1

Hi-Grouse Project

Noxious Weed Risk Assessment

Prepared by:

Blaze Baker,

Botanist

for:

Goosenest Ranger District,

Klamath National Forest

June 18, 2009

Prepared by: _/s/ Blaze Baker _________ Blaze Baker

BotanistAbove and Beyond Ecosystems Enterprise Unit

Reviewed by: ~/s/ Maria Knight____________

Maria Knight

BotanistKlarnath National Forest

Approved by: ________________ Goosenest District Ranger

Kiamath National Forest

Date: _June 18, 2009

Date: July 31, 2009_

Date: Y/z~

Hi-Grouse Weed Risk Assessment Contact: Maria Knight, 530-468-1238

or

Blaze Baker, 559-779-6559(Maria Knight has the project botany surveys

records on file.)

1
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

2

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 3

Noxious Weed Lists.................................................................................................................... 4

Prevention Emphasis................................................................................................................... 4

Assessing Risk of Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds.................................................... 4

Description of Proposed Project.............................................................................................. 4

Inventory and Mapping ........................................................................................................... 5

Risk Assessment...................................................................................................................... 5

References................................................................................................................................... 8

Appendix A: Weed List for Klamath National Forest ................................................................ 9

Appendix B: Control Methods.................................................................................................. 12
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

3

Introduction

The Klamath National Forest (KNF) places high priority on the management of noxious weeds, 

particularly the introduction and spread of noxious weeds related to forest management activities 

(USDA 2001b).

Noxious weeds and invasive exotic plants are an increasing threat to native ecosystems and the 

function of plant communities. Aggressive weed species out-compete native plants for water, 

nutrients, sunlight, and space; which in turn alters the composition, structure, and function of the 

entire ecological community. Many weed species contain chemical compounds that prevent any 

other plant seed from germinating close by. Weed infestations can impact wildlife by reducing 

important food plants and modifying habitat characteristics. Invasive plants can decrease the 

quantity and quality of desired forage species and rangeland production. Many weed species 

contain compounds that are toxic to livestock when eaten in abundance. Economic losses related 

to noxious weeds are increasing dramatically on public lands. Local economies are dependant on 

healthy, native plant and animal communities. The cost of current treatment and prevention 

should be weighed against the future cost of treating a much larger infestation and future land 

degradation if prevention measures are not used, or if control of isolated weed introductions are 

not implemented or effective.

Forest Service Manua1 2080 Noxious Weed Management (USDA 1995) includes a policy 

statement calling for a risk assessment for noxious weeds to be completed for every project. 

Specifically, the manual states: 

2081.03 -Policy. When any ground disturbing action or activity is proposed, determine the 

risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds associated with the proposed action. 

1. For projects having moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, 

the project decision document must identify noxious weed control measures that must be 

undertaken during project implementation. 

2. Use contract and permit clauses to prevent the introduction or spread of noxious weeds 

by contractors and permittees. For example, where determined to be appropriate, use 

clauses requiring contractors or permittees to clean their equipment prior to entering 

National Forest System lands. 

2081.2 -Prevention and Control Measures. Determine the factors which favor the 

establishment and spread of noxious weeds and design management practices or prescriptions 

to reduce the risk of infestation or spread of noxious weeds. 

Where funds and other resources do not permit undertaking all desired measures, address and 

schedule noxious weed prevention and control in the following order: 

1st Priority: Prevent the introduction of new invaders.

2nd Priority: Conduct early treatment of new infestations.

3rd Priority: Contain and control established infestations. 
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

4

Noxious Weed Lists

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA 2005) and the Siskiyou County 

Department of Agriculture manage weeds by use of the same list and risk-rating criteria. There 

are approximately 30 known species of State- and county-listed noxious and invasive weeds 

within the KNF. The State and county listing process was developed primarily to address 

agricultural concerns. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) identifies species that 

may threaten forest and rangeland ecosystems in their California Invasive Plant Inventory (CalIPC 2006). 

The Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed List (Appendix A) includes high priority plants from 

the State and county lists that are known or expected to occur on the KNF. There are 

approximately nine species of lesser concern that may be addressed in projects if those species 

are a problem locally. Based on inventories and current understanding of species’ ranges, a total 

of 24 high priority weeds are on the Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed List (USDA 2008). 

This list is used for resource management and decision-making, and is subject to change to reflect 

new information.

Prevention Emphasis

Through the experiences of treating large infestations of noxious weeds, government agency 

managers have realized that it is much cheaper to prevent an infestation from becoming 

established than to try to eliminate it once it has begun to spread, or to deal with the effects of a 

degraded plant community. Prevention includes both reducing the human-assisted spread of seeds 

and other reproductive parts into a weed-free area, and prompt eradication of the first plants that 

show up. Once a priority noxious weed is identified in an area, eradication should be undertaken 

as soon as possible (see Appendix B). Hand-pulling the first plant or few plants of a noxious 

weeds in an area is frequently the most efficient and effective mechanism for reducing weed 

spread. Inventory and initial attack on small populations can and should occur simultaneously. 

The Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices (USDA 2001a) provides a “tool box” of ideas 

that may be used in mitigating weed risks. Currently, for forested vegetation management 

operations, equipment cleaning contract provision B6.35 is required. 

Assessing Risk of Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds

Description of Proposed Project

The Goosenest Ranger District of the KNF proposes to restore ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

forest types, thin, and use fuel reduction techniques on approximately 5,109 acres within the 

Goosenest Adaptive Management Area (AMA). The proposed actions were designed to address 

the purpose and need components and move towards the desired conditions while meeting plan 

standards and guidelines. This project involves altering stand density, structure, and species 

compositions, and the abatement of fuels generated from proposed activities as well as treatment 

of pre-existing fuel accumulations. The following treatment activities are included in the 

proposed action. Many fuels treatments overlap within any given silvicultural treatment. For 

example, thinning may be followed by both fuels abatement and underburning, and fuel treatment 

corridors may overlap other treatments. Silvicultural and fuels treatments and road actions are 

summarized in the EIS, following the discussion of all alternatives.
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

5

Inventory and Mapping

The Forest Service has adopted the International Data Standards for the Inventory, Monitoring, 

and Mapping of Invasive Plants (NAWMA 2001, in [USDA 2002]), and incorporated those

standards into a Field Guide: Invasive Plant Inventory, Monitoring, and Mapping Protocol 

(USDA 2002). The National Resource Information System (NRIS) is the database of record for 

noxious weed populations, and the KNF is implementing the protocol along with the maintenance 

of the Forest GIS noxious weed layer.

The Forest Noxious Weed GIS Database was used for information on noxious weed sites 

currently mapped within or adjacent to the project area (map attached). Inventory in the project 

area was conducted during August 2007. Information collected for each noxious weed population 

on the KNF includes:

• Location;

• Infestation size (acres) (both infested area, and gross area; individual plants are 

considered to be 0.1 acre); and

• Canopy cover of the infestation.

Risk Assessment 

The following risk assessment (Table 1) was developed to standardize the process for determining 

the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds associated with a project. For projects having 

a moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, the project decision document 

must identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken during project 

implementation (USDA 1995; FSM 2081.03). 
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

6

Table 1. Risk assessment by factor 

Factors Components Variations Risk

1. Known Noxious Weeds None in project area; access to 

the area generally weed-free

None present; none adjacent  Low risk

2. Habitat Vulnerability The area has very high 

vegetative cover, no recent 

projects; elevation is high, and 

with deep snow fall which limits 

the growing seasons

High cover, low disturbance  Low risk

3. Non-project Dependent 

Vectors

Access is available by existing 

roads in the project area; overall 

use is low and generally limited 

to dispersed camping/hunting 

and winter recreation use

Moderate current vectors  Moderate 

risk

4. Habitat Alteration Expected 

as a Result of Project

Vegetative treatments vary—

precommercial thinning will 

leave much canopy cover and 

duff, thinning would remove 

more canopy, and treatments in 

lodgepole pine would remove

the most canopy, but the area is

small; habitat alteration for 

weeds is expected to be a short 

duration before native plants 

and needle cast cover any bare 

areas. 

Moderate disturbance, shade and 

duff removal 

Moderate 

risk

5. Increased Vectors as a 

Result of Project 

Implementation

Project-related traffic would 

occur under the action 

alternatives; no weeds are 

known from the project area, 

equipment and mulches would 

be weed free. 

Short-term traffic/equipment 

increase 

Moderate 

risk

Analyzing Weed Response to Proposed Project

The narrative below discusses the information detailed in the risk assessment by factor table. 

Each factor is analyzed in relation to the proposed project to derive an assessment of the level of 

risk for that factor, and for the project as a whole.

The factors in the table are evaluated individually as well as cumulatively. For example, if no 

weeds are present in the project area, but weeds are adjacent and the habitat is not considered 

vulnerable to establishment (e.g., forest), then the overall rating would be low. If the habitat in 

this scenario was vulnerable (e.g., grassland or disturbed) the overall rating would be moderate to 

high depending on how the other factors rated out: 

1) Known Noxious Weeds Present: No weeds are known from the project area; surveys 

are complete. 

2) Habitat Vulnerability: Currently the area is weed-free and low levels of disturbance are 

present. The short growing season also limits the types of weeds that could infest the 

area. Vulnerability to weed infestation/spread is low. 
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

7

3) Non-project Dependant Vectors: The low levels of use and current weed-free condition 

of the area indicate that non-project vectors pose a low risk form weeds. Wind could 

disperse weeds to uninfested areas. The relative distance of weeds to susceptible habitat 

tempers the risk. Currently weed risk in the area from wind-blown seed is low. 

4) Habitat Alteration Expected as a Result of Project Implementation: Short-term 

reductions of canopy closure and bare soil from landings and burn piles could increase 

available habitat for weeds.

5) Increased Vectors as a Result of Project Implementation: Without mitigation, 

increases in traffic/equipment use directly related to the project being implemented in the 

action alternatives could increase the risk of weeds. This is a moderate risk as weeds are 

not known from the project area and the roads to the area are generally weed-free. 

6) Project Mitigation Measures: 

a) Inventory has been completed—no weeds present. 

b) Prevention—project design criteria (Table 2) list prevention measures in the HiGrouse EIS. 

c) Monitoring and Control—as weeds are detected across the KNF they are controlled 

as appropriate. 

Table 2. Weed prevention project design criteria

NNIS-1 Ensure equipment coming to and from the project is weed 

free: Include B Provision B6.35 Equipment Cleaning, (6/06), 

in the contract whenever heavy equipment is used to treat 

fuels, and in the timber sale contract.

All units/alternatives

NNIS-2 Do not park vehicles or stage equipment in areas where 

weed populations are known to occur, including parking in 

infested areas outside of the project area.

All units/alternatives

NNIS-3 Wherever seed, straw mulches or gravel is used to restore or 

maintain areas within the project area, certified weed free 

seeds straw, mulches, and/or gravel should be specified in 

any contract.

All units/alternatives

7) Anticipated Weed Response to the Project: While weeds could find opportunities to 

infest into the project area, the current weed-free nature of the area, low levels of 

disturbed areas, and high vegetative cover, and the limited timeframe after treatments 

when bare ground would be available to invade, severely limit infestation opportunities. 

In addition prevention measures that include the use of weed free materials and 

equipment reduce the risk from weeds. 

8) Overall Level of Risk for the Project: With the weed prevention design criteria in place 

the Hi-Grouse project has a low risk of weed spread. 
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

8

References

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 2005. Noxious Weed Index. Website, 

February 25; accessed September 2006.

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/weedinfo/winfo_table-commonname.htm 

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2006. California Inventory of Invasive Plants. 

February 2006.

USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual 2080, Noxious Weed Management. 

Washington, D.C.

USDA-Forest Service. 2001a. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices, version 1.0, July 5. 

Washington, D.C.

USDA-Forest Service. 2001b. Noxious and Invasive Weeds Program Strategy, Northern Province. 

Prepared by Coop, K. and Yost, A. Shasta-Trinity and Klamath National Forests, Redding and 

Yreka, CA. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2002. Field Guide, Inventory, Monitoring and Mapping of Invasive Plants.

USDA-Forest Service. 2008. Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed List. September, 2008.

USDI-BLM, USDI-NPS, USDA-FS. 1999. Guidelines for Coordinated Management of Noxious 

Weeds: Development of Weed Management Areas.
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

9

Appendix A: Weed List for Klamath National Forest

Klamath National Forest Noxious Weed List (9/16/2008)

Scientific Name 

(Jepson, 1993)

Plants 

Code Common Name(s)

KNF 

Priority

CDFA 

Rating

Cal-IPC 

Rating Family

Acroptilon repens (L.) 

DC. ACRE3 Russian knapweed H B Moderate Asteraceae

Ailanthus altissima AIAL Tree of Heaven M C Moderate Simaroubaceae

Bromus tectorum L. BRTE Cheat Grass L None High Poaceae

Cardaria draba (L.) 

Desv. CADR

Heart-podded hoary 

cress Whitetop M B Moderate Brassicaceae

Cardaria chalapensis 

(L.) Hand.-Maz

CACH1

0

Lens-podded 

Whitetop M B

Moderate

♦ Brassicaceae

Carduus nutans L. CANU4 Musk thistle H A Moderate Asteraceae

Carduus 

pycnocephalus L. CAPY2

Italian thistle 

Plumeless Italian 

thistle H C Moderate Asteraceae

Centaurea diffusa 

Lam. CEDI3

Diffuse knapweed, 

white knapweed H A Moderate Asteraceae

Centaurea maculosa 

Lam.

CEMA4

CESTM Spotted knapweed H A High Asteraceae

Centaurea debeauxii 

Gren. & Godr.

CEDE5

CEPR2 Meadow knapweed H A

Moderate

 ♦ Asteraceae

Centaurea solstitialis 

L. CESO3 Yellow starthistle M C High Asteraceae

Centaurea squarrosa 

Willd. CESQ

Squarrose 

knapweed H A Moderate Asteraceae

Chondrilla juncea L. CHJU

Rush skeleton weed, 

hogbite H A Moderate Asteraceae

Cirsium arvense (L.) 

Scop. CIAR4 Canada thistle M B Moderate Asteraceae

Cirsium vulgare CIVU Bull thistle L C Moderate Asteraceae

Conium maculatum L. COMA2 Poison hemlock L None Moderate Apiaceae

Cynoglossum 

officinale L. CYOF Houndstongue H None Moderate Boraginaceae

Cytisus scoparius (L.) 

Link. CYSC4 Scotch Broom H C High Fabaceae

Euphorbia esula L. EUES Leafy spurge H A

High

♦ Euphorbiaceae

Genista 

monspessulana (L.) L. 

Johnson GEMO2 French broom H C High Fabaceae

Hypericum perforatum 

L. HYPE

Klamath weed, St. 

John's wort L C Moderate Hypericaceae

Isatis tinctoria L. ISTI

Dyer's woad, 

Marlahan mustard M B Moderate Brassicaceae

Lepidium latifolium L. LELA2

Perennial 

Pepperweed, tall 

whitetop H B High Brassicaceae
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

10

Scientific Name

Jepson (1993)

Plants

Code Common Name(s)

KNF 

Priority

CDFA

Rating

Cal-IPC

Rating Family

Linaria dalmatica (L.) 

P. Mill ssp. Dalmatica LIDAD Dalmation toadflax H A Moderate Schropulariaceae

Lythrum salicaria L. LYSA2 Purple Loosestrife H B High Lythraceae

Melilotus spp.

MEAL2, 

MEOF

White Sweetclover, 

Yellow Sweetclover L None None Fabaceae

Onopordum 

acanthium L. ONAC

Scotch thistle, 

Cottonthistle H A High Asteraceae

Onopordum tauricum 

Willd. ONTA

Taurian thistle, Bull 

cottonthistle H A None Asteraceae

Polygonum 

cuspidatum Sieb. & 

Zucc. POCU6 Japanese knotweed H B

Moderate

♦ Polygonaceae

Potentilla recta L. PORE5 Sulphur cinquefoil H None None Rosaceae

Rubus discolor RUDI2

Himalayan 

blackberry L None None Rosaceae

Salvia aethiopis L. SAAE Mediterranean sage H B Limited Lamiaceae

Sonchus arvensis SOAR2

Perennial Sowthistle, Field Sowthistle H A None Asteraceae

Spartium junceum SPJU2 Spanish Broom H C High Fabaceae

Taenaiatherum 

caputmedusae TACA8 Medusahead L C High Poaceae

Tribulus terrestris TRTE Puncture vine H C None Zygophyllaceae

Pest Ratings:

Klamath National Forest (KNF) Priority

H: These species are currently either limited in distribution, highly invasive, or not present on the KNF. 

Treatment may vary by location.

:

M: These species are generally common, and are treated on a case by case basis depending on location

(Wilderness and Research Natural Area (RNA) increase the priority for treatment).

L: These species are either widespread throughout the KNF, or are not considered to be highly invasive in 

our area. Usually not treated unless located in a high priority area, such as Wilderness or RNA. 

California Dept. of Food and Agriculture (CDFA

A: Eradication, containment, rejection, or other holding action at State-County level. Quarantine 

interceptions to be rejected or treated at any point in the State.

):

B: Species more widespread. Eradication, containment, control, or other holding action at the discretion of 

the County Ag. Commissioner.

C: Species very widespread. State endorsed holding action and eradication only when found in a nursery; 

action to retard spread outside of nurseries at the discretion of the commissioner; reject only when found in a 

crop seed for planting or at the discretion of the County Ag. Commissioner. 

Q: Temporary "A" action outside of nurseries at the state-county level pending determination of a permanent 

rating. Species on List 2, "Federal Noxious Weed Regulation" are given an automatic "Q" rating when 

evaluated in California.

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC):
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

11

High: These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, 

and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high 

rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely distributed ecologically.

Moderate: These species have substantial and apparent—but generally not severe—ecological impacts on 

physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and 

other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment is generally 

dependent upon ecological disturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to 

widespread. 

Limited: These species are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there 

was not enough information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive biology and other attributes result 

in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and distribution are generally limited, but 

these species may be locally persistent and problematic. 

♦ = Alert

References

California Department of Food and Ag; Pest Ratings of Noxious Weed Species, 2004. from 

Website:

<http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/weedinfo/winfo_list-pestrating.htm

Cal-IPC; California Invasive Plant Inventory, February, 2006.

The Jepson Manual, 1993; University of California Press, James Hickman, Editor

USDA, Forest Service. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species 

Management. FS-805, October 2004.
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hi-Grouse Project EIS

12

Appendix B: Control Methods

There are generally three control methods once noxious weeds have been identified in an area: 

mechanical, chemical, and biological. Cultural practices may also help control weed spread. 

Mechanical. The simplest and often most effective mechanical control is hand pulling or 

grubbing. If done before seed set, plants can be pulled and left in place. After seed maturity, 

plants, or at least seed heads, should be bagged and removed from the site and/or burned or 

otherwise disposed of. Other mechanical options include mowing and disking, which may set 

back some weed populations, but are rarely effective in eliminating noxious weeds from a site. 

For instance, mowing often produces plants that are simply shorter and more branched, but still 

produce seed. Knowledge of the method of reproduction of the weed in question is necessary 

since some weeds reproduce by spreading rootstalks. Care should be taken when using 

mechanical control methods on those weeds that spread via rootstalks. 

Chemical. Chemical control usually refers to herbicide use for noxious weeds. Herbicides may 

kill plants on contact with the foliage (for example, glyphosphate ), be pre-emergent inhibitors 

which do not allow seeds to germinate, or soil-moisture activated, which kill through interaction 

with the root systems (for example, hexazinone). Herbicides may be selective (for instance,

killing broadleaf plants, but not grasses or conifers) or broad spectrum. Considerations for 

chemical treatments include what the target weed species is, the time of application (related to 

plant’s phenology and soil moisture conditions), method of application (hand-spread granular 

materials, backpack or boom truck sprays, or aerial application), and adjacent sensitive resources 

(rare plants or animals, municipal watershed, riparian areas). Chemical control is generally more 

effective and cost efficient than hand pulling when a patch of weeds has exceeded a few dozen 

plants, and/or when a weed seed bank has developed on the site. It is sometimes the only effective 

method for some rhizomatous or deep-rooted species. There are no proposals for chemical control 

of weeds on the Klamath NF at this time.

Biological. Biological controls may be insects or disease that attack a noxious weed and kill it, 

reduce its reproduction, or weaken it so it is not as competitive with desirable vegetation. 

Biological controls need to be target specific so they will kill the intended weeds, but not natives 

or other desirable species. The biological agent needs to be able to reproduce and spread quickly 

enough to keep up with the noxious weed invasion. Biological controls undergo rigorous testing 

for suitability and specificity before release. Biological controls are not effective on small, 

isolated, satellite weed populations, and therefore are not suitable for reducing the spread of 

noxious weeds. Since a fairly large infestation is required to provide feed for the agent over 

several generations, and since biological controls never totally eliminate an occurrence, biological 

control is effective only for attempting control of large, otherwise “lost cause” infestations.

Cultural Practices. Cultural practices, in this context, refers to land management activities that 

promote vegetative conditions least conducive for noxious weed spread. For example, 

management practices that reduce soil disturbance, promote more soil cover (duff, litter, and 

desirable vegetative cover), provide for more shade, or otherwise favor desirables and natives 

over noxious weeds, may help slow noxious weed spread. Cultural practices fit into both the 

control and prevention categories.