manage invasive plants. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is the focus of these efforts, and AgComm attempts to employ the best possible alternative for treatment considering the specific situation and target species. Methods for detection include exclusion activities such as nursery inspections, public outreach, roadside surveys, surveys of agricultural lands, and surveys of areas used heavily for recreation. Weed removal and eradication methods encompass mechanical, chemical and biological control, and cultural practices that discourage weed colonization and spread. Once weeds have been removed from an area surveys must continue for at least five years to establish full eradication of the population, as many weedy species have seeds that are viable for many years. Preventing weed establishment is the easiest and most cost effective form of weed control. Inspection and survey of potential sources of weed introduction is an important part of AgComm s weed management strategy. Staff from the weed management program survey areas of high recreational use for weeds regularly, especially those attracting users from other regions, states, or countries. Program staff also conducts inspections of plant shipments and surveys of highway roadsides frequently to detect any weed introduction promptly. Agricultural land surveys identify weed infestations early and prevent spread to new areas when agricultural commodities are harvested and distributed. Public outreach is an important component in weed prevention and detection, and AgComm staff distributes weed identification booklets to interested parties, present information at local gatherings such as the annual pesticide safety seminar and the local 6 th grade camp, and create other educational outreach material such as press releases and posters. The weed program employs several different methods to remove weeds when they are discovered. Mechanical control, such as hand-pulling weeds, is used where this technique is feasible and effective. Chemical control via low volume application of appropriate approved herbicides is used where infestation sizes are too large to allow for the effective use of other methods. Biological controls, such as seed eating weevils or foliage destroying beetles, are used on plants that are susceptible to this method of control. 4 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

9 Through education and outreach efforts, AgComm staff attempts to encourage positive changes in cultural practices that will help to prevent weed establishment and spread. An example of cultural practice modification is lessening soil disturbance related to agricultural production to avoid weed colonization around fields. After removing weeds from a location staff revisits sites for at least five years to ensure re-growth does not occur. After this five year period the infestation can be declared eradicated. Depending on the long-term viability of the seeds belonging to the target species, site revisits may continue longer than five years. During surveys, nearby areas with potential for colonization are also examined, such fields irrigated from ditches linked to the infested site, or roadsides connected to infested areas. Summary of Activities The 2011 management season continued efforts on the expanded scale begun in Total staff numbered seven, allowing AgComm to manage known infestations adequately throughout both counties. Management strategies were adjusted using data from Adjustments were made using data from test plots and assessing previous-year strategy adjustments. Weed management efforts were directed at the following species: Species: Scientific Name: CDFA Rating Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium B Canada thistle Cirsium arvense B Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus A Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens B Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa A Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium A Camelthorn Alhagi maurorum A Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica A Hoary cress Carderia draba B Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis C Musk thistle Carduus nutans A Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima B Survey Activities AgComm expanded detection survey efforts in 2011, examining 75,746 acres within Inyo and Mono Counties. Survey methods include roadside surveys, walking surveys, and surveys from all-terrain vehicles (ATV s). Lower Owens River Project (LORP) area surveys encompass about half of all survey acres, with the remainder of detection activities centered on six main regions: Antelope Valley, Long Valley, Fish Slough, Owens River near Tinemaha Reservoir, and the Oak Creek watershed. These acreages include only assessment of areas with no known weed populations for early detection, and do not include the typical inspection of areas around and near known weed populations that occurs during treatment activities. These surveys discovered three new Perennial pepperweed infestations in the LORP area, which were managed immediately to minimize future threats to the recovering habitat within this area. Three new weed populations in the Antelope Valley Area, one Perennial pepperweed site and two Scotch thistle sites, were mapped and treated. The early Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 5

10 discovery of these sites will reduce long-term management costs. Maps outlining these sites are included in Attachment C of this document. Treatment Activities Results from herbicide changes during the 2010 growing season were mixed, and these findings guided treatment methods in Specifically, management alterations from the previous year with regard to Perennial pepperweed populations indicated that while many sites responded favorably to the changes, certain sites contained infestations that expanded significantly. Additionally, test plot data indicated that timing of application with aminopyralid herbicide on Perennial pepperweed determined the success of these applications. Other species treatment strategies were found successful. Responsive actions to the Perennial pepperweed problems included altering the schedule of treatment activities, and shifting fall treatments from imazapyr herbicides to aminopyralid herbicides. Certain sites were found to have very low net acreages during the initial 2010 treatment and large net populations during the second treatment. The reason for this discrepancy was determined to be a premature first application, and staff waited two to three weeks later to treat these areas in This change allowed plants in these sites to emerge fully prior to herbicide application. Aminopyralid applications were selected for fall treatments due to data from test plots that indicate a high degree of control when applied during that season. The success of this change will be assessed in 2012 during surveys. The scope of treatment activities in 2011 amounted to net acres of weeds within 70,990 gross acres of infested lands. Details of treatment activity in respect to each species can be found beginning on page 19. Total net weed populations numbered acres, which is shown in the chart below. Many sites were revisited several times during the 2011 season which accounts for the discrepancy between the net acreage of treatments and the total net acreage of invasive weeds. The table below illustrates changes in net weed populations from 2002 to Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

11 Monitoring Activities Each of the 207 known invasive weed sites was visited in Of these 207 sites, 55 were expanding, 52 were declining, 46 were equal, and 54 had no growth observed. Of the 55 expanding sites, nine are new sites. One site had no growth present for the fifth year in 2011, and was considered eradicated. The table below outlines details with regard to the eradicated and no growth sites. Site Number Species Comments 0114 Acroptilon repens 1 st year no growth present 0116 Acroptilon repens 2 nd year no growth present 0119 Carduus nutans 2 nd year no growth present 0201 Linaria dalmatica 4 th year no growth present 0401 Cirsium arvense 1 st year no growth present 0403 Carderia draba 1 st year no growth present 0501 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 0503 Lepidium latifolium 4 th year no growth present 0701 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 0901 Cirsium arvense 2 nd year no growth present 0904 Lepidium latifolium 4 th year no growth present 0911 Halogeton glomeratus 3 rd year no growth present 0909 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 0916 Halogeton glomeratus 4 th year no growth present 1013 Cirsium arvense 1 st year no growth present 1016 Cirsium arvense 2 nd year no growth present 1024 Acroptilon repens 3 rd year no growth present 1040 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1046 Lepidium latifolium 2 nd year no growth present 1076 Cirsium arvense 3 rd year no growth present 1102 Carderia draba 4 th year no growth present 1104 Acroptilon repens 2 nd year no growth present 1106 Acroptilon repens 2 nd year no growth present 1112 Centaurea maculosa 1 st year no growth present 1205 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1206 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1207 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1208 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1209 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1216 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1220 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1221 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1222 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1223 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1224 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1225 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1226 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1303 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1308 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1407 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 1408 Lepidium latifolium 1 st year no growth present 0803 Lepidium latifolium ERADICATED Note: not all sites with no growth are contained in the above table, as sites eradicated for more than one year are excluded Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 7

12 Outreach Activities As an important component in a comprehensive management plan, public outreach and education are integrated in AgComm weed management functions. During 2011, staff presented information to area residents during several meetings, including pesticide education seminars, and Inyo County Board of Supervisors Workshops. Public service messages related to weeds were placed in the local fishing guide and in two local newspapers throughout the year. In addition to these outreach methods, AgComm provides literature related to weeds at several area sporting goods stores, the Tri-County Fair, and at the Agricultural Commissioner and local Forest Service offices. 8 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

13 Projects Managed by the Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office The following is detailed reviews of each project AgComm managed in 2011, including an overview for each project and results of the 2011 season. Overview Inyo Weed Eradication and Control Project (CDFA Baseline Funding) Baseline program funding was offered for the last time in 2011 by CDFA. Resources from this project were used by AgComm to assist with Camelthorn, Halogeton, Russian knapweed, and Yellow starthistle populations. Managing these populations helped to protect native wildlands, area agriculture, various mitigation projects within the Lower Owens River Project area, and the Wild and Scenic Amargosa River Accomplishments Staff provided by this baseline funding was a valuable addition to Inyo and Mono County weed management activities. All objectives were met. The increased program capacity is vital to AgComm for treating known sites completely. Funding from this agreement is also leveraged historically to allow for matching funds for grant proposals. Beginning in 2012, the State of California has elected to discontinue this valuable funding for county programs. The loss of this agreement in future years likely will have significant negative effects on many counties ability to manage invasive plant populations effectively. This project is complete. Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 9

14 Overview Eastern Sierra Weed Management Area Noxious Weed Project (CDFA/USFS Grant Funding) In 2009, AgComm was awarded a two-year competitive contract from CDFA, with the larger goal of managing invasive weed sites that have the potential to impact United States Forest Service (USFS), but occur non-usfs lands. The resources for this program were provided by USFS and administered by CDFA. The specific goals of the AgComm proposal include: Eradication of a small Spotted knapweed population near Crowley Lake Eradication of a small Dalmatian toadflax infestation in Mammoth Lakes Eradication of a small population of Perennial pepperweed in Round Valley Management and reduction of a large population in the Pleasant Valley area Reduction and eventual eradication of Perennial pepperweed and Yellow starthistle near Independence Accomplishments All sites indicated in the proposal were visited and management activities were performed in Crews preformed surveys outside off all known infestations to ensure no new pioneer populations had established since All targeted species were reduced in 2011, except certain Perennial pepperweed sites. The Round Valley Lepidium latifolium population was not eradicated but was diminished greatly. Both the Spotted knapweed and also the Yellow starthistle populations were eradicated. Details of management activities are included in the table below. Species 2008 Population 2012 Population Result Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) 0.05 acre 10 plants -98% Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) 8.52 acre 6.79 acre -20% Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) 0.05 acre 30 plants -94% Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) 0.01 acre 0.02 acre +100% This project is complete. Please see Appendix A for specific site data related to sites 0805, 0802, 1003, 1007, 1018, 1019, 1022, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1080, 1301, and Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

15 Walker River Cooperative Watershed Project (CDFA Competitive Supplemental Funding) Overview This supplemental funding from CDFA was awarded through a competitive process. The goal of this funding is removal of weed infestations in the Walker River watershed, with an emphasis on management activities in the Bridgeport and Antelope Valleys. This effort involves coordinating with the Yerington, Nevada-based WRBCWMA group. Specific targets include Scotch thistle, Spotted knapweed, Perennial pepperweed, Canada thistle, and Russian knapweed. Benefits of this project include protection of the local agricultural industry, watershed protection, wildlife habitat protection, and prevention of weed transportation via major highways in the area. Funding provides portions of salaries for both full-time and seasonal staff, as well as resources to support management activities in the project area Accomplishments AgComm crews completed all tasks for this project, and most objectives were met. Throughout the two-year span of this project, management activities exceeded those outlined in the work plan. Of the 15 management sites, three expanded and 12 sites declined. All sites were treated with either backpack sprayers or ATV-mounted sprayers. Treatments were conducted in June and August to allow for fluctuation in water levels, to maximize access to sites, and to permit treatment during the various grow stages of the target species. This project is complete. Complicating efforts for this project was the removal of weed management funding in 2011 to the cooperating entities in Nevada. Please see the following table for site specific details. Site Number Goal 2008 Population 2011 Population Result 0102 Containment 1.00 acre 2.60 acre +71% 0103 Eradication 0.02 acre 30 plants -85% 0104 Eradication 0.22 acre 0.05 acre -73% 0107 Containment 1.60 acre 0.58 acre -64% 0108 Eradication 0.08 acre 90 plants -82% 0109 Eradication 0.01 acre 0 Eradicated 0110 Containment 0.25 acre 0.02 acre -92% 0111 Eradication 0.05 acre 0.13 acre +160% 0112 Containment 0.27 acre 0.20 acre -26% 0113 Eradication 0.18 acre 0.36 acre +100% 0114 Eradication 0.01 acre 0 Eradicated 0115 Eradication 0.01 acre 60 plants -40% 0116 Eradication 0.04 acre 0 Eradicated 0117 Eradication 0.01 acre 30 plants -70% 0302 Containment 0.50 acre 0.03 acre -94% This project is complete. Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 11

16 Overview Inyo and Mono Counties A/B Rated Weed Project and Inyo and Mono Counties Watersheds Improvement Project (CDFA and American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) Grant Funding) CDFA applied for and was granted funding in 2009 to combat the spread of invasive weeds in California. AgComm applied for a portion of this funding that was reserved for county efforts, and was awarded a substantial contract to be completed over a two-year period. The many goals of this project include: Enhancement of management activities for CDFA A and B -rated species Assessment and rehabilitation of the Oak Creek watershed that was impacted by Saltcedar infestation following wildfire and flood activity Survey, management, and eradication of sparse Perennial pepperweed populations within Long Valley Enhanced survey and management of the section of Owens River between Hwy 168 and Tinemaha Reservoir for Perennial pepperweed. Survey and management of sections of the Los Angeles Aqueduct to assess and control recently discovered Perennial pepperweed populations The primary assistance provided by this contract is increased field staffing, and AgComm was able to hire an additional three seasonal employees and augment two others to greatly improve effectiveness Accomplishments All objectives as outlined in the project proposal were accomplished for field season Mapping activities, including surveying flooded portion of Oak Creek, the Owens River between highway 168 and Tinemaha Reservoir, and the Los Angeles Aqueduct, were completed in Activities for 2011 included treatment of all sites and resurvey of the Oak Creek flood area. The following table outlines project results. Species 2008 Population 2012 Population Result Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) acre % Long Valley Perennial pepperweed.14 acre 33 plants -99% (Lepidium latifolium) Tinemaha and LAA Perennial pepperweed % (Lepidium latifolium) Saltcedar (Tamarix rammossisima).22 acre 26 plants -99% This project is complete. Please see Appendix A for specific site data. 12 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

17 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner / Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Agreement Overview The goals of this region-wide weed management endeavor are to protect the Lower Owens River Project (LORP) area during habitat restoration, and also to manage weedy populations that exist outside of the LORP boundaries aggressively. A detection component is critical to the protection of the LORP as this region contains areas of disturbance and weak native vegetation, both of which encourage invasive plant colonization. Rapid discovery and management of pioneer populations prevents spread and saves resources over time. While protecting native habitat during the critical first stage of the lower Owens River rewatering is the paramount goal of this project, there are many other positive consequences that will result from this work. A healthy native plant habitat will support wildlife (including some threatened and endangered species), help to reduce erosion and dust, maintain healthy fire regimes, preserve the viability of open-space agriculture and conserve recreational opportunities. These effects will, in turn, improve quality of life and the local economy of Inyo County. During certain times of the year, or during the treatment season when conditions do not permit treatment, personnel from AgComm are expected to perform detection surveys to find new sites. Several times each year surveys are conducted in areas within the LORP area, and in other areas outside the LORP where surveys have either not been previously conducted or in areas considered high risk. High risk areas would include areas near the Owens River or tributaries thereof, areas that have been disturbed, and areas where livestock or wildlife that move from place to place is present Accomplishments Known weed infestations on LADWP lands in Inyo and Mono Counties grew marginally from 32,080 to 32,096 gross acres in Of this infested acreage there were net acres of weed infestations that were managed by AgComm. The total known net weed population acreage increased between 2010 and 2011 by.3% (see chart below). This increase is attributable to Perennial pepperweed expansion along a small section of the Owens River north of Bishop. All treatments (including repeat site visits) in 2011 totaled net acres over 60,679 gross acres. The majority of treatments were conducted using backpack type sprayers and a spotspray method; a few sites were treated with truck or ATV mounted sprayers where conditions permitted access. Hand-pulling was also employed in certain areas. Whenever possible, management methods are selected with the goal of minimizing disturbance to sites and still maintaining effective management levels. Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 13

18 LORP Area Accomplishments LORP area weed management efforts during 2011 continue the augmented efforts introduced in Enhancements include more field staff, new herbicide types and treatment methods, and more frequent survey efforts. AgComm staff conducted three large surveys within the LORP project boundaries between October 2010 and October These surveys discovered one new large Lepidium latifolium site, and confirmed the eradication of another site. Despite the increase in time spent on detection activities, field staff was still able to treat each known site twice during the 2011 growing season. These treatments occurred despite the 2010 increase in known sites from 17 to 32. By securing additional resources from grants and agreements, AgComm was able to maintain the field staff increases of This increase in field staff allows more comprehensive surveys, and more effective management techniques. The management techniques that higher staff levels facilitate lower habitat impact, which helps the LORP habitat recovery while lowering the ability of new invasive plants to colonize. Additionally, these methods allow a more precise herbicide application, lowering the incidence of off-target damage and total herbicide use. Known weed infestations within the LORP boundaries grew from 304 to 320 gross acres in Within this infested area, there were.40 net acres of scattered weed infestations. Previously recorded sites declined from.28 to.18 net acres, or more than 35%. Three new sites were discovered by AgComm surveys and LORP RAS surveys, one of which affected net population figures significantly. This site contains.22 net acres of Lepidium latifolium. Total net populations increased nearly 43% in The following chart illustrates these trends through time. 14 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

19 Detection Activities on LADWP Lands Surveys assessed 15,483 acres during The number of known sites within the LORP area grew slightly during 2011 from 32 to 35 sites. Three new sites were discovered by AgComm staff and RAS participants in Additional surveys within the LORP area will be conducted throughout the winter. Of the 35 known sites, 16 are expanding (this includes the three new sites), one is declining, and 18 had no growth present in The 18 sites with no growth is a significant statistic, as it illustrates the effectiveness of rapid detection and treatment; of these 18 sites, nine were first discovered in 2010 and may have been eliminated during the initial year of management, saving future resources. All weed locations noted in the 2010 RAS were re-surveyed and incorporated in management activities in Populations found during the 2011 RAS have also been included in the weed location database, have been visited since the RAS, and will be part of the regular management activities in The following table outlines LORP site number statistics through time. Year Total Sites New Sites Discovered Sites with No Growth Monitoring Activities on LADWP Lands Monitoring of weed sites is conducted using two methods: 1. Usage to Acreage Data a) Spraying equipment is calibrated at least twice per year. This is done by marking out 1/10 of an acre, and then covering this area with a water/dye mixture in the same way it would be sprayed if it were a solid stand of weeds. The number of gallons used is then multiplied by 10 to establish a gallon per acre figure for every sprayer. b) Daily figures are collected for sprayer usage and site number. Monitoring usage in each site and then converting usage to acreage can ascertain net acreages. These net acreages are recorded in the weed database for each site yearly to track progress over time. The data collected from daily usage reports is collected and recorded for 100% of sites. This method has been extremely accurate in past years, and is the primary gauge of success used by AgComm when planning future strategies. Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 15

20 2. Before and After Photos a) Random sites are selected from the weed database. A representative view is selected within the site. b) GPS coordinates and direction of view are then acquired for the location, so that photos can be taken from the exact spot in the future. c) A photo is taken before treatment. d) These photos are compiled every year to illustrate reduction or increase of a weed population over time. The before and after photo collection is a very valuable method for showing progress in a site throughout time. Unfortunately, it is a very time consuming method and can only be used in a sampling of sites. Several sites that were being used for these photos have been impacted by fires and others sites have been eradicated, necessitating the use of other sites to maintain the required number of photo monitored sites. If AgComm continues to provide weed management services to LADWP in future years, new photo sites will be selected. Photo data is contained in Appendix B. Difficulties Encountered in 2011 Few difficulties existed in Staff levels were adequate, and new treatment methods seem to work well for most sites. Certain Perennial pepperweed populations expanded between 2010 and 2011, possibly due to premature treatments during the spring of One Russian knapweed site grew from 2010 surveys, which resulted in a 15% increase in total populations due to the small number of populations that exist. Funding to continue current levels of control is a constant struggle. LADWP contributes $200,000 annually to AgComm for weed control activities within and outside the LORP area. This funding will cease on June 30, Estimates on the cost of providing weed control provided to LADWP when the agreement was signed in 2005 were based on weed population figures gathered in It has become necessary to expand our efforts to maintain control over this ever growing threat, and funding from LADWP has become inadequate to sustain a thorough program. AgComm has augmented the LADWP contributions historically, but without the promise of a new agreement, AgComm cannot apply for supplemental funding. If LADWP funding does not continue after June 30, 2012, AgComm will end management operations on LADWP owned lands Action Plan Contingent on a future agreement with LADWP, AgComm intends to implement the following action plan for management activities during the 2012 season: 16 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

21 Personnel AgComm intends to continue the current weed management staff levels for as long as resources provide. Present levels of field staff enable an effective scope and frequency of treatment. Current staff numbers also help AgComm to conduct regular and thorough surveys of high risk areas such as the LORP floodplain to identify and eliminate new populations when they are most easily and cheaply eradicated. Herbicides AgComm will continue to use Milestone and Habitat herbicides on LADWP lands instead of previously employed herbicides. These new herbicides have proven to work much better than prior herbicides on Canada thistle, Russian knapweed, and Perennial pepperweed sites. These herbicides are also more environmentally friendly and use lower rates and volumes than other alternatives. Application will continue to be made with backpack sprayers in most cases. As long as personnel levels continue at their present levels, this method will be employed. This preferred alternative method of application decreases disturbance, lowers herbicide application rates, provides a more directed and precise application, and increases access to obscure or inconspicuous populations. Outreach Efforts AgComm will continue public education and outreach efforts. Weed Identification handbooks and informational brochures will be distributed to interested parties. AgComm maintains a good relationship with the local agricultural community, which strongly supports our weed control and eradication activities. AgComm provides support to our local agricultural producers that are essential to the ongoing health of our local agricultural economy. Through these ties, and through our membership alongside LADWP and eleven other public and private entities in the Eastern Sierra Weed Management Area group, we are able to effectively spread the word about noxious weeds. Ultimately, public and agency involvement and interest results in earlier discoveries of pioneer populations, which prevents establishment and saves countless future weed management costs. The status of this project is unknown and contingent on future funding. Please see Appendix B for photos of this project and Appendix A for specific site data related to sites. Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 17

22 Overview Fish Slough ACEC Weed Control and Spring Restoration Project AgComm was included as a cooperator on a 2009 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Pulling Together Grant that was submitted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bishop Field Office. This grant provides resources to protect and rehabilitate areas of the Fish Slough Area of Critical Environmental Concern that have been impacted by invasive plants Accomplishments Crews from the weed management program visited Fish Slough twice in 2011, treating discovered populations and surveying other areas to ensure pioneer populations have not established. All weed infestations within this project area showed decline from 2009, and AgComm will continue to cooperate to the extent possible with BLM, LADWP, and the California Department of Fish and Game in future years to eradicate Perennial pepperweed populations from this rare desert riparian environment. The status of this project is unknown and contingent on future funding and staff availability. 18 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

23 Population Trends by Species The following pages outline specific treatment activities by species for the twelve priority weed species that area targeted by AgComm. These twelve species include: Cirsium arvense, Acroptilon repens, Lepidium latifolium, Centaurea solstitialis, Centaurea maculosa, Alhagi maurorum, Halogeton glomeratus, Onopordum acanthium, Linaria dalmatica, Carderia draba, Carduus nutans, and Tamarix ramosissima. The table below summarizes the known populations of these twelve species throughout Inyo and Mono counties. Species Sites Acres Gross Acres Cirsium arvense ,289 Acroptilon repens ,302 Lepidium latifolium ,299 Centaurea solstitialis Centaurea maculosa Alhagi maurorum Halogeton glomeratus ,400 Onopordum acanthium ,311 Linaria dalmatica Carderia draba Carduus nutans Tamarix ramosissima Total All Species ,935 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 19

24 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Canada thistle endangers native plant communities and rangeland by forming dense monocultures that exclude desirable species. It is a very spiny and somewhat low-growing plant. Its primary method of spreading is via its creeping roots, which can be quite extensive, and have the ability to generate new plants from even broken-off fragments. Canada thistle continued its declining trend after a 2010 increase due to new populations being discovered during that season. Since establishment of baseline values in 2002, known populations have declined more than 86%. Total Sites Sites Declining Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change acres (-23.05%) 20 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

25 Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) Russian knapweed is a native of Central Asia that rapidly colonizes areas where it is able to gain a foothold. It invades areas quickly and excludes other plants through allelopathic chemicals. It spreads both by root and by seeds, and it can cause a fatal neurological condition called chewing disease in livestock if it is consumed in sufficient quantities. AgComm began using Milestone herbicide on all Russian knapweed sites in These sites have been in decline since this strategy was implemented. Populations were down significantly from 2010 to Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change acres (-84.85%) Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 21

26 Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) Perennial pepperweed (also known as whitetop ) is a very rapidly spreading weed with a massive root system. This root system makes Perennial pepperweed very difficult to control once it becomes established. This weed will create dense stands that crowd out any other plants, and will exclude desirable forage for domestic livestock and wildlife. Because the roots of Perennial pepperweed are long, stringy and less weblike compared to native plants, this weed has the tendency to increase erosion issues when it colonizes areas such as stream banks. Perennial pepperweed spreads primarily through its extensive root system. All Perennial pepperweed sites were treated at least three times in 2011, with the exception of a few sites that were discovered mid-season. Populations expanded marginally in Of the 133 sites, 77% are either controlled, declining, or have no plants present. Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change acres (+3.55%) 22 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

27 Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) Yellow starthistle is a common invasive species in much of California. Although it is an annual, infestations can persist for many years once it is allowed to produce seeds, as 95% of it s up to 150,000 seeds per plant are viable. Yellow starthistle is also a toxic plant when ingested by livestock over time and, like Russian knapweed, can cause the fatal chewing disease. There is one Yellow starthistle site on LADWP land in Inyo county near the town of Independence. AgComm has been very aggressive in dealing with this infestation, as it is one of only two small Yellow starthistle populations in Inyo and Mono counties. Yellow starthistle populations continued to decline in 2011, after a rise in 2009 resulting from a newly discovered population in the Antelope Valley. This infestation was aggressively managed, and has declined 90% in the two years since discovery. The other known and active Yellow starthistle site in Inyo and Mono counties exists near Independence. This site was impacted by flooding in early 2008 and initially expanded, but aggressive management of this site also resulted in a decline of 40% since flooding. Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change acres (-50.00%) Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 23

28 Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) Spotted knapweed is a common invader of rangeland in the western United States. This weed is a prolific seed maker and can produce up to 40,000 seeds per plant. It can also spread via lateral root resprouts in certain conditions. Spotted knapweed is also allelopathic, meaning that it produces a toxin that discourages other plants from growing near it. There are two Spotted knapweed populations in Mono County, one in Antelope Valley and another near Crowley Lake. Both populations static in AgComm will continue to monitor these sites and treat them as necessary. Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change No Change 24 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

29 Camelthorn (Alhagi maurorum) Camelthorn is one of the highest priority weeds in California. It is a greenish shrub covered with very sharp spines. This weed has an extensive root system that allows Camelthorn to outcompete native plants, and this plant thrives particularly well in very hot and dry conditions. Camelthorn is on the noxious weed list in 46 states, and has almost been eradicated in California through intense efforts by CDFA and local agricultural commissioners. One Camelthorn site exists in Inyo County, near Tecopa. This site has been in decline over the past few years, and continued this trend in acreage figures did not change as.01 acre is the smallest unit measured by AgComm, but notes indicate individual plants declined from about 35 in 2010 to 27 in One other site has occurred in past years near Olancha, but has had no plants present since There was no growth at this historic site in Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change plants Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 25

30 Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) Halogeton is a high priority A rated weed species in California. This weed rapidly colonizes disturbed areas such as roadsides and dirt lots through easily spread seeds. Halogeton is toxic to sheep if ingested, causing oxalate poisoning. Halogeton can be found most commonly on roadsides in Inyo and Mono counties, where it poses the threat of spreading further throughout these counties (and other California counties) via traveling vehicles. Halogeton sites declined between 2010 and Populations of this weed tend to fluctuate from year to year, but AgComm made a large effort to treat all known Halogeton sites in 2010 after seeing an increase. The results of this aggressive treatment were a sharp decline in net acreage in Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change acres (-39.37%) 26 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

31 Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Scotch thistle is a massive invasive plant that creates dense monocultures. These large infestations are impenetrable even to livestock because of the plant s many sharp spines. The seeds of this plant are viable for many years, even decades, and make this plant very difficult to eradicate. Scotch thistle is A -rated by CDFA, and is a top priority for eradication statewide. Two new Scotch thistle sites were discovered in 2011, totaling.83 acres. These new sites were the largest portion of a net increase from 2010 to Scotch thistle site populations fluctuate from year to year significantly. Nevertheless, AgComm intends to increase management of this weed to the extent possible in Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change acres (+128%) Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 27

32 Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) Dalmatian toadflax is a greenish-gray and narrow growing perennial weed that is highly competitive. Often misidentified as snapdragons, this weed has an extensive vertical creeping root system that takes over areas that it colonizes. This plant is a poor forage species, and is difficult to control with herbicides because of its thick, waxy cuticle that repels liquids. When hand-pulled, many times small root fragments will break off and stay in the soil, growing into plants during the following season. Two Dalmatian toadflax populations exist in Mono County, one near Walker and one in Mammoth Lakes. In 2011, the Walker population was absent. The Mammoth Lakes was present but in decline. Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change acres (-50%) 28 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

33 Hoary cress (Carderia draba) Hoary cress spreads rapidly through creeping horizontal roots and can quickly invade pastures and roadsides and exclude desirable species. This weed is also known as short whitetop or just whitetop because of its white flowers. Hoary cress is similar in appearance to Perennial pepperweed, but much shorter. Three Hoary cress infestations are managed by AgComm in Inyo and Mono counties. One site declined in 2010, and two sites had no growth present. Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change acres (-94.12%) Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 29

34 Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Musk thistle is a tall, prickly plant with a usually pinkish but occasionally white flower. It is a dark green, and its flowers are often bent downward. Like Scotch thistle, it can created dense stands that are impenetrable because of its height and spines. It readily invades rangeland, stream banks, and ditch banks. Musk thistle is a CDFA A -rated weed, and as such has the highest priority ranking for eradication in California. A very small population (8 plants) of Musk thistle was discovered within a stand of Scotch thistle in 2009 along the Walker River, very near the Nevada border in Topaz. These plants treated immediately. In 2011, no plants were discovered in this site. The area will continue to be surveyed aggressively in future years to ensure there is no recurrence. Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change No Change Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) Saltcedar is one of the best known and most heavily managed weeds in the western United States. This tree is a prolific water user that has deep roots that extend far below most native plants. This weed also deposits salt on the soil surface surrounding it, which further excludes desirable plants from areas that it invades. Saltcedar can spread quickly thorough seed, and older trees can produce hundreds of thousands of these seeds annually. AgComm began assessment and treatment of a new Saltcedar infestation on the south fork of Oak Creek in This project was a part of a rehabilitation effort along the Oak Creek watershed funded through ARRA resources. The initial survey in February 2010 discovered.22 net acres of seedlings in the 160 gross acre project area. These seedlings were managed aggressively, and only 26 plants were found alive during a fall 2011 resurvey effort. Total Number of Sites Sites Declining/Equal Sites Expanding Sites with No Growth Total Acreage Change acres (-95.45%) 30 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

35 APPENDIX A Site Data Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 31

36 Site ID Gross Acres Acres Plant Spp. Ownership CESO STAT LELA PVLA ONAC PVLA ONAC PVLA CESO CGOV ACRE PVLA ONAC PVLA CIAR PVLA LELA PVLA CEMA STAT ONAC PVLA CIAR PVLA ONAC PVLA ACRE PVLA LELA PVLA ACRE PVLA LELA PVLA ONAC PVLA CANU PVLA ONAC PVLA LELA PVLA ONAC PVLA LIDA PVLA CESO CGOV LELA CGOV LELA USFS LELA STAT CIAR STAT LELA PVLA CADR CGOV LELA PVLA LELA STAT LELA BLM LELA LADWP LELA PVLA HAGL STAT LELA PVLA LIDA PVLA LELA USOT LELA PVLA CEMA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA PVLA HAGL CGOV HAGL CGOV HAGL CGOV HAGL CGOV Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

37 Site ID Gross Acres Acres Plant Spp. Ownership LELA LADWP LELA LADWP ACRE LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA PVLA HAGL CGOV LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP CIAR LADWP LELA LADWP CIAR LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP CIAR LADWP CESO STAT LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP CIAR LADWP LELA LADWP CIAR LADWP LELA LADWP CIAR LADWP LELA LADWP LELA PVLA LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA PVLA CIAR LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 33

38 Site ID Gross Acres Acres Plant Spp. Ownership LELA LADWP ACRE LADWP CADR CGOV LELA LADWP ACRE LADWP LELA LADWP ACRE LADWP ACRE LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP HAGL CGOV LELA LADWP CEMA PVLA LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP HAGL CGOV LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP CESO LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

39 Site ID Gross Acres Acres Plant Spp. Ownership ACRE LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP HAGL CGOV HAGL CGOV HAGL CGOV HAGL CGOV LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP LELA LADWP HAGL STAT ALPS LADWP LELA LADWP HAGL STAT ALPS PVLA Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 35

40 Crabgrass can grow on bowling balls in airless rooms, and there is no known way to kill it that does not involve nuclear weapons Dave Barry, American Author

41 APPENDIX B Site Photos Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 37

42 Perennial pepperweed Site Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

43 Russian knapweed Site Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 39

44 Perennial pepperweed Site Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

45 Perennial pepperweed Site Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 41

46 Perennial pepperweed Site Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

47 Perennial pepperweed Site Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 43

48 Perennial pepperweed Site Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

49 California Conservation Corps Photos Work crew included 12 CCC staff and 5 AgComm staff Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 45

50 For More Information on Invasive Plants in Inyo and Mono Counties Visit: Eastern Sierra Weed Management Area: CDFA Encycloweedia : CDFA Integrated Pest Management: CDFA Noxious Weed Information Project: 46 Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report

51 We encourage the public to report any possible invasive plant sightings. Feel free to use and duplicate the following form for this purpose. Eastern Sierra Weed Management Area Noxious Weed Location Form Return to: Inyo/Mono County Agricultural Commissioner s Office 207 W. South St. Bishop, CA Or call: (760) Date: Time: Recorder s Name: Phone Number: Weed Name(s): Infestation Estimate (area, percent infested, and/or # of plants): COMPLETE IF KNOWN Control Methods (what was used and at what rate?): Land Use (roadside, pasture, range, crop, facility, etc.): Township: Range: Section: 1/4 Latitude: Longitude: County: UTM: E N Check if GPS: [ ] Other Notes (site marked, descriptive location): MAP N Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner s Office 2011 Weed Management Activities Report 47

52