Laserfiche WebLink
simply too small at this point to be noticed and aze hidden under the other vegetation. <br />Continued inspection downstream is imperative. But it appears the road crossing was <br />definitely the entry location. It is recommended that mechanical control be used <br />followed by frequent inspection of the infestation area and all suitable habitats for at <br />least a mile downstream from the infestation azea. When removing, the plant should <br />be dug out of the ground, bagged, and completely removed from the site. Do not leave <br />any roots or top stem growth as it can resprout. The few larger plants can be cut and <br />treated with an herbicide and frequently checked to make sure it does not resprout. <br />Excavation and removal is the best approach with such a small and young population. <br />It may take a couple of years to eradicate this infestation. Re-inspection for new plants <br />should continue for several more years. Spot checks further downstream would also <br />be wise, especially the yeaz after any very heavy stream flows. Due to the small size <br />of the infestation and its confined distribution, the chances for full eradication are <br />currently very high. If it does appear downstream then control must be implemented <br />wherever it occurs. Once it becomes fully established with large plants it is extremely <br />difficult to remove. <br />This species is a serious threat to the entire riparian corridor. It is absolutely imperative <br />that this species be eradicated from the site. There is no invasive species on this site that <br />is more important to control than this one; not even the extensive growth of leafy <br />spurge is more critical. <br />2. Weed status on lessee responsibility lands: So faz in 2006, it has simply been too dry to <br />effectively control weeds on most of this land. There is no point in spraying herbicides so <br />long as the plants aze showing slow growth. For most herbicides active growth is required to <br />be most effective. However, a few tests were run on a few roadside spurge plants. The usual <br />2,4-D had little effect, probably due to depressed growth rates. The new blend of 0.25% <br />glyphosate and 0.25% oxyflourflen recently introduced by Ortho as a season long weed killer <br />and preventer, significantly weakened the plants but did not kill them. It was more effective <br />than 2,4-D under these conditions, but its over all effect was less than just using 2,4-D under <br />good growing conditions. It had little effect on understory vegetation either, primarily <br />because it wasn't growing either. This was simply a test to see what effect it would have. <br />However, this herbicide blend could not be used on a widespread basis because of the <br />glyphosate. It will be tested again later if growing conditions do improve as it might be useful <br />for very isolated plants. In garden use this blend appears to be very effective on most weed <br />species, but it must be used with considerable caution. It probably has some of the same <br />effectiveness limitations of glyphosate in that some species hardly show any effect from <br />glyphosate (Roundup) treatment. With the advent of better moisture, if it continues, growth <br />later in the season may increase and weed control efforts will be worth doing. At this point <br />though, there is still a question as to whether weed control this yeaz is useful or if it is <br />possibly just a waste of money and time and the introduction of herbicide chemicals into the <br />system when they really have little effectiveness. <br />OTHER INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: <br />Nothing noted. <br />Status report for 2006 (July 15, 2006) Page 12 of 13 <br />