United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

March 2017

Wildlife Resources Report

Hoteling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream 

Restoration Project

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

For Information Contact: Diana Meza

1711 S. Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097

(530) 841-4425

dianameza@fs.fed.us

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA 

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including 

gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity

conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by 

program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, 

found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to 

USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, 

call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: 

(202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

i

Table of Contents

Wildlife Resources Report...................................................................................................................3

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

Methodology...................................................................................................................................3

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species.........................................................................3

Sensitive Species.............................................................................................................................3

Survey and Manage Species (S&M).............................................................................................4

Management Indicator Species (MIS)..........................................................................................4

Migratory Birds .............................................................................................................................4

Analysis Indicators and Measures................................................................................................5

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area .....................................................................5

Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................6

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species................................................................................6

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)................................................................................6

Gray wolf (Canis lupus).........................................................................................................................6

North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscens)...................................................................................7

Forest Service Sensitive Species........................................................................................................7

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ..................................................................................................7

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)...................................................................................................8

Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii)..................................................................................................8

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) ..............................................................................................................9

Townsend’s Big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsedii) ...........................................................................9

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)...................................................................................................10

Pacific Fisher (Pekania pennanti) ........................................................................................................10

Western Pond turtle (Emys marmorata) ..............................................................................................11

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) .........................................................................................11

Environmental Consequences.....................................................................................................12

Alternative 1 .................................................................................................................................12

Alternative 2 .................................................................................................................................12

Northern Spotted Owl, Wolverine, Pacific Fisher, Northern Goshawk...............................................12

Northern Spotted Owl..........................................................................................................................12

Wolverine.............................................................................................................................................13

Pacific Fisher .......................................................................................................................................13
ii

Northern Goshawk...............................................................................................................................14

Cumulative Effects – Northern Spotted Owl and Proxy Species.........................................................14

Gray Wolf............................................................................................................................................14

Bald Eagle............................................................................................................................................15

Willow Flycatcher................................................................................................................................15

Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Fringed Myotis......................................................................15

Western Pond Turtle ............................................................................................................................15

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog................................................................................................................16

Cumulative Effects – Proposed and Sensitive Species........................................................................16

Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................................16

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ........................................................17

Literature Cited..................................................................................................................................18

Wildlife Resource Report Summary.................................................................................................21

Appendix A– NEPA Species Tracking Sheet..........................................................................................27

Appendix B– Management Indicator Species Tracking Sheet .............................................................30

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of habitat type in the analysis area and the project area for Northern Spotted 

Owl....................................................................................................................................12

Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................16
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

3

Wildlife Resources Report

Introduction

This report discloses the effects of the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Project on 

wildlife species as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Forest Sensitive, Management Indicator Species, 

Survey and Manage, and Migratory Birds. 

The project proposes to improve fish passage at a county road crossing and reconnect a historic channel 

alignment at Hotelling Gulch on the South Fork Salmon River. The project is located about 2.5 miles 

southeast of Forks of Salmon, in Siskiyou County, California and adjacent to the Hotelling Campground 

(Township 10 North, Range 8 East and Section 28, Humboldt Meridian). It is in the Negro Creek-South 

Fork Salmon River 7th field watershed (18010210010802). The project area is about 5 acres and is 

entirely within the Riparian Reserve Management Area (Klamath National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, pp. 4-108:4-114). 

This report follows standards established in the Forest Service Manual direction and complies with the 

National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and 

the 1995 Land Resource Management Plan for the Klamath National Forest (Forest Plan) for the Klamath 

National Forest. 

Methodology

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species

Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are 

analyzed in this document. The following list of Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed species was 

considered in this report (USFWS IPAC report, March 2017).

 Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) (Threatened)

 Gray wolf (Canis lupus) (Endangered)

 North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) (Proposed)

The northern spotted owl and California wolverine are also on the Forest Sensitive species.

The Oregon spotted frog and yellow-billed cuckoo are species included in the IPAC report provided by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed project is outside the range of these species and will not 

affect these species or their habitat. The Oregon spotted frog and yellow-billed cuckoo will not be further 

analyzed. 

Sensitive Species

The Forest Service, Region 5, Proposed Sensitive Species list was provided by the USDA Pacific 

Southwest Region (2013, as amended). Sensitive Species Reference Document for the Klamath National 

Forest was developed and updated on September 2013. Based on the effects of the proposed activities, 

this analysis determines whether these activities will lead the Forest Service Sensitive Species in a trend 

toward Federal listing (FSM 2672.41).

 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

 Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

 Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii)

 Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

 Townsend’s Big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsedii)
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

4

 Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

 Pacific Fisher (Pekania pennanti)

 American Marten (Martes americana)

 Western Pond turtle (Emys marmorata) 

 Foothill Yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

 Western Bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis)

 Cascade frog (Rana cascadae)

 Tehamana Chaparral snail (Trilobopsis tehamana)

The great gray owl, Siskiyou Mountains salamander, southern torrent salamander, marbeled murrelet, and 

greater sandhill crane are not likely to occur in the project area and the project area is outside the species 

range, as noted on the NEPA Species Tracking Sheet (USDA, 2017). Therefore, this project will have no 

effect on the great gray owl, Siskiyou Mountains salamander, southern torrent salamander, marbeled 

murrelet, and greater sandhill crane and these species will not be further considered in this wildlife 

resource report.

For the cascades frog, Tehamana Chaparral Snail, American marten, and western bumblebee there will be 

no further analysis due to the lack of habitat within the project area, therefore there will be no effect to the 

Cascades frog, Tehamana Chaparral Snail, American marten, and western bumblebee. Further description 

is present in the NEPA Species Tracking Sheet available in the Project Record (Appendix A).

Survey and Manage Species (S&M)

Under the Pechman Exemptions (USDA, 2014) the proposed action will not require surveys for the 

species listed as ‘Survey and Manage’ within the Northwest Forest Plan (Record of Decision 2001, 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001). Additionally, there are no known 

sites present within the project area, therefore Survey and Manage species will not be further addressed 

further in this report.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Species considered for MIS are analyzed in the MIS Part 1 Species Tracking Sheet in (Appendix B). This 

analysis is sufficient to determine maintenance of MIS objectives and this species group will not be 

addressed further in this report.

MIS- Pertains to species whose habitat requirements most reflect those of the species community in the 

habitat of concern, usually used to indicate habitat quality and to predict future conditions. They are 

usually selected because their welfare is presumed to be an indicator of the welfare of other species in the 

habitat. Conditions of these species can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a 

particular area, and managing for these species usually requires significant allocations of land or 

resources.

Migratory Birds

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to “provide for 

diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area 

in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives” (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)). The January 2000 

USDA Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in 

2001, in addition to the Partners in Flight (PIF) specific habitat Conservation Plans for birds and the 

January 2004 PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan all reference goals and objectives for 

integrating bird conservation into forest management and planning. 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

5

On December 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service and the 

US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed. The intent of 

the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation 

between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other federal, state, tribal, and 

local governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a 

diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed 

when planning for land management activities. 

For the Forest, the migratory bird species of management concern are those bird species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered, those species designated by the Regional Forester 

as sensitive species, and those species listed under Standard and Guideline 8-21 through 8-34 of the 

Forest Plan as management indicator species (MIS) for project level assessment. This project is in 

compliance with the MOU for migratory birds that fall under threatened or endangered, sensitive, or 

management indicator species within the forest and will not be evaluated any further. 

Analysis Indicators and Measures

The following analysis indicators will be used to determine the effects to wildlife species of concern that 

may be present within the project area:

 Likelihood of habitat disturbance or removal for all species

o For the Pacific fisher, wolverine, and northern goshawk, the effects to northern spotted 

owl nesting/roosting and foraging habitat was used as a proxy for analyzing the effects to 

the preferred habitat of these species. The northern spotted owl analysis is used as a 

proxy because it analyzes for similar habitat components that the Pacific fisher, 

wolverine, and northern goshawk require. The effects to northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting and foraging habitat was used as the analysis indicator of affects to 

Pacific fisher, wolverine, and northern goshawk.

o For the remaining species analyzed in this document, a habitat assessment was performed 

to estimate the number of habitat acres removed or modified by the proposed actions. 

Habitat was typed using the Forest GIS layer containing classified vegetation typing 

which was used to define habitat types. Vegetation types were split between ten 

categories such as oak woodland and brush. From these ten habitat types, a single or 

combination of habitat types was assigned to each species that best represents the habitat 

commonly used by the particular species. Treatments occurring in those assigned habitat 

types were analyzed for potential affects and reported as acres of habitat potentially 

affected by the proposed actions.

 Noise disturbance that may affect the northern spotted owl

 Direct affects to the western pond turtle

. 

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The analysis area is represented by the project area plus a 1.3 mile buffer surrounding the project area. 

This boundary is appropriate because it will capture all potential effects to all Forest Service Sensitive 

species within the analysis area for this project. Habitat within the analysis area was classified into three 

habitat types specific to northern spotted owl and for species that are analyzed by proxy using northern 

spotted owl habitat: nesting/roosting, foraging, or dispersal. 

The short-term temporal bound for this project is the time in which direct effects of the project may be 

observed during the project implementation. 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

6

The long-term temporal bound for the project is 10 years because it is expected that any potential 

reduction to vegetation, and associated loss of shade over the Hotelling Gulch channel, resulting from 

project activities will recover within 10 years. This timeframe assumes that reduced shade and canopy 

cover is primarily due to the disturbance to 15 trees less than 18 inches in diameter: alder, madrone, and 

pine. It is expected that planted vegetation and natural reproduction of shrub species at the site will 

recover and provide vegetation habitat within a few years of disturbance, no more than 10 years. 

Affected Environment

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) is a medium-sized, dark brown owl with a barred 

tail, white spots on the head and breast, and dark brown eyes surrounded by prominent facial disks. 

Males and females have similar plumage, but females typically weigh 10 to 20 percent more than males. 

Northern spotted owls are a federally listed threatened species. Suitable northern spotted owl habitat is 

commonly separated into nesting/roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat; these habitat types are 

described in detail in the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011). Nesting/roosting is 

generally described as mid- to late-seral forests that contain stands of large trees with high canopy cover, 

multilayered canopies, and nesting platforms. Foraging habitat can be described as slightly reduced 

canopy cover, fewer large trees, and enough space for NSO to maneuver through the trees for hunting 

prey when compared to nesting/roosting habitat. Dispersal habitat contains a moderate level of canopy 

closure and trees large enough to provide shelter and potential foraging opportunities for traveling 

northern spotted owls. Determination of northern spotted owl habitat suitability also considers many 

factors including size of the stand and adjacency to other habitat types which owls may use.

Suitable habitat in the form of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat for the northern spotted owl is present 

in the analysis area, which includes the project area plus a 1.3 mile buffer. There is no suitable habitat in 

the project area and there is no known northern spotted owl activity within the analysis area. The nearest 

known northern spotted owl activity center is 1.45 miles from the analysis area.

Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

Gray wolf was listed as Endangered on March 9, 1978 (USDI FWS 1978). Critical Habitat has not been 

designated. 

Originally listed as a subspecies or as a regional population of subspecies in the contiguous U.S. and 

Mexico, the species was reclassified in 1978 as an endangered population at the species level (C. lupus) 

throughout the contiguous U.S. and Mexico, expect for the Minnesota population, which was classified as 

Threatened. Populations in Idaho and Montana were delisted due to recovery in 2011. 

The gray wolf once ranged throughout the northern hemisphere until humans began to compete with the 

species for food and habitat. A habitat generalist, the species only requires ungulate prey and relative 

safety from human-caused mortality and, due to its adaptability, can occur in a wide range of habitats 

including temperate forest, mountains, tundra taiga and grasslands. 

A keystone predator, gray wolf is an integral part of the ecosystems it inhabits. Prey species primarily 

include both wild and domestic ungulates but the species will also take smaller prey such as beaver, other 

small mammals, birds and fish, and will readily scavenge. 

Wolves are territorial, defending territories in packs. Territory size is a function of prey density and can 

range from 25-1,500 square miles. Both male and female wolves disperse at equal rate an equal distances, 

sometimes >600 miles. 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

7

Gray wolf typically first breeds as a yearling and then once per year from January-March (typically in 

February). Pups are born in 63 days in litters of 1-10 (normally around 5) and stay with the pack until >1 

year of age. 

Current threats to gray wolf include continued conflict with humans, primarily resulting from livestock 

losses but also from hunting and trapping and habitat degradation and fragmentation from human 

encroachment. 

Wolves have a large home range and range expansion. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW) has collected evidence that suggests at least one individual has traveled into southeastern 

Siskiyou County (CDFW 2015) about 50 miles from the project area. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) has a single male gray wolf, designated OR7, which was radio collared in February 

2011. Tracking data from the collar indicates that this animal has entered California on December 28, 

2011 but returned to Oregon on April 2013. Future movements are unpredictable but it is possible he may 

return to California. Hotelling Guclch is situated in a low elevation river corridor where it could be 

possible that a resident wolf may use for dispersal but it is unlikely that a wolf would inhabit the area due 

to its low quality in suitable habitat.

North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscens)

Sightings of this species are rare in northern California; sightings range from Del Norte and Trinity 

Counties east through Siskiyou and Shasta Counties, and south through Tulare County. Habitat 

distribution in California is poorly known for the North Coast and northern Sierra Nevada. Wolverines are 

typically associated with high elevation (>7,200 feet) montane conifer forest consisting of Douglas fir in 

lower elevation to true fir and lodgepole pine at higher elevation (Copeland et al. 2007). For the purposes 

of this analysis, northern spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat is used as a proxy for wolverine habitat; 

a similar analysis area is considered due to its large annual home range use.

Camera stations and track plate surveys have been conducted on the Forest but these surveys did not 

detect wolverines. There are ten historic records of wolverines on the Klamath National Forest but no den 

sites have been documented.

Areas with low human disturbance are preferred by North American wolverine and it uses caves, hollows 

in cliffs, logs, rock outcrops, and burrows for cover, generally in denser forest stages (Zeiner et al. 1988-

1990). It dens in caves, cliffs, hollow logs, cavities in the ground and under rocks. 

Primary food items are small mammals and carrion (Grinnell et al. 1937, Honrocker and Hash 1981, 

Ingles 1965, Krott 1982). Prey species include marmots, ground squirrels, gophers and mice, deer 

carcasses, other vertebrates, berries and insects. Foraging occurs in open to sparse tree habitat on the 

ground, in trees, burrows, among rocks, in or under snow and sometimes in shallow water. The species 

may be capable of detecting prey under deep snow and it caches its food (Zeiner et al. 1988-1990). 

Surveys for wolverines have not been conducted within the project area. The Hotelling Gulch project is 

situated in a low elevation river corridor, far from appropriate high elevation alpine habitats. It is possible 

that a wolverine may travel through Hotelling Gulch to traverse to more suitable habitat, but it is unlikely 

that a wolverine would inhabit the area or den due to its low quality habitat. 

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bald Eagle nesting territories are usually associated with lakes, reservoirs, rivers, or large streams and are 

usually within close proximity of water bodies that support adequate food supply (Lehman 1979). Bald 

eagle nests are usually located in uneven-aged, multi-storied stands with old-growth components. Most 

nests in California are located in ponderosa pine/mixed conifer stands and nest trees are most often 

ponderosa pine (Lehman 1979). Nest sites also include a perch that is near the nest but in sight of water 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

8

where the eagles would forage. Bald eagles are common during migration and in winter along major river 

systems such as the Klamath and Scott Rivers, and in agricultural areas such as Scott Valley. Nine nest 

sites and four roost sites are known to occur on the Forest. Four nest sites are on the westside of the 

Forest and the remaining sites are on the eastside.

No known Bald Eagle nest sites occur within the analysis area or immediately adjacent to project 

activities. However, eagles may use the area along the north and south fork of the Salmon River for 

foraging and may roost in trees along the river but is uncommon. 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

The goshawk is a forest hawk associated with late successional forest, or with mid-successional forests 

with late successional elements, in mixed conifer or true fir habitat types. Foraging habitat is variable and 

includes mid- and late-successional forest, natural and man-made openings, and forest edges. Moderate 

and high quality habitats contain abundant large snags and large logs for prey habitat and plucking posts. 

Goshawks generally breed in older-age coniferous, mixed, and deciduous forest habitats. This habitat 

provides large trees for nesting, a closed canopy for protection and thermal cover, and open spaces 

allowing maneuverability below the canopy. Forest stands containing nests are often small, approximately 

25-250 acres; territories may contain 1–5 alternative nest areas. In northern California, maximum distance 

between alternative nest stands was about 1 mile, and approximately 85% of alternate nest stands were 

<0.5 mile apart.

On the west side of the Klamath National Forest, goshawk habitat generally consists of mid- and latesuccessional mixed conifer forest with scattered harvested and natural openings. Many of the known 

goshawk sites on Scott River, Salmon River, and Oak Knoll Districts are associated with northern spotted 

owl sites and goshawks were found incidentally while surveying for owls.

Therefore suitable goshawk habitat, for this analysis, is considered equivalent to nesting, roosting and 

foraging habitat defined for northern spotted owls. The analysis area contains foraging habitat that could 

be used by northern goshawks. There are no known territories or nesting sites within the Hotelling Gulch 

Project but it is possible that northern goshawks may forage in the analysis area.

Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii)

The willow flycatcher is a neotropical migrant breeding in North America and wintering in Central and 

South America. Although historically common and widely distributed in California riparian habitat 

(Grinnell and Miller 1944), the species has been extirpated from most of its former California range 

(Harris et al. 1987). Currently it is absent from most of California with known breeding locations 

restricted primarily to the Sierra Nevada/Cascade region (southeastern Shasta County south to northern 

Kern County including Alpine, Inyo, and Mono Counties), near Buelton, Santa Barbara County; Prado 

Basin riparian forest, Riverside County; and several locations in San Diego County (Small 1994).

Suitable breeding habitat for the species is characterized by willow (salix spp.) and/or alder (alnus spp.) 

dominated riparia with permanent water, typically consisting of low gradient water courses, ponds, lakes, 

wet meadows, marshes, and seeps within and/or adjacent to forested areas. In California, willow 

flycatcher is “restricted to thickets of willows, whether along streams in broad valleys, in canyon bottoms, 

around mountain-side seepages, or at the margins of ponds and lakes” (Grinnell and Miller 1944).

Willow flycatcher is a late spring migrant and has a short, 70-90 day breeding season. Clutch sizes are 

usually 3-4 eggs, laid in late May-late June. The incubation period is 13-14 days and young fledge about 

13-15 days after hatching, typically in mid-July. Both adults feed nestlings and fledglings, but it is nearly 

always the female that incubates the eggs and broods the young (Sedgwick 2000).
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

9

Willow flycatcher is primarily an aerial forager, capturing most of its insect diet on the wing, but it may 

hover-glean extensively from leaf surfaces or occasionally take insects from the ground (Sedgwick 2000).

The decline of willow flycatcher in California is due primarily to extensive loss, fragmentation and 

degradation of its riparian breeding habitat as a result of changes in hydrology and species composition in 

riparian plant communities from overgrazing, damming, dredging, channelization, urbanization, and dewatering (Sedgwick 2000).

Suitable riparian habitat for the willow flycatcher exists throughout the analysis area on the adjacent 

South Fork Salmon River. The project area supports alder and a minimal amount of willow habitat that 

may be used for forging and perching for the willow flycatcher. It is possible that the willow flycatcher 

may nest along the South Fork Salmon River within the analysis area but it is unlikely to nest in the 

project area, due to the lack of suitable habitat.

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

Throughout California the pallid bat is usually found in low to middle elevation habitats below 6000 feet, 

however, the species has been found up to 10,000 ft. in the Sierra Nevada. Populations have declined in 

California within desert areas, in areas of urban expansion, and where oak woodlands have been lost. This 

species, like many other bats, is extremely sensitive to disturbance at roosting and nesting sites.

A variety of habitats are used, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and coniferous forests. Pallid 

bats are most common in open, dry habitats that contain rocky areas for roosting. They are a yearlong 

resident in most of their range and hibernate in winter near their summer roost. Occasional forays may be 

made in winter for food and water. Pallid bats are unusual in that most of their food consists of large 

insects captured on the ground.

Day roosts may vary but are commonly found in rock crevices and tree hollows; and have been

documented in large conifer snags, inside basal hollows of redwoods and giant sequoias, and bole cavities 

in oaks. Cavities in broken branches of black oak are very important and there is a strong association with 

black oak for roosting (Pierson 1999). Roosting sites are usually selected near the entrance to the roost in 

twilight rather than total darkness. The site must protect bats from high temperatures, as this species is 

intolerant of roosts in excess of 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Pallid bats are also very sensitive to roost site 

disturbance. Night roosts are usually more open sites and may include open buildings, porches, mines, 

caves, and under bridges (Pierson 1999). 

Suitable roost sites for pallid bats in the form of large trees and snags do occur in the analysis area. 

Surveys have not been conducted within the analysis area, but because of the presence of large trees and 

snags, it is reasonable to assum that the pallid bat is present. The pallid bat may use the project area for 

foraging and day roost area.

Townsend’s Big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsedii)

Townsend's big-eared bats occur throughout the western United States. In California, the species is 

generally associated with cave systems, but they are also found under older bridges, basal tree hollows 

and in the crevices of old buildings and mining structures (Pierson 1999). This species has been found 

Pluto Caves and other caves in the area north of Mount Shasta. Foraging associations include edge 

habitats along streams and areas adjacent to and within a variety of wooded habitats (Pierson 1999). The 

Townsend's bat is a moth specialist, with over 90 percent of its diet composed of moths and butterflies.

Townsend’s big-eared bats are sensitive to disturbance at roost sites and may abandon a roost site 

following a single disturbance (CDFG 1990).

Surveys have not been conducted and no known locations occur within the analysis area. Caves or open 

mines are not known to occur within the analysis area; however, suitable roost sites for Townsend’s big-
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

10

eared bats in the form of large diameter trees are scattered throughout the analysis area. It is likely that the 

Townsend’s big-eared bat may use the area for foraging and day roost sights. Thus, it is reasonable to 

assume that Townsend’s big-eared bats are present in the analysis area. 

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

The fringed myotis is found in western North America from south-central British Columbia to central 

Mexico and to the western Great Plains. In California, it is distributed statewide except the Central Valley 

and the Colorado and Mojave Deserts (CDFG 1990). This species occurs on the Klamath National Forest. 

The fringed myotis uses caves, crevices, mines, and buildings for roosting, hibernacula, and maternity 

colonies (CDFG 1990). They day and night roost under bark and in tree hollows, and in northern 

California they day roost in snags only (CDFG 1990). Medium to large diameter snags are important day 

and night roost sites. In California, this species is found from 1300 to 2200 meters (4265 – 7217 feet) in 

elevation in pinyon-juniper, valley foothill hardwood and hardwood-conifers (CDFG 1990). 

Another important habitat component for the fringed myotis are open water sources, which may include 

artificial sources, such as stock tanks and ponds, in addition to natural sources. Home range size varies 

with insect abundance, increasing as the number of available insects decreases. Travel distances from 

roosting to foraging areas are up to eight kilometers (CDFG 1990). The fringed myotis consumes 

primarily beetles, and is supplemented by moths and fly larvae captured in the air and on foliage (CDFG 

1990).

Suitable roost sites for fringed myotis bats in the form of large trees and snags do occur in the analysis 

area and are absent in the project area, where implementation will occur. Surveys have not been 

conducted within the analysis area but it is likely that the fringed myotis may use the project area for 

foraging and day roosting. 

Pacific Fisher (Pekania pennanti)

Fisher habitat distribution occurs from Del Norte and Trinity counties east through Siskiyou and Shasta 

Counties, and south through the Sierra Nevada to Tulare County. In a compilation of published and 

unpublished fisher literature from South-Central British Columbia, Western Washington, Western 

Oregon, and California, fishers are found to be associated with habitats containing moderate to dense 

forest canopy in low- and mid-elevation areas; home ranges include mosaics of different vegetation types 

and forest age classes with complex forest structure for denning, resting, and foraging. Some home ranges 

throughout the range were positively associated with the presence of younger successional stages which 

likely provide source habitat for fisher prey. In evaluation of fisher resting site selection in three study 

areas including the Klamath Mountains, Buskirk and others (2010) found when compared to random 

sites, fishers selected areas with mesic (balanced) moisture and temperature regimes, higher vegetation 

cover, steeper in slope, and contained a relatively high basal area of conifers, hardwoods, and snags, and 

relatively large diameter conifer and hardwoods. One study located on the Trinity River, California, use 

areas appeared to be negatively associated with non-forested or open shrub habitats.

While home ranges may contain mosaics of different vegetation types and age classes, this species is 

highly associated with large live and dead trees and structural features. Fishers are known to use multiple 

rest trees in their home range and typically are located in large live trees with some form of deformity 

such as mistletoe, avian or mammal platform nests, and cavities (Zielinski 2013). Den sites on average to 

be 1.7-2.8 times the diameter of other available trees within the vicinity; in Northern California den sites 

are commonly located in hardwoods (Lofroth et al. 2010). Fishers on Hoopa Tribal Lands and on the 

Shasta Trinity National Forest were found to use both conifers and hardwoods; black oak trees were used 

more than expected at both study areas and the fishers selected sites made up of stands with large 

diameter trees and dense canopy cover; these sites were generally situated in drainage-bottoms. Similar 

findings are reported by others for northern California and southern Oregon. Thompson et al. (2011) 

found fishers often in areas with high numbers of small (<20” dbh) trees, and along lower portions of 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

11

north facing slopes in the Sierra Nevada range. Diet varies across the range, but in Northern California, 

small mammals comprise the majority of the fisher diet.

General surveys have been conducted on the west side of the Forest using baited trip cameras and baited 

35mm camera stations; positive detections have been made at many of the stations on Scott River, Oak 

Knoll and Ukonom Districts. An on-going fisher genetic study on federal and non-federal ownerships has 

detected numerous fishers. Incidental sightings of fisher have also occurred on the KNF for the most part 

along major roads and highways associated with rivers or large creeks, but no den sites have been located. 

Most detections on or adjacent to the Forest have been were located in mid-late seral true fir, mixed 

conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood habitats.

Northern spotted owl nesting/roosting/foraging habitat is considered a proxy for high quality fisher 

denning and resting habitat because this habitat type typically contains large trees, denser canopy closure, 

and structural complexity. Although large trees and dense canopy habitat is poor within Hotelling Gulch 

analysis area, there is some potential foraging habitat where fisher may be present. 

Western Pond turtle (Emys marmorata) 

The northwestern pond turtle is recognized as a subspecies of the western pond turtle (Stebbins 2003), 

and is found throughout California excepting desert regions. Western pond turtles are a highly aquatic 

species that can be found in ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, marshes, and irrigation ditches that have a 

muddy or rocky bottom and abundant vegetation (Stebbins 2003). They feed on aquatic plants, insects, 

worms, fish, and carrion. 

Nests are constructed four inches belowground in moist areas in sandy to very hard soil types. Nets and 

burrows are usually found in undisturbed areas of duff or mud, but pond turtles have been found nesting 

under mine tailings. Females lay their eggs in soil and have been recorded nesting up to 300’ from water 

(Holland 1991). Eggs are laid from March to August, and take 73 to 80 days to incubate. Turtles leave the 

water in late September and spend the winter in burrows up to 500 feet away from the stream. Basking 

sites such as rocks and logs are an important component of western pond turtle habitat. 

Surveys for pond turtles have not been conducted for the Hotelling Gulch Project. The site has suitable 

aquatic habitat for this species in the adjacent South Fork Salmon River but not within the current channel 

of Hotelling Gulch due to its small size and seasonally dry conditions. The project area consists of 

bedrock and a limited amount of shaded riparian habitat, making it unsuitable for digging or laying eggs

but the area could be used for basking sites. The project will occur for one week in September, limiting 

the time of disturbance to turtles that will begin to overwinter.

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii)

Known distributions of the foothill yellow-legged frog range through most Pacific drainages west of the 

Sierra/Cascade Crest from the Santiam River, Oregon to the San Gabriel Drainage in southern California. 

They are typically found at elevations below 1800 feet (Corkran and Thoms, 1996). Current distribution 

and abundance of this species has been reduced in the southern portion of its range but still occurs in 

significant numbers in some coastal drainages. Listed as a California Species of Special Concern, the 

foothill yellow-legged frog is at risk due to various anthropogenic and environmental threats throughout 

their range. Among some of the larger rivers in California, predation from introduced bullfrogs has been 

implicated as a cause of their decline. Increased sediment loads in breeding streams have a potential to 

reduce survival of eggs.

Breeding occurs in the spring, where adults congregate in habitats consisting of shallow, slow flowing 

water with pebble and cobble substrate, preferably with shaded riffles and pools. This species is also 

known to utilize moderately vegetated backwaters, isolated pools, and slow moving rivers with mud 

substrates in a variety of habitats, including valley-foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

12

valley-foothill riparian, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, and wet meadow 

types (Stebbins 2003).

Surveys for the foothill yellow-legged frog have not been conducted in the analysis area and no known 

locations occur in the project area. Hotelling Gulch does not contain suitable habitat for this species, but 

suitable aquatic habitat exists in the adjacent South Fork Salmon River. The project lies below an 

elevation of 1600feet, therefore it is possible that there may be a presence of the foothill yellow-legged 

frog in suitable habitat in the nearby South Fork Salmon River.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Under alternative 1, project implementation would not occur so no direct or indirect effects would occur 

to the northern spotted owl, wolverine, Pacific fisher, northern goshawk, gray wolf, bald eagle, pallid bat, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, and fringed myotis. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. 

Under alternative 1, no activities would occur causing indirect effects to the western pond turtle and 

foothill yellow-legged frog. With no action, the availability of water in the Hotelling Gulch existing and 

historic channels would continue to be seasonally dry and lack steep gradients. Potential habitat in terms 

of standing water, riparian vegetation, and basking sites would not be optimized for the western pond 

turtle and foothills yellow-legged frog.

Alternative 2

Northern Spotted Owl, Wolverine, Pacific Fisher, Northern Goshawk

Northern spotted owl habitat is used as a proxy for effects to late successional/ old growth dependent

species such as the wolverine, Pacific fisher, and northern goshawk. Effects to northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting and foraging habitats also have the potential for effects to the wolverine, Pacific fisher, 

and northern goshawk suitable habitats.

The northern spotted owl analysis area contains 3,390 acres. The analysis area has 481 acres of dispersal 

habitat, 558 acres of foraging habitat, and 286 acres of nesting/roosting habitat. The project area where 

activities will occur is approximately 5 acres. The Forest GIS layer determined that approximately .42 

acres of the project area was foraging habitat for northern spotted owl. After reviewing aerial photos, and 

a field visit to the site it was determined that these areas were not suitable northern spotted owl habitat

due to the lack of large trees, canopy closure, and structural complexity. There is approximately 1,324 

acres of northern spotted owl habitat in the analysis area and no amount of suitable habitat present in the 

project area. The proposed actions in the project area will remove approximately 15 trees less than 18 

inches in diameter. The tree species consist of madrone, alder, and pine; some of which are alive and 

some are already dead trees. No suitable nesting/roosting or foraging northern spotted owl habitat within 

the analysis area will be degraded, downgraded or removed by this action.

Table 2: Summary of habitat type in the analysis area and the project area for Northern Spotted Owl. 

Habitat Type Acres of Habitat 

Type in Analysis 

Area

Acres of Habitat 

Type in Project 

Area

Foraging 558 0

Nesting/Roosting 286 0

Total 844 0 

Northern Spotted Owl 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

13

Direct and Indirect Effects

Potential direct effects of the project on the northern spotted owl are limited to noise disturbance within 

.25 mile of suitable habitat during the nesting period. The nearest known northern spotted owl activity 

center is 1.45 miles away from the project area, which is beyond the average home range distance of 

northern spotted owls.

The following Project Design Feature (PDF) is part of the project plan and will be used to mitigate 

impacts to the northern spotted owl: 

WL-1-To avoid disturbance to northern spotted owl that may be breeding near the project area, 

project activities that involve louder than ambient noise levels will be prohibited from February 1 

to July 9 each year. This is in conformance with CDFW’s restriction for northern spotted owl, other 

raptors, and migratory birds.

Surveys for northern spotted owls have not been conducted during the planning of this project. Due to the 

lack of recent surveys, it is unknown to what extent the adjacent habitat is used by northern spotted owls. 

Therefore, a seasonal restriction applied to this project will protect unknown nesting owls that could occur 

near the project area. This restriction will not allow ambient noise levels or habitat modifications to occur 

until after July 9th; minimizing any effects to surrounding owls. The proposed actions will have no effect

on northern spotted owls during the breeding season due to the application of the seasonal restriction. The 

proposed actions would result in a slight disturbance of non-habitat areas and are outside of the nearest 

northern spotted owl home range, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no impact on 

northern spotted owls.

There is critical habitat present within the analysis area including the 1.3 mile buffer surrounding the 

project boundary, however there is no suitable nesting/roosting/foraging habitat in the project area where 

implementation activities will occur. Therefore, the quantity or quality of critical habitat in the analysis 

area will not be affected by project activities.

The proposed project will have no effect on the northern spotted owl or designated Critical Habitat. 

Wolverine

Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat for the wolverine is limited and low quality within the project area thus not likely used for 

reproduction, although possibly for foraging and individuals may traverse the area along the riparian 

corridor. There are no records of North American wolverine from within or adjacent to the project area. 

However, this species has a relatively large home range and is known to avoid areas where human 

disturbance is a factor. All proposed construction activities within the project area will occur in only very 

small portions of wolverine habitat and will likely be avoided by the species. The project activities will 

occur within a short time frame of 4 days, limiting the time of human disturbance. There will be no 

modification of wolverine suitable habitat.

The proposed action will have no effect on the North American wolverine. 

Pacific Fisher 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fisher habitat is limited and low in quality within the project area therefore it is unlikely that a fisher 

would use this habitat for reproduction, but the species may forage and traverse the area along the riparian 

corridor. There are no known records of fisher from within or adjacent to the project area. However, this 

species is nocturnal, has a large home range, and is known to avoid areas of human disturbance. The 

proposed activities within the project area will occur during daylight hours in a small portion of fisher 

habitat and will likely be avoided by the species. There will be no modification of fisher suitable habitat. 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

14

The proposed action will have no effect on the Pacific fisher. 

Northern Goshawk

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed action will not remove any nesting/roosting/foraging habitat for the northern goshawk and 

the nearest goshawk recorded is a half mile away from the analysis area. There are no known nests within 

the analysis area, however there is potential for a northern goshawk to use the available habitat in the 

analysis area for foraging and roosting. A seasonal restriction will avoid any effects to unknown northern 

goshawks occurring in the area. 

The proposed action will have no effect on the northern goshawk. 

Cumulative Effects – Northern Spotted Owl and Proxy Species

The projects considered for cumulative effects that are within the analysis area are the mining claims and 

the Knownothing Fuels project. The mining claims do not have a plan of operations so the disturbance is 

superficial, will not remove habitat and limited in scale so any effects to northern spotted owl, North 

American wolverine, Pacific fisher, and northern goshawk is unlikely. The Knownothing Fuels project 

would have no effect to northern spotted owls, North American wolverine, Pacific fisher, and northern 

goshawk as described in the environmental analysis for that project. Therefore, there is no cumulative 

effects to northern spotted owl, North American wolverine, Pacific fisher, and northern goshawk from the 

project when combined with on-going and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Gray Wolf

Direct and Indirect Effects

Gray wolf is not known to be in the project area. However, it has a large home range and range expansion 

is documented and could result in wolves re-inhabiting the area at some point. The California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has collected evidence (an anecdotal observation in early 2015, a remote 

trail camera image in May 2015, large canid tracks observed by CDFW biologists in June 2015 and a 

remote trail camera image in July 2015), that suggests at least one individual has traveled into 

southeastern Siskiyou County (CDFW 2015) about 50 miles away from the project area. The individual 

male, OR7, identified by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has not been known to have 

reentered California after its last return to Oregon in 2013. During his movement in California, OR7 did 

not enter the project area and there is no evidence that wolves have occurred within the analysis area for 

over 100 years. 

If a wolf were present in the project area, it would be most likely a dispersing individual. Wolves are 

generalist predators and if present in the project area, a wolf could find enough food to survive. Despite 

many reported observations of wolves in recent years made to the California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, there has been no confirmed presence of the species, no den sites, and no rendezvous sites 

recorded anywhere near the project area. In addition, wolves generally avoid areas of concentrated human 

use such as the project area. If a wolf was present in the project area, the wolf would likely not be near 

any project activity that may create measurable effects to the species. Due to the small project footprint 

relative to the large home range size of gray wolf, the proposed project will not alter enough habitat to 

have any impact on the species. 

The proposed action will have no effect on the gray wolf. 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

15

Bald Eagle

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed action will not remove any bald eagle habitat and there are no known bald eagle nest sights 

surrounding the project area. There are no large standing bodies of water necessary for nesting and 

foraging. Bald eagles may be susceptible to noise disturbance while foraging near Hotelling Gulch. 

Project implementation will occur during September avoiding any effects to critical bald eagle nesting 

periods.

The proposed action will have no effect on the bald eagle. 

Willow Flycatcher

Direct and Indirect Effects

Surveys for willow flycatchers have not been conducted in the project area. The project proposes to 

remove a number of 15 trees, some of which include alder species. This disturbance may affect nearby 

willow flycatchers that may be foraging or perching. Nesting habitat for willow flycatcher is limited and 

low in quality in the project area, therefore, it is unlikely that willow flycatchers will be nesting in the 

project area. 

The proposed action will have no effect on the willow flycatcher.

Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Fringed Myotis

Direct and Indirect Effects

The pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and fringed myotis are highly susceptible to noise disturbance 

during young rearing and roosting periods both seasonally and daily. Project activities and noise 

disturbance will occur during daylight hours, resulting in a possible disturbance of day roosting bats in the 

project area. If disturbed, bats will likely abandon their day roost and travel away from the project area. 

There will be a removal of dead trees that could provide day roosting sights but the size of the trees is less 

than 18 inches in diameter, therefore only serving for day use. There will not be any large snags or other 

structures that could provide as a potential maternal colony removed and implementation will only last a 

short term of 4 days. 

The proposed action may affect preferred habitat and individuals, but will not cause a trend toward 

federal listing for the pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and fringed myotis. 

Western Pond Turtle

Direct and Indirect Effects

The project would result in a small area of near stream disturbance and the temporary loss of a small 

amount of riparian habitat adjacent to Hotelling Gulch. Disturbance to the soil caused by large machinery 

within the 600 foot distance from the bank may cause a short term effect on turtles who may begin to 

overwinter in early fall, therefore, if any overwintering individuals are observed they will be moved from 

the project area downstream or upstream of the work site, to a safe location.

It is expected that once the project is completed, merging the channels into one restored channel will 

provide perennial flow in Hotelling Gulch for longer in the summer, increasing water and riparian habitat 

for the western pond turtle. In the long term, this project is expected to have a beneficial effect on pond 

turtles by providing improved habitat conditions. 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

16

The proposed action may affect preferred habitat and individuals, but will not cause a trend toward 

federal listing for western pond turtle. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

Direct and Indirect Effects

Suitable habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog is not present in Hotelling Gulch because of its 

seasonally dry conditions, however, there may be potential suitable habitat available in the adjacent South 

Fork Salmon River. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are known to exist in elevations below 1800 feet, 

therefore it is possible that they may exist in the South Fork Salmon River adjacent to the project area 

which lies at 1600 feet in elevation. The removal of riparian habitat along the Hotelling Gulch channel is 

not likely to impact Foothill yellow-legged frogs or their habitat in the South Fork Salmon River. 

The proposed action will have no effect on the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

Cumulative Effects – Proposed and Sensitive Species

The projects considered for cumulative effects that are within the analysis area are the mining claims and 

the Knownothing Fuels project. The mining claims do not have a plan of operations so the disturbance is 

superficial, will not remove habitat and limited in scale so any effects to gray wolf, bald eagle, willow 

flycatcher, sensitive bats, western pond turtle, and foothill yellow-legged frog is unlikely. The 

Knownothing Fuels project would have no effect to bald eagle, willow flycatcher, sensitive bats, western 

pond turtle, and foothill yellow-legged frog as described in the environmental analysis for that project. 

There is no data that indicates that the gray wolf was present at the time of implementation of 

Knownothing Fuels project. Therefore, there is no cumulative effects to gray wolf, bald eagle, willow 

flycatcher, sensitive bats, western pond turtle, and foothill yellow-legged frog from the project when 

combined with on-going and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 3. Comparison of Effects

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Likelihood of habitat disturbance or 

removal for all species

No habitat will be removed or 

disturbed under alternative 1

Habitat would be maintained for all wildlife 

species of concern. Removal of trees may 

disturb day roosting sights for the Pallid bat, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, and fringed myotis. 

Noise disturbance that may affect 

the northern spotted owl

No implementation would occur 

therefore no noise disturbance would 

occur

Implementation of the wildlife project design 

feature of a seasonal restriction would avoid 

noise disturbance during critical time periods. 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

17

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Direct affects to the western pond 

turtle

No habitat modification would occur 

therefore Hotelling Gulch will continue 

its seasonally dry patters. Perennial 

flow of the historic stream will not 

exist. Habitat for western pond turtle 

will not be optimized.

Individual western pond turtles that may begin 

early overwintering sites may be directly 

affected by project implementation. Individuals 

will be safely removed from project sight to 

upstream or downstream from sight.

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

The Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Restoration will comply with the Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines for Threatened and Endangered, Forest Sensitive, Management Indicator Species, and the 

Memorandum of Understanding for migratory birds. The project is consistent with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standard and Guidelines for 

Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and 

Guidelines. 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

18

Literature Cited

Buskirk, S.W., C.M. Raley, K. B. Aubry, W.J. Zielinski, M. K. Schwartz, R T. Golightly, K. L. 

Purcell, R. D. Weir, and J.S. Yaeger. 2010. Final Report. Meta-analysis of resting site 

selection by the fisher in the Pacific coastal states and provinces.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2015. Evidence of gray wolf in Siskiyou County. 

CDFW News. Retrieved from CDFW News Online: 

https:/cdfgnes.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/evidence-of-a-wolf-siskiyou-county/.

California Department of Fish and Game. April 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume III, 

Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 407 pp.

Copeland, J. P., Peek, J. M., Groves, C. R., Melquist, W. E., Mckelvey, K. S., McDaniel, G. W., 

and Harris, C. E. (2007). Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. 

The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(7), 2201-2212.

Corkran, C. and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. 

Lone Pine Publishing.

Grinnel, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast 

Avifauna 27.608 pp. 

Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon and J. M Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. 2 Vols. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 777pp.

Harris, J., J.S. D. Sanders and M.A. Flett. 1987. Willow flycatcher surveys in the Sierra Nevada.

Western Birds 18:27-36. 

Holland, D.C., 1991. A Synopsis of the Ecology and Status of the Western Pond Turtle 

(Clemmys marmorata) in 1991. Department of Biology, University of Southwestern 

Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National 

Ecology Research Center, San Simeon Field Station. 141 pp.

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine (Gulo gulo) in northwestern 

Montana, USA. Canada Journal of Zoology 59: 1286-1301.

Krott, P. 1982. The glutton (Gulo gulo) in the ecosystem. Saeugetierkd Mitt 30:136-150. 

Lehman, R. N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 Bald Eagle nests in California. 

California Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife Management Branch Admin. Rep. 79-1, 

Sacramento, CA, USA.

Link online: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/ETCCRR6MJBDIRK3E3OPGOYZACI/resources
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

19

Lofroth, E.C., C.M. Raley, J.M. Higley, R.L. Truax, J.S. Yaeger, J.C. Lewis, P.J. Happe, L.L. 

Finley, R.H. Naney, L.J. Hale, A.L. Krause, S.A. Livingston, A.M. Myers, and R.N. 

Brown. 2010. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennant) in South-Central British Columbia, 

Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California-Vol. 1: Conservation Assessment. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA. Oregon. xvi + 258 pp.

Pierson, E.D. 1999. Presentation to the Natural History and Management of Bats in California 

and Nevada Workshop. Nov. 13-15. Sacramento, CA.

Sedgwick, J.A. 2000. Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), The Birds of North America 

Online (A Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lad of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bns/speies/533doi:10.2173/bna.533.

Small, A. 1994. California birds: their status and distribution. Ibis Publishing Co., Vista, 

California.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin 

Company. Boston. 279 pp.

Thompson, C., K. Purcell, J. Garner, and R. Green. 2011. Kings River Fisher Project Progress 

Report. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. Sierra Nevada Research 

Center. 37 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2017. IPaC trust resources report for Hotelling Gulch 

Project. Accessed March 21, 2017. Link online: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/ETCCRR6MJBDIRK3E3OPGOYZACI/resources

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl 

(Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 277 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. (updated through 2010). Land and resource management plan: 

Klamath National Forest (Forest Plan). Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service (FS). 2014. Direction regarding the survey and manage standards and 

guidelines. 

USDA Forest Service (FS). 2017 Management Indicator Species tracking sheet for the Hotelling 

Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Project. Klamath National Forest. Supervisor’s 

Office, Wildlife Program Records. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service (FS). 2017 Management Indicator Species part II for the Hotelling Gulch 

Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Project. Klamath National Forest. Supervisor’s 

Office, Wildlife Program Records. Yreka, CA.
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

20

USDA Forest Service (FS). 2017. NEPA species tracking sheet for the Hotelling Gulch Fish 

Passage and Stream Restoration Project. Klamath National Forest. Supervisor’s Office, 

Wildlife Program Records. Yreka, CA.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Reclassification of the gray wolf in the United States and 

Mexico, with determinantion of Critical Habitat in Michigan and Minnesota. Final Rule. 

Federal Register 43 (47):9607-9615.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White (Eds.). 1988-1990. California’s

Vol. I-III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Zielinski, W. J. 2013. The Forest Carnivores; Fisher and Marten. USDA Forest Service 1/9/2013.
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

21

Wildlife Resource Report Summary

Methodology

Analysis Indicators and Measures

Because the project involves the use of heavy equipment and noise that may be above current ambient 

levels in the area, potential direct effects in the form of noise disturbance during the breeding season was 

evaluated for northern spotted owl (NSO) and other sensitive species as described in the Forest Plan.

A northern spotted owl habitat assessment was performed to estimate the number of habitat acres present 

in the analysis area and project area, and the number of habitat acres likely to be affected by the proposed 

action. The quantity of northern spotted owl habitat was calculated using the Forest GIS layer, derived 

from 2007 remotely sensed data. This data provides a generally accurate depiction of northern spotted owl 

habitat that was then verified at the site scale. Northern spotted owl habitat is classified into four 

categories non-habitat, dispersal habitat, foraging habitat and nesting/roosting habitat. Treatments 

occurring in foraging and nesting/roosting habitat are analyzed for potential effects and reported as acres 

of habitat potentially affected by the proposed action. 

Northern spotted owl habitat is used as a proxy for effects to late successional/old growth associated 

species such as the fisher, marten, wolverine, and northern goshawk. The effects to northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting and foraging habitat was used as the analysis indicator of potential effects to fisher, 

marten, and northern goshawk habitat. 

Spatial and Temporal Bounds 

The analysis area is represented by the project area plus a 1.3 mile buffer surrounding the project area. 

This boundary is appropriate because it will capture all potential effects to all Forest Service Sensitive 

species within the analysis area for this project. Habitat within the analysis area was classified into three 

habitat types specific to northern spotted owl and for species that are analyzed by proxy using northern 

spotted owl habitat: nesting/roosting, foraging, or dispersal. 

The short-term temporal bound for this project is the time in which direct effects of the project may be 

observed during the project implementation. 

The long-term temporal bound for the project is 10 years because it is expected that any potential 

reduction to vegetation, and associated loss of shade over the Hotelling Gulch channel, resulting from 

project activities will recover within 10 years. This timeframe assumes that reduced shade and canopy 

cover is primarily due to the disturbance to 15 trees less than 18 inches in diameter: alder, madrone, and 

pine. It is expected that planted vegetation and natural reproduction of shrub species at the site will 

recover and provide vegetation habitat within a few years of disturbance, no more than 10 years. 

Northern Spotted Owl

Affected Environment

The northern spotted owl analysis area contains 3,390 acres. The analysis area has 481 acres of dispersal 

habitat, 558 acres of foraging habitat, and 286 acres of nesting/roosting habitat. The project area where 

activities will occur is approximately 5 acres. The Forest GIS layer determined that approximately .42 

acres of the project area was foraging habitat for NSO. After reviewing aerial photos, and a field visit to 

the site it was determined that these areas were not suitable northern spotted owl habitat. There is 

approximately 1,324 acres of northern spotted owl habitat in the analysis/project area. No suitable 

nesting/roosting or foraging northern spotted owl habitat within the analysis area or the project area will 

be degraded, downgraded or removed by this action (See table 4). 

Table 4: Summary of habitat type in the analysis area and the project area for Northern Spotted Owl. 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

22

Habitat Type Acres of Habitat Type 

in Analysis Area

Acres of NSO Habitat 

affected within the 

Analysis/Project Area

Foraging 558 0

Nesting/Roosting 286 0

Total 844 0

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1, project implementation would not occur so no direct or indirect effects would occur 

to the northern spotted owl. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. 

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Potential direct effects of the project on northern spotted owls are limited to noise disturbance within .25 

mile of suitable habitat during the nesting period. The nearest known northern spotted owl activity center 

is 1.45 miles away from the project area, which is beyond the average home range distance. Surveys for 

northern spotted owls have not been conducted. Due to the lack of recent surveys, it is unknown to what 

extent the project area is used by northern spotted owls. Therefore, a seasonal restriction applied to this 

project will eliminate the potential for disturbance to unknown nesting owls. This seasonal restriction will 

mitigate project generated noise disturbance above ambient levels from February 1- July 9th. Therefore 

the proposed action will not result in affecting potential nesting owls adjacent to the project activities.

The proposed action will remove approximately 15 trees less than 18 inches in diameter in the project 

area. The tree species consist of madrone, alder, and pine; some of which are alive and some are already 

dead trees. Because the project actions will not remove suitable northern spotted owl habitat, the loss of 

these few relatively small trees will have no effect on northern spotted owls or northern spotted owl 

habitat. Because seasonal restrictions will be in place to protect nesting owls from noise disturbance, and 

northern spotted owl habitat will not be affected. Alternative 2 will have no effect on northern spotted 

owl.

Cumulative Effects

The projects considered for cumulative effects that are within the analysis area are activities at mining 

claims and the Knownothing Fuels project. The mining claims do not have plans of operations so the 

disturbance involved is superficial, will not remove habitat and is limited in scale so any impact to 

northern spotted owl habitat is unlikely. The Knownothing Fuels project would have no effect to northern 

spotted owl as described in the environmental analysis for that project. Therefore, there is no cumulative 

effects to northern spotted owl from the project when combined with on-going and reasonably foreseeable 

actions. 

Northern Goshawk

Affected Environment
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

23

On the west side of the Klamath National Forest, goshawk habitat generally consists of mid- and latesuccessional mixed conifer forest with scattered harvested and natural openings. Many of the known 

goshawk sites on Scott River, Salmon River, and Oak Knoll Districts are associated with northern spotted 

owl sites and goshawks were found incidentally while surveying for owls. Suitable goshawk habitat is 

considered equivalent to nesting, roosting and foraging habitat defined for northern spotted owl. The 

analysis area, consisting of the project area plus a 1.3 mile buffer, contains suitable habitat for the 

northern goshawk, however there is no suitable habitat in the project area. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1 , project implementation would not occur so no direct or indirect effects would occur. 

Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. 

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Similar to northern spotted owl, potential effects of the project on northern goshawk are limited to noise 

disturbance in suitable habitat adjacent to project activities during the nesting period. Without a seasonal 

restriction noise generation could occur above ambient levels within .25 miles of suitable nesting habitat. 

There are no known territories or nesting sites within the project area but due to the lack of recent 

surveys, it is unknown to what extent the project area is used by northern goshawk. The seasonal 

restriction for northern spotted owl will restrict ambient project noise levels from February 1 – July 9th in 

the project area. The project avoids disturbance during the critical nesting period and therefore would 

have no effect on the success of nesting northern goshawks. Operations occurring after July 9

th will 

generate noise but juvenile goshawks will be fledged and habitat removal will not occur within suitable 

habitat. This will eliminate the chance to injure fledged juveniles during project activities. Alternative 2 

will have no effect to northern goshawk.

Cumulative Effects

The projects considered for cumulative effects that are within the analysis area are activities at mining 

claims and the Knownothing Fuels project. The mining claims do not have plans of operations so the 

disturbance involved is superficial, will not remove habitat and is limited in scale so any impact to 

goshawk habitat is unlikely. The Knownothing Fuels project would have no effect to northern goshawk as 

described in the environmental analysis for that project. Therefore, there is no cumulative effects to 

northern goshawk from the project when combined with on-going and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Pacific Fisher

Affected Environment

General surveys have been conducted on the west side of the Forest using baited trip cameras and baited 

35mm camera stations; positive detections have been made at many of the stations on Scott River, Oak 

Knoll and Ukonom Districts. An on-going fisher genetic study on federal and non-federal ownerships has 

detected numerous fishers. Incidental sightings of fisher have also occurred on the Klamath National 

Forest KNF for the most part along major roads and highways associated with rivers or large creeks, but 

no den sites have been located. Most detections on or adjacent to the Forest have been in mid-late seral 

true fir, mixed conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood habitats.

Northern spotted owl nesting/roosting/foraging habitat is considered a proxy for high quality fisher 

denning and resting habitat because this habitat type typically contains large trees, denser canopy closure, 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

24

and structural complexity. There is fisher denning and resting habitat within the analysis area, but not 

within the project area. Alternative 2 will have no effect to pacific fisher.

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1 no activities would occur so no direct or indirect effects would occur. Therefore, 

there will be no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Similar to northern spotted owl, potential effects of the project on fisher are limited to noise disturbance 

during the breeding period. Due to seasonal restrictions, noise disturbance related to project activities 

would occur between July 10 and November 15. During this time period, noise above ambient levels 

would be relatively short-lived, lasting for several hours during the day over several weeks.

The project area is not suitable denning/resting habitat for fisher. For project implementation, about 10 

alders, 3-5 pines, and some oaks would be removed; each of the trees are less than 18 inches in diameter. 

This loss of several relatively small trees would not have any impact on fisher habitat in the area and, 

because disturbance during the breeding season would be avoided, the project would have no effect on 

fisher. Alternative 2 would have no effect on fisher. 

Cumulative Effects

The projects considered for cumulative effects that are within the analysis area are the existing mining 

claims and the Knownothing Fuels project. The mining claims do not have plans of operation so any 

disturbance due to these activities is superficial, will not remove habitat, and are limited in scale so that 

effects on habitat are unlikely. The Knownothing Fuels project Decision Memo states that there would be 

no effect to sensitive species from the project. Therefore, there is no cumulative effects from the project 

when combine with the on-going and reasonably foreseeable actions.

Western Pond Turtle

Affected Environment

Surveys for pond turtles have not been conducted for the Hotelling Gulch Project. There is suitable 

aquatic habitat for this species in the adjacent South Fork Salmon River, but not within the current 

channel of Hotelling Gulch due to its small size and seasonally dry conditions. The project area has about 

5 acres of bedrock and shaded riparian habitat that may be suitable for this species.

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1 no activities would occur so no direct, indirect or cumulative effects would occur. 

With no action, the availability of water would continue to be low in both the historic channel and current 

alignment of Hotelling Gulch and therefore would not provide potential habitat for this species. 

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

25

The project would result in a small area of near stream disturbance and the temporary loss of a small 

amount of riparian habitat adjacent to Hotelling Gulch. Disturbance to the soil caused by large machinery 

within the 600 foot distance from the bank may cause a short term effect on turtles who may begin to 

overwinter in early fall, therefore, if any overwintering individuals are observed they will be moved from 

the project area downstream or upstream of the work site, to a safe location.

It is expected that once the project is completed, merging the channels into one restored channel will 

provide perennial flow in Hotelling Gulch for longer in the summer, increasing water and riparian habitat 

for the western pond turtle. In the long term, this project is expected to have a beneficial effect on pond 

turtles by providing improved habitat conditions. The proposed action may affect preferred habitat and 

individuals, but will not cause a trend toward federal listing for western pond turtle. 

Cumulative Effects

The projects considered for cumulative effects that are within the analysis area are the mining claims and 

the Knownothing Fuels project. The mining claims do not have a plan of operations so the disturbance is 

superficial, will not remove habitat and limited in scale so the effects on habitat are unlikely. The 

Knownothing Fuels project Decision Memo states that there would be no effect to sensitive species from 

the project. Therefore, there is no cumulative effects from the project when combine with the on-going 

and reasonably foreseeable actions.

Foothill yellow-legged frog

Affected Environment

The current channel of Hotelling Gulch is not suitable for the foothill yellow-legged frog because of 

steeper gradients and seasonally dry conditions. Foothill yellow-legged frog are known to occur in the 

South Fork Salmon River, adjacent to the project area. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1 no activities would occur so no direct, indirect or cumulative effects would occur. 

With no action, the availability of suitable habitat for this species would remain unchanged.

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Suitable habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog is not present in Hotelling Gulch because of its 

seasonally dry conditions, however, there may be potential suitable habitat available in the adjacent South 

Fork Salmon River. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are known to exist in elevations below 1800 feet, 

therefore it is possible that they may exist in the South Fork Salmon River adjacent to the project area 

which lies at 1600 feet in elevation. The removal of riparian habitat along the Hotelling Gulch channel is 

not likely to impact Foothill yellow-legged frogs or their habitat in the South Fork Salmon River. 

Alternative will have no effect on the foothill yellow-legged frog.

Cumulative Effects

The projects considered for cumulative effects that are within the analysis area are the mining claims and 

the Knownothing Fuels project. The mining claims do not have a plan of operations so the disturbance is 
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

26

superficial, will not remove habitat and limited in scale so the effects on habitat are unlikely. The 

Knownothing Fuels project Decision Memo states that there would be no effect to sensitive species from 

the project. Therefore, there is no cumulative effects from the project when combine with the on-going 

and reasonably foreseeable actions.
Wildlife Report Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration

27

Appendix A– NEPA Species Tracking Sheet

NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR WILDLIFE

PROJECT: Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Resotration DATE: March 2017

Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed.

Probability of 

Occurrence

Magnitude of Effects 

per Proposed Action

Taxa Group Species 

Common 

Name

Scientific Name Species Status Project w/in known 

or suspected range 

and there is 

suitable habitat 

w/in project area 

("Yes" only if both 

are true)

Known sites exist in proposed 

project/ treatment area 

(Yes/No)

Magnitude of Effects 

(high, moderate, low)

Source of Survey Information 

(cite source including range 

map)

Are additional 

surveys 

necessary to 

further inform 

the Decision 

maker regarding 

risks to species?

Comments

Reptile Western Pond 

Turtle

Emys marmorata Sensitive, Project 

Level MIS

Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No Time of implementation will avoid critical 

periods for the turtle. Some indivuduals 

starting overwintering sites may be 

disturbed. Further analyzed in specialist 

report.

Amphibs Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei Project Level MIS Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Amphibs Siskiyou Mts. 

Salamander

Plethhodon 

stormii

Sensitive and S&M 

Cat A

No No None CDFW, Field Visit No Outside species range 

Amphibs Foothill Yellowlegged FrogRana boylii Sensitive Yes Yes Moderate CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Amphibs Cascade Frog Rana cascade Sensitive, Project 

Level MIS

Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No Present in elevations above 2500 feet. 

Hotelling Gulch sits below 1600 feet.

Amphibs Northern Redlegged frogRana aurora Project level MIS No No None CDFW, Field Visit No

Amphibs Oregon spotted 

frog

Rana pretiosa Threatened No No None CDFW, Field Visit No Outside species range 

Amphibs Southern 

Torrent 

Salamander

Rhyacotriton 

variegatus

Sensitive No No Low CDFW, Field Visit No

BIRDS Acorn 

Woodpecker

Melanerpes 

formicivorus

Project Level MIS Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Northern 

Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis Sensitive, ForestLevel MISYes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No Potential habiatat in analysis area

BIRDS Burrowing Owl Athene 

cunicularia

Project Level MIS No No None CDFW, Field Visit No Outside species range 

BIRDS Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo

Coccyzus 

ameicanus

Threatened No No None CDFW, Field Visit No Outside species range 

BIRDS Marbled 

murrelet

Brachyramphus 

marmoratus

Threatened No No None CDFW, Field Visit No Outside species range 

BIRDS Swainson's 

hawk

Buteo swainsoni Project Level MIS No No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Brown Creeper Certhia Americana In Snag assocation, 

Use S&G

Yes Yes Moderate CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Klamath National Forest. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 5 Sensitive 

Species list; Survey and Manage species (per the 2001 ROD with application of subsequent Annaul Species Reviews and Forest Service Region 5 guidance May 13, 2014), and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient 

documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat.
BIRDS Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vuaxi Project Level MIS Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS American 

Dipper

Cynclus platensis Project Level MIS Yes Yes Moderate CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Pileated 

Woodpecker

Dryocopus 

Pileatus

Project Level MIS Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Willow 

Flycatcher

Empidonax trailii Sensitive No No Low CDFW, Field Visit No Outside species range 

BIRDS Greater 

sandhill crane

Grus canadensis 

tabida

Sensitive No No None CDFW, Field Visit No Outside species range 

BIRDS Pinon Jay Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalius

Project Level MIS No No Low CDFW, Field Visit No Outside species range 

BIRDS Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Sensitive Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Loggerhead 

Shrike

Lanius 

Ludovicianus

Project Level MIS Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes 

montanus

Project Level MIS No No Low CDFW, Field Visit No Outside species range 

BIRDS Flammulated 

owl

Otus flammeolus Project Level MIS, 

Use S&G

Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS White-headed 

woodpecker

Picoides 

albolarvatus

Project Level MIS, 

Use S&G

Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Black-backed 

woodpecker

Picoides arcticus Project Level MIS, 

Use S&G

Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Downy 

Woodpecker

Picoides 

pubescens

Project Level MIS Yes Yes Moderate CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Hairy 

Woodpecker

Picoides villosus Project Level MIS Yes Yes Moderate CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Pygmy 

nuthatch

Sitta pusilla In Snag assocation, 

Use S&G

Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Red Breasted 

Sapsucker

Sphyrapicus ruber Project Level MIS Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Sensitive, S&M Cat A 

(no surveys in CA) 

No No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No Outside species range 

BIRDS Northern 

Spotted Owl

Strix occidentalis Threatened, Forest 

Level MIS

Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

BIRDS Peregrine 

falcon

Falco peregrinus see LRMP 

Requirements

Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Pronghorn Antilocarpa 

americana

Project Level MIS No No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Pallid Bat Antrozous 

pallidus

Sensitive, Use S&Gs Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Oregon red 

tree vole

Arborimus 

longicaudus

S&M Cat C No No None CDFW, Field Visit No Outside species range 

Mammals Roosevelt Elk Cervus canadensis 

roosevelti

Emphasis Species Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Townsend's Bigeared BatCorynorhinus 

townsendii

Sensitive, Use S&Gs Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals California 

Wolverine

Gulo gulo Sensitive, Proposed 

Threatened

Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Silver-haired 

bat

Lasionycteris 

noctivagans

Use S&Gs Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals American 

Marten

Martes americana Sensitive, Forest 

Level MIS

Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No Associated with mid-high elevation (above 

5,000ft), old grown habitats with dense 

canopy. Hotelling Gulch lies at 3,200 feet 

with scarce canopy. 

Mammals Pacific Fisher Martes pennanti Sensitive, Forest 

Level MIS

Yes Yes Moderate CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Long-tailed 

Vole

Microtus 

longicaudus

Project Level MIS Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Montane Vole Microtus 

montanus

Project Level MIS No No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No Outside species range 

Mammals Long-eared 

myotis

Myotis evotis Use S&Gs Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No
Mammals Fringed myotis Myotis 

thysanodes

Sensitive Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Long-legged 

myotis

Myotis volans Use S&Gs Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Black-tailed 

Deer

Odocoileus 

hemionus

Forest Level MIS Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Northern Water 

Shrew

Sorex palustris Project Level MIS Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Black Bear Ursus americanus Forest Level MIS Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mammals Gray Wolf Canis lupus Threatened Yes No Low CDFW No

Mammals Western Gray 

Squirrel

Sciurus griseus Project Level MIS Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mollusk Trinity 

shoulderband

Helminthoglypta 

talmadgei

S&M Cat D-1 Yes Yes Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mollusk Siskiyou 

sideband

Monadenia 

chaceana

S&M Cat B-3 Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mollusk Blue-gray tail 

dropper

Prophysaon 

coeruleum, In 

California and 

Washington 

S&M -Cat A Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No

Mollusk Tehamana 

chaparral

Trilobopsis 

tehamana 

Sensitive and S&M 

Cat A

Yes Yes Moderate CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No Requires shaded talus and rockpiles. 

Hotelling does not have talus and minimal 

shade. 

Invertebrate Western 

Bumble Bee

Bombus 

occidentalis

Sensitive Yes No Low CDFW, NRIS, Field Visit No Prefer open meadows with high diversity of 

plant structure and plant flowering. Habitat 

absent in Hotelling Gulch. 
Appendix B– Management Indicator Species Tracking Sheet

MIS

Habitat* is not in 

or adjacent to the 

project area and is 

not affected by the 

project

Habitat* is in 

or adjacent to 

the project 

area, but is not 

directly or 

indirectly 

affected by the 

project (needs 

rationale)

Habitat* is 

potentially 

affected by the 

project (proceed 

to Part II)

Habitat removed by 

project activities

(based on analysis 

in Part II) Common Name Scientific Name

Hardwood Species Association

Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes 

formicivorus

463 acres of oak 

in analysis area

0 acres potentially 

affected by project

0 acres removed by 

project

Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus 463 acres of oak 

in analysis area

2.5 acres 

potentially affected 

by project

0 acres removed by 

project

River/Stream Species Association

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 17.1 miles of 

perennial 

stream and 

23.3 miles of 

intermittent 

stream in 7th 

field watersheds

~3.9 miles 

perennial stream 

potentially affected 

by project 

components

~600 feet removed 

by project and ~600 

feet created or 

enhanced 

Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss 17.1 miles of 

perennial 

stream and 

23.3 miles of 

intermittent 

stream in 7th 

field watersheds

~3.9 miles 

perennial stream 

potentially affected 

by project 

components

~600 feet removed 

by project and ~600 

feet created or 

enhanced 

Tailed frog Ascaphus truei 17.1 miles of 

perennial 

stream and 

23.3 miles of 

intermittent 

~4.4 miles 

perennial stream 

and ~2.2 miles 

intermittent stream 

potentially affected 

~600 feet removed 

by project and ~600 

feet created or 

enhanced 
stream in 7th 

field watersheds

by project 

components

Cascades frog Rana cascade No habitat N/A N/A N/A

American dipper Cynclus platensis 17.1 miles of 

perennial 

stream and 

23.3 miles of 

intermittent 

stream in 7th 

field watersheds

~4.4 miles 

perennial stream 

and ~2.2 miles 

intermittent stream 

potentially affected 

by project 

components

~600 feet removed 

by project and ~600 

feet created or 

enhanced 

Northern water shrew Sorex palustris 17.1 miles of 

perennial 

stream and 

23.3 miles of 

intermittent 

stream in 7th 

field watersheds

~4.4 miles 

perennial stream 

and ~2.2 miles 

intermittent stream 

potentially affected 

by project 

components

~600 feet removed 

by project and ~600 

feet created or 

enhanced 

Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus 17.1 miles of 

perennial 

stream and 

23.3 miles of 

intermittent 

stream in 7th 

field watersheds

~4.4 miles 

perennial stream 

and ~2.2 miles 

intermittent stream 

potentially affected 

by project 

components

~600 feet removed 

by project and ~600 

feet created or 

enhanced 

Marsh/Lake/Pond Species Association

Northern red-legged 

frog

Rana aurora aurora Outside known range

(not included in FWS 

T&E species list for 

Klamath NF)

N/A N/A

0 miles removed by 

project

Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata 3.8 miles of low 

gradient stream 

along SF 

Salmon River, 

adjacent to the 

project area

0 miles of indicator 

habitat potentially 

affected by project

0 miles of indicator 

habitat removed by 

project
Snag Species Association

Red-breasted 

sapsucker

Sphyrapicus ruber 1,308 acres in 

analysis area

2.5 acres 

potentially affected 

by project

1 acre of riparian 

deciduous removed 

in short term

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus 600 acres in 

analysis area

0 acres potentially 

affected by project

0 acres removed by 

project

White-headed 

woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus 600 acres in 

analysis area

0 acres potentially 

affected by project

0 acres removed by 

project

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vuaxi 600 acres in 

analysis area

0 acres potentially 

affected by project

0 acres removed by 

project

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 600 acres in 

analysis area

1 acre potentially 

affected by project

1 acre of riparian 

deciduous removed 

in short term

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus Pileatus 600 acres in 

analysis area

0 acres potentially 

affected by project

0 acres removed by 

project

Black-backed 

woodpecker

Picoides arcticus 0 acres in 

analysis area

0 acres potentially 

affected by project

0 acres removed by 

project