United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

August 2016

Aquatics Resources

Report

Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel 

Restoration Project

Salmon/Scott Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

For Information Contact: Maija Meneks

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District

Fort Jones, California

(530) 468-5351
Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or 

parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public 

assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or 

employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) 

within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel 

action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, 

or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter 

containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter 

to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at 

program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an 

EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-

8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how 

to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
i

Table of Contents

Aquatics Resource Report............................................................................................................. 1

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

Methodology........................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis Indicators.............................................................................................................. 3

Analysis Indicators and Locations Excluded From Further Analysis ................................ 3

Summary of Analysis Indicators and Locations Retained for Analysis............................. 3

Measures (for Analysis Indicators)..................................................................................... 4

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ............................................................. 7

Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 7

Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 20

Alternative 1 – No Action................................................................................................. 20

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects................................................................................ 20

Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................... 20

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action....................................................................................... 21

Direct Effects................................................................................................................ 21

Indirect Effects.............................................................................................................. 22

Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................... 36

Summary of Effects .......................................................................................................... 37

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ......................................... 39

Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 40

Report Summary ............................................................................................................................. 44

Methodology......................................................................................................................... 44

Analysis Indicators and Measures .................................................................................... 44

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ........................................................... 46

Affected Environment........................................................................................................... 46

Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 48

Alternative 1 – No Action................................................................................................. 48

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects................................................................................ 48

Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................... 48

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action....................................................................................... 48

Direct Effects................................................................................................................ 48

Indirect Effects.............................................................................................................. 48

Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................... 52

Summary of Effects .......................................................................................................... 52

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ......................................... 54

Maps and Figures.................................................................................................................. 55
ii

Appendices

Appendix A: Life history and biological requirements of Pacific salmonids and lamprey....... A-1

Appendix B: Table of Pathway and Indicators...........................................................................B-1

Appendix C: Environmental Baseline and Proposed Effects Checklist .....................................C-1

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of analysis species, including status of each.....................................................2

Table 2. Summary of actual and potential occupancy by analysis species of creeks/rivers within 

7th- and 5th-field watersheds.........................................................................................................10

Table 3. Summary of closest distance between Project activities and anadromous fish and their 

habitat (including critical habitat) – 7th- and 5th-field watersheds. ................................................11

Table 4. Baseline and post-Project cumulative watershed models for Alternative 2....................19

Table 5. Baseline for analysis Indicators for streams in the Project area......................................20

Table 6. Summary of the effects of each Indicator on salmonid fish of Alternative 2 of the 

Hotelling Gulch Project for project element/indicator combinations............................................35

Table 7. Summary of determinations for Alternative 2 for the Hotelling Gulch Project..............38

Table 8. Indicator summary for Hotelling Gulch Project alternatives. .........................................39

List of Maps and Figures

Map 1. Aquatic resources (salmonids) present within and nearby the Hotelling Gulch Project.. 55

Map 2. Aquatic resources (non-salmonid) present within and nearby the Hotelling Gulch Project.

........................................................................................................................................................56

Map 3. Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat for the Hotelling Gulch Project. ...................57

Map 4. Project area with hydrologic Riparian Reserves...............................................................58

Figure 1. Draft conceptual view of Hotelling Gulch Project footprint. ........................................59
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

1

Aquatics Resource Report

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to discuss the effects of the Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and 

Channel Restoration Project (“Hotelling Gulch Project”) on aquatic Threatened, Endangered and 

Candidate species listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Threatened, 

Endangered, and Candidate species proposed for listing are designated by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under authority of the 

Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. The Act requires federal agencies insure 

that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of those species habitat. Additionally, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

consultation occurs under of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

This report will also discuss the effect of the project on aquatic Forest Service Sensitive and 

Management Indicator Species. Federal laws and direction applicable to Sensitive species 

include the National Forest Management Act (NFMA, 2000) and Forest Service Manual (USDA, 

Forest Service, 1995, FSM 2670). Sensitive species are classified at the Region level, and 

management indicator species by the Forest. The Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP) directs the Forest to (1) “maintain or improve habitat for aquatic species, especially 

TE&S” and (2) “maintain suitable fish habitat that will support well distributed, viable 

populations of native and desirable non-native fish”. To this end, the Forest has adopted an 

aquatic conservation strategy, including the designation of buffered Riparian Reserves and 

Standards and Guidelines to maintain habitat for aquatic species (USFS 1995).

Methodology

Different sets of Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate species are managed by the FWS and 

NMFS. An unofficial FWS species list was obtained online from the agency IPaC portal website 

on June 6, 2016 (FWS 2016). No protocol exists to acquire a Project-specific NMFS list at this 

time; and email discussions have occurred with the local NMFS representative as to appropriate 

species to consider during project analyses (D. Flickinger, pers. comm.). Species considered as 

Forest Service Sensitive were compiled by the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office. 

These lists were used as a basis for determining which aquatic species were to be considered in 

this specialist report. See Table 1 for a summary. Terrestrial and semi-aquatic species, including 

amphibians, are analyzed in the Wildlife report.

The only Threatened or Endangered fish in the analysis area is the Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coasts Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), including Critical Habitat. Sensitive fish 

species for the Klamath National Forest in the Project are the Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers 

Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss), Klamath River lamprey (Entosphenus similis), and Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus 

tridentatus). Both steelhead and resident rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are management 

indicator species in the Forest Plan. Additionally, Essential Fish Habitat designation is associated 

with Coho salmon and Chinook salmon. The NMFS has requested action agencies, including the 

Klamath National Forest (KNF), to consider project impacts on species preyed upon by ESA-
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

2

listed killer whale (Orcinus orca) / i.e., Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW). For this 

project, the relevant species would be the three anadromous salmonids introduced for analysis. 

See Table 1 for a summary of aquatic Project species. Since analyzed fish species have 

overlapping needs and habitat, the same Indicators are used to indicate effects to all analysis 

species. These Indicators are outlined in the following section.

Table 1. Summary of analysis species, including status of each.

Species

Endangered

Threatened

Forest Sensitive

MIS

Critical Habitat

Essential Fish Habitat

Salmonids

Coho Salmon

(Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts) Oncorhynchus kisutch X X X

Chinook Salmon (Spring/Fall runs) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha X X

(Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers)

Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss X X

(Klamath Mountains Province)

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss X

Lamprey

Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus X

Klamath River Lamprey Entosphenus similis X

Mammals

Killer Whale (Orca)

(Southern Resident)

Orcinus orca X X

The Project site was visited by Maija Meneks (Fish Biologist – USFS) in July 2015 to examine 

aquatic resources potentially affected by proposed Project activities.

Data sources used to determine historic/current anadromous and resident salmonid distribution 

and habitat condition included:

1. Forest GIS layers

2. CalFish on-line database

3. Habitat/fish presence surveys performed by Forest Service personnel or contractors

This information, as well as scientific literature, field review, Project watershed and geology 

reports, and best professional judgment, was the basis for evaluating impacts to aquatic resources 

in the Project area.

Information specific to the biological requirements of species under consideration in this 

document is found in Appendix A.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

3

Analysis Indicators

The analysis of the potential effects to fish and their habitat is organized by direct and indirect 

effects and by effects to seventeen Indicators of anadromous fish habitat conditions (Table 6).

The Indicators originate from the “Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for 

Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area” (USDI, USDA, and 

NOAA 2004). Further discussion of Indicators is found in Appendix B. Effects of project 

elements to an Indicator may be neutral (no effect), discountable (extremely unlikely to occur), 

insignificant (effects are not able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated), or 

significant (effects able to be measured). Furthermore, effects may be either positive or negative.

After the appropriate Indicators have been evaluated, the resulting information is used to 

determine overall effects on aquatic species, including Coho Critical Habitat and Essential Fish 

Habitat.

Although the methodology for effects analysis only technically applies to anadromous fish 

within the Project area (e.g., Coho, Chinook, and steelhead), it may also be used for resident 

rainbow trout to ensure a consistent assessment of fish species; and indirect effects to 

anadromous fish will serve as a proxy for lamprey. Additionally, Indicators are used to assess the 

existing environment of anadromous systems, with each Indicator labeled as to if it is “Properly 

Functioning,” “Functioning-At-Risk,” or “Not Properly Functioning” for each stream (Appendix 

B, C).

Analysis Indicators and Locations Excluded From Further Analysis

The following Indicators are to be excluded from analysis because Project components will not 

affect anadromous/resident fish or their habitat:

Chemical Contamination and Nutrients – Nutrient enrichment is not expected to change in 

area streams as a result of the actions proposed in this project, and no point sources are known. 

Best Management Practices will be employed to prevent contamination from fuel and oil by 

heavy equipment.

Off-Channel Habitat – No off-channel habitat is present within the Project footprint.

Road Density/Location – No new system roads will be constructed. A temporary bypass to 

allow normal traffic to continue use of County Road 1C02 through the Project area will be built

during construction of the fish passage structure. The route will be removed when no longer 

required.

Summary of Analysis Indicators and Locations Retained for Analysis

Indicators

The following Indicators are potentially affected by the Project and will undergo further 

discussion:

• Temperature

• Turbidity

• Physical Barriers

• Sediment/Substrate

• Large Woody Debris

• Pool Frequency and Quality
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

4

• Refugia

• Width/Depth Ratio

• Streambank Condition

• Floodplain Connectivity

• Peak/Base Flows

• Drainage Network

• Disturbance History/Regime

• Riparian Reserves

7th-Field Watershed Scale

Negro Creek – South Fork Salmon River

Hotelling Gulch is the principle stream of this 7th-field watershed within the Project area. 

Resident rainbow trout are found in Hotelling Gulch. Access into the drainage by anadromous 

species is currently obstructed (see Affected Environment). 

Although this watershed also includes a segment of the SF Salmon River, the mainstem is 

discussed in respect to the 5th-field watershed scale.

5th-Field Watershed Scale

South Fork Salmon River

All fish species of interest – Coho, Chinook, steelhead, rainbow trout, lamprey – are present in 

SF Salmon River. This scale considers impacts on a large landscape scale, as well as potential 

direct/indirect effects to the mainstem system from Project activities.

Measures (for Analysis Indicators)

Temperature

This Indicator is rated by stream temperature, and the expected increase/decrease from the 

existing condition due to Project activities in fish-bearing reaches of stream channels 

(Appendices B, C).

Turbidity

This Indicator is rated by professional judgment following observation of conditions after high 

water events, amount of substrate fines, CWE models (USLE/GEO), and condition of Riparian 

Reserves (Appendices B, C). In addition, the distance to fish habitat and the likelihood of 

activities to introduce fine sediment into fish-bearing streams will also be incorporated into the 

effects analysis. 

Turbidity describes suspended sediment in the water column. It is generally composed of very 

small particles like silts because larger material is difficult to keep suspended except at high 

flows (Swanston 1991). Because a degree of turbidity is natural in stream systems, often 

observed during spring run-off and storm events, fish are adapted to it (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). 

Outside the laboratory environment, chronic and elevated levels of turbidity considered 

detrimental to aquatic organisms only occur following catastrophic natural incidents such as 

large landslides or extensive wildfires, or where human activities provide an extensive raw 

surface available for continuous stream erosion (Meehan 1991; Neary, et al. 2008).
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

5

Physical Barriers

This Indicator is rated by presence/absence of human-built barriers which affect fish distribution 

(Appendices B, C).

Sediment/Substrate

This Indicator is rated by percentage of substrate composition of finer material. Considered data 

can include composition of surface and subsurface of non-pool units, as well as volume of pools 

filled with fines. Where no or limited survey data is available, evaluation may utilize CWE 

(USLE/GEO) models and professional judgment (Appendices B, C).

Sediment in streams is a part of the natural geological process; and certain erosive geologies, 

such as granitic soils, can impart a high amount of fines to a stream system even from 

Wilderness locales. It is when management activities upon the landscape increase incoming 

sediment flux within a drainage such that it is higher than normal background processes that 

human-induced impact to aquatic resources begin to occur. Depending upon the scale 

considered, effects may be highly localized (i.e., at the confluence of two streams) or more 

diffuse (i.e., multiple miles of increased spawning bed embeddedness).

Large Woody Debris

This Indicator is rated using amount of “large wood” per linear length of stream; and is only 

applicable in 3rd or larger order stream systems (Appendices B, C). The Northwest Forest Plan 

and KNF Land Resource Management Plan (page #4-143) offer guidelines as to an acceptable 

amount of wood, as well as provide definitions of “large wood”. If professional judgment

concludes guidelines are inadequate or do not capture the nature of the system under 

consideration, channel width and potential of the site to produce and retain woody debris may be 

used. Potential for future large woody debris recruitment in both short- and long-term should 

also be included in rating the Indicator. Recruitment effects will be determined using the 

likelihood of the removal of standing trees that have a high probability of becoming large woody 

debris in the stream channel based on professional judgment and scientific literature. 

For large woody debris to affect fish, it must (1) recruit to the stream and (2) be transported to 

fish-occupied waters. Ninety percent of wood recruitment for systems similar to the Project area 

tends to occur within 15 to 35 meters of the stream (Benda and Bigelow 2011); and one model 

suggests that a buffer width which is 2/3 the stand-average tree height is sufficient to maintain 95 

percent of wood recruitment (Benda, et al. 2015). While debris flows can be an important vector 

in the large-scale exportation of wood from headwaters to fish-bearing reaches, such are 

relatively infrequent in nature (May and Gresswell 2003, 2004) and may be catastrophic in 

extent, scouring channels and banks. Most non-debris-flow wood transport in small streams 

tends to average a couple hundred meters over the lifetime of the wood, with the lower portion of 

the headwaters therefore the most important in moving wood to fish-bearing areas (Benda and 

Bigelow 2011).

Pool Frequency and Quality

This Indicator is rated by frequency and quality of pools present in a stream system (Appendix 

B, C).
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

6

Refugia

This Indicator is a synthesis of presence and degree of functionality of habitat elements available 

for fish throughout their life history. Considerations for rating include stream temperature, water 

quality, riparian reserve, water flow, sediment in pools, and connectivity (Appendix B, C).

Width/Depth Ratio

This Indicator is rated by width-to-depth ratio, in relationship to Rosgen stream type, and amount 

of braiding due to sediment aggradation. If data is limited or lacking, other considerations may 

include drainage history of debris flows and mass wasting, pool frequency and depth, frequency 

of large woody debris, and CWE models (Appendix B, C).

Streambank Condition

This Indicator is rated bank stability of a stream system. If data is limited or not available, 

considerations may include density of road-stream crossings, amount of inner gorge road, type 

and amount of non-road areas of compaction near the stream, presence of artificial berms, and 

extent of recent debris flows (Appendix B, C).

Floodplain Connectivity

This Indicator is rated by hydrological connectivity of a stream with its floodplain and other 

areas off the mainstem channel. If data is not available, professional judgement may be used to 

assess the ability of a stream to access the floodplain during high-water flows, frequency thereof, 

and condition of riparian vegetation and adjacent wetland areas (Appendix B, C). 

Peak/Base Flows

For watershed-level, this Indicator is rated using elements of ERA, road density, vegetation and 

Riparian Reserve condition, and other associated components (Appendices B, C). Any potential 

effects to flows due to a site-specific Project element are considered individually.

Drainage Network

This Indicator is rated by increase/decrease in drainage network as related to roads, ditches, and 

other similar structures (Appendices B, C).

Disturbance History/Regime

This Indicator is primarily rated using CWE (ERA/USLE/GEO) models. If professional 

judgment concludes that these models are not fully capturing disturbance risk, road density and 

location, current impacts from past stand-replacing timber harvest and wildfire, fire regime, 

vegetation regime, and development on private property may also be considered (Appendices B, 

C).

The ERA, USLE, and GEO models track various aspects of human and natural impacts upon the 

landscape and geologic environment. ERA (“Equivalent Roaded Area”) provides an accounting 

system for tracking disturbances that affect watershed processes, in particular changes in peak 

runoff flows influenced by ground disturbing activities; USLE (“Universal Soil Loss Equation”) 

tracks surface erosion and sediment delivery in the first year following project completion; and 

GEO estimates sediment delivery from mass wasting (i.e., landslide events) for the first decade 

after project completion. A threshold of “1” generally indicates an elevated risk of impact from a 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

7

given model. This is not the point at which significant effects occur, but a yellow flag indicating 

that additional impacts need to be considered for resource degradation. 

Riparian Reserves

This Indicator is a consideration of the riparian environs, and extending into the near uplands. It 

is rated as a synthesis of shade; large woody debris recruitment; disturbance, roading, and other 

impacts to the Riparian Reserve management zone (Appendices B, C). 

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The analysis area for aquatic resources includes effects at the site-specific and watershed-scale 

extent.

Watersheds utilized in the analysis are at the 5th- and 7th-field level.

Site-specific analysis discussion will focus on (1) water drafting within the range of anadromous 

and resident fish and (2) Project activities which may occur at the confluence of the SF Salmon 

River with the remnant historic Hotelling Gulch channel. For the remainder of the Project area, 

Project components will occur in association with the existing (dry) channel, the historical (dry) 

channel which is to be reconstructed and realigned, or the uplands distant from fish habitat.

Temporal analysis timeframe includes effects during implementation, short-term effects expected 

to occur within the first year following implementation, and long-term effects (greater than one 

year).

Affected Environment

The Hotelling Gulch Project is situated east of the Forks of Salmon community, about three 

miles upstream South Fork (SF) Salmon River along County Road 1C02 (Map 1). The Project is 

located at the mouth of Hotelling Gulch and adjacent to Hotelling Gulch Campground. Fishbearing streams potentially affected by the Project include SF Salmon River and Hotelling 

Gulch. Project footprint elevation is approximately 1,350 feet.

The Project will occur within the following 5th-field and 7th-field watersheds:

• South Fork Scott River: 1801021001

o Negro Creek-South Fork Salmon River: 18010210010802

Legal location of Project footprint and associated activities include: T.10N., R.8W., Section 28 

(Humboldt Meridian); and T.39N., R.12W., Section 30 (Mount Diablo Meridian).

The SF Salmon River is a fifth-order perennial which drains the ridges, ranges, and peaks of the 

Russians, Salmon Mountains, and Trinity-Alps. Timber harvest, gold mining, livestock grazing, 

roads, recreation, wildfire, and floods are some of the past and present influences within the 

drainage; and private land is scattered throughout, including the community of Forks of Salmon

downcanyon of the Project area. Coho and Chinook salmon, steelhead, resident rainbow trout, 

and lamprey are present, with the upstream limits of each species restricted by gradient, 

discharge, stream size, and/or barriers. All fish species are observed or have potential to occur

within the Project area. Chinook spawning has been observed in the river segment adjacent the 

Project area.

Hotelling Gulch is a second-order perennial of the SF Salmon River. Flowing north, it drains the 

north end of Hotelling Ridge. Ownership within the Hotelling Gulch watershed is Forest Service. 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

8

Past and present influence within the drainage include mining (hydraulic, placer), timber harvest, 

roads, County landfill (closed, rehabilitated), wildfire, and flood. Resident rainbow trout have 

been observed, but may have been extirpated during 2015 due to multi-year drought conditions 

(see Appendix A). Hotelling Gulch may have historically (pre-settlement) supported seasonal 

access for anadromous salmonids, especially as off-channel winter refugia and non-natal rearing. 

However, substantial anthropogenic modification has occurred in the lower portion of the 

drainage, creating multiple barriers to fish entry and occupation. Existing conditions include (1) 

steep cascade habitat between SF Salmon River confluence and County Road 1C02, the current 

alignment of which appears to go through a historic ditch complex; (2) undersized culverts at 

County Road 1C02; and (3) the alluvial fan. 

• Cascade habitat below the County Road. An assessment of fish access into Hotelling 

Gulch under existing conditions concluded that the appropriate flow conditions occur 

infrequently (Love & Associates 2012). The cascades are described as being made of 

bedrock with an 8 feet of drop over 30 to 35 feet of channel. Access to upstream habitat 

by any species of juvenile fish or resident rainbow trout is likely precluded, except under 

extremely infrequent conditions. Large adult Coho and steelhead might be able to 

successfully navigate the barrier when conditions are appropriate. This report did not 

consider access through the County Road culverts.

o Adult Chinook were not considered because their spawning season occurs in fall, 

outside the timing of river discharges when Hotelling Gulch would potentially be 

accessible (e.g., late-winter through spring run-off).

• County Road culverts. Fish passage issues are present where two culverts cross under the 

County road, approximately 250 feet above the confluence with SF Salmon River (Photo 

1a, b). These culverts was assessed by Taylor, et al. (2002), who determined the structure 

to rate “Red” in regards to an initial evaluation; and a FishXing model estimated the 

culvert to be 0% passable at all considered flows for all life stages. Furthermore, while 

surveyors did see (unidentified) juvenile salmonids below the crossing during visits 

between December 2001 and March 2002, no attempt to pass through the culverts was 

observed.

• Alluvial fan. An additional barrier to fish entry and occupation of Hotelling Gulch is the 

alluvial fan, of which past mining and other activities have created conditions whereupon 

the channel goes subsurface annually by late spring or early summer. The portion which 

goes dry is approximately 600 feet, above which the channel generally retains water. 

Because of discharge timing requirements, physical barriers (natural and human-built), and early 

season channel drying, Hotelling Gulch is not currently considered viable habitat for any life

stage of Coho or Chinook salmon. Of the salmonid species present in the SF Salmon River 

drainage, steelhead is the most likely to have the opportunity and ability to access Hotelling 

Gulch, either as spawning adults or rearing juveniles/sub-adults, although the occasion is 

believed to be very rare. The observation of trout during a 2015 habitat survey shows that it is 

possible for fish (of resident or steelhead origin) to enter Hotelling Gulch and take up continual 

residence, given the appropriate spring run-off and/or flood discharge conditions.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

9

The pre-settlement configuration of the Hotelling Gulch channel through its alluvial fan is 

unknown. Historic aerial photos, taken after the cessation of major hydrologic mining activity, 

show the channel on the west side of the fan (Love & Associates 2016). This alignment is 

described as the “historic” or “west” alignment, and the focus of the Proposed Alternative is to 

reconstruct the Hotelling Gulch channel. Between 1964 and 1971, the channel shifted alignment 

to the “existing” or “current” alignment (Love & Associates 2016). The exact reason for this 

change is inconclusive, but is likely associated with flood. Via excavation and other means, the 

existing alignment has been further modified (e.g., straightened, deepened, probably bermed) to 

be locked in its current configuration. Because of the suboptimal location of the crossing upon 

the Hotelling Gulch alluvial fan and the use of undersized culverts, crossing failure and/or 

damage is a regular occurrence during periods of high flow, the most recent examples being

2006 and 2010. The fan itself has been extensively reworked by historic mining activities, road 

construction, and other human actions (Love & Associates 2016). These past disturbances likely 

increase the natural porosity of the alluvial fan, leading to observed existing condition of the 

lower channel drying by late spring.

Width of the riparian zone is varied and heavily dependent upon persistence of water (surface 

and subsurface) in relation to the stream channel and microclimate conditions. In drier locations 

associated with ephemerals and short-season intermittents, the riparian zone may extend less 

than five feet from the channel margin and classic riparian vegetation such as alder or willow is 

not continuous. The contrast between riparian and uplands is obvious/stark. On the other hand, 

wetter systems with a developed floodplain, such as along SF Salmon River, have a much wider 

area where groundwater influence allows growth of species requiring proximity to water. The 

transition of “riparian” to “upland” is much more subtle, and may be difficult to definitively 

delineate. A stream “riparian zone” is different from the hydrologic “Riparian Reserve” of the 

LRMP, the latter of which is a standard-width derived land allocation whose purpose is to serve 

as a planning tool. The width of a “Riparian Reserve” is generally greater than a stream’s true 

riparian zone, and often includes true upland vegetation within it.

Photo 1a. [Left] County Road crossing - December 2010. Channel is wet and recently repaired 

culverts are obviously undersized.

Photo 1b. [Right]. County Road crossing – July 2015. Channel has been dry at the crossing for 

many months.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

10

Composition of vegetation upon the Hotelling Gulch alluvial fan is complex, but ultimately tied 

to presence and persistence of water. The current alignment includes willow, mock orange, 

blackberry, and other common riparian species. The distribution is discontinuous, reflecting the 

underlying porosity of the fan, with plants denser at the upcanyon portion of the Project area. 

The west alignment above the County Road is dry and includes pine, madrone, and poison oak. 

In contrast, this channel below the County Road is the primary outflow point for water which has 

seeped subsurface through the fan; and as such, mature alder, willow, blackberry, and other 

species are present. The alluvial fan between the two channels encompasses an oak woodland 

with pine and other conifers.

Appendix A includes specifics in regards to biology of analysis species, as well as survey 

records. In summary (Maps 1 and 2; Tables 2 and 3):

Table 2. Summary of actual and potential occupancy by analysis species of creeks/rivers within 

7th- and 5th-field watersheds.

Species

7th-Field 5th-Field Hotelling Gulch SF Salmon River

Coho X

Chinook X

Steelhead P1 X

Resident Rainbow Trout X X

Pacific Lamprey X

Klamath River Lamprey P

X - confirmed present

P - potential presence 1

Resident rainbow trout have been observed. Origin as offspring 

of resident or steelhead successfully passing obstacles is 

unknown. 

• Lamprey species – Pacific lamprey are confirmed to be present in the Salmon River 

drainage via the Karuk rotary screw trap at the mouth of the mainstem; and elsewhere by 

direct observation. Larval lamprey, which could be Pacific or Klamath River lamprey, 

have been found as far upstream SF Salmon River as above the confluence with East 

Fork. Hotelling Gulch does not appear to provide appropriate spawning or rearing habitat 

for lamprey. See Appendix B for additional information on lamprey within the Project 

area. 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

11

Table 3. Summary of closest distance between Project activities and anadromous salmonids and 

their habitat (including critical habitat) – 7th- and 5th-field watersheds. Presented for Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) only.

Watershed Stream 

Name

Distance to Habitat 

occupied by Coho 

and CH (miles)

Distance to Habitat 

occupied by Steelhead 

Trout (miles)

Distance to Habitat 

occupied by Chinook 

(miles)

7th Field Watershed(s)

Negro Creek-SF 

Salmon River

Hotelling 

Gulch

No anadromous species currently in Hotelling Gulch - not accessible.

Habitat not considered to be CH/EFH.

Upon completion of Project activities Hotelling Gulch will be reconnected to SF 

Salmon River and subsequently re-mapped as anadromous and added to the 

CH/EFH extent.

5th Field Watershed(s)

SF Salmon River SF Salmon 

River

Closest treatment same for all species

0.0 - Water drafting

150' - Excess spoils (within Project footprint) or 0.2 - Excess spoils (terrace)

Varies - Construction activities:

● Crossing structure - 250' ● Channel fill (existing alignment) - 350' 

● West channel reconstruction/realignment - 270’

● Remnant west channel readjustment - 0'
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

12

--Existing Conditions – Analysis Indicators-- Only Indicators potentially affected by the Project and, therefore, introduced in the 

“Methodology” section, are further discussed here prior to analysis within “Environmental 

Consequences”. Indicators are generally applied only to anadromous systems. A summary of all 

discussed Indicators is presented in Table 6. See Appendix C for a list of remaining Indicators 

and their relationship to baseline conditions. 

Temperature

The SF Salmon River drainage downstream of the Garden Gulch tributary (including the Project 

area) is 303(d) listed under the Clean Water Act as impaired for water temperature. Water 

temperature on the mainstem is widely recognized as a limiting factor to salmonid production in 

this portion of the watershed. 

Hotelling Gulch has habitat to support a small resident rainbow trout upstream of the alluvial 

fan, but access conditions into the drainage and across the County Road preclude occupancy by 

anadromous fish. Therefore, this drainage is not currently considered to support anadromy within 

the Project boundary. At the conclusion of the Project, barriers to occupancy will be removed, 

and this creek will be recognized as having the potential to support anadromous species, a 

process which will include adding the stream to the KNF Critical Habitat and Essential Fish 

Habitat map extent. Therefore, while anadromous salmonids are not currently present, the status 

of the water temperatures fish will encounter once habitat has been reconnected to SF Salmon 

River is of high importance.

No monitoring of stream temperature has occurred in Hotelling Gulch, but it is believed to meet 

the criteria for “Properly Functioning” under the AP framework. In general, tributaries to 

mainstem systems in the Salmon River drainage are assumed to support a desirable temperature 

regime (USFS 1997). Spot checks of water temperature during the 2015 survey of Hotelling 

Gulch supported the AP framework requirement for water temperature, with the maximum 

reported to be 17.30C. This location was the point where water was first encountered in an 

otherwise dry channel, just above the alluvial fan; and as the survey progressed upstream, 

temperatures declined (lowest was 14.90C). Due to the drought condition, temperatures appeared 

to be greatly influenced by upwelling from subsurface flows.

A small thermal refugia may be present at the confluence of Hotelling Gulch historic channel 

and SF Salmon River. A thermal refugia is an area of cool-water input where salmonids may 

retreat when water temperatures are otherwise elevated. While a thermal refugia has not been 

documented, a zone of cooler water has been informally observed by the District Fish Biologist.

SF Salmon River typically has elevated summer water temperatures due to cumulative impacts 

of historic mining, flood scour, and other factors. The SF Salmon River is “Not Properly 

Functioning” under the AP framework. During the warm summer months when water 

temperatures in the SF Salmon River approach 200C, anadromous and resident fish rely upon 

cooler water habitat within tributary creeks and their confluence zones (thermal refugia), as well 

as upwelling from subsurface (hyporheic) flows.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

13

Turbidity

Turbidity within the Project area for Hotelling Gulch is “Properly Functioning”. Modeling of 

soil loss and risk of mass wasting in the CWE analysis (Table 4) is under the threshold of 

concern and sediment composition, especially the finest elements (<2 mm), appears to be within 

desired parameters (see “Sediment/Substrate” Indicator discussion). 

SF Salmon River turbidity is likely “Functioning-atRisk.” Although recent substrate data is not available, 

information from the 1990s indicate that the river 

includes an elevated percentage of sand and silt, 

especially in its lower reaches (USFS 1994, 1997, 

1998; unpub. data). This type of material is easily 

mobilized to the water column to create turbid 

conditions. Furthermore, the 1997 Watershed 

Assessment specifically indicates the propensity of 

the lower SF Salmon River for turbid conditions, 

especially following large events such as fire or 

landsliding (USFS 1997). The demonstration of the 

SF Salmon River to become notably muddy continues 

to the present: in December 2014, following winter 

storm events, the river was seen to be very dark, 

likely due to landsliding somewhere in the basin 

(mainstem or tributary) upstream of the Forest 

Service Petersburg Guard Station (pers. obs.; Photo 

2). In general, turbidity has been observed to require 

multiple days to clear to its normal baseline following

high water events.

Physical Barriers

Hotelling Gulch is “Not Properly Functioning” in regards to fish barriers. Specifically, the 

structure at the crossing of County Road 1C02 has been identified to be a fish barrier (Taylor, et 

al. 2002). An additional consideration in regards to barriers is the steep cascade at the mouth of 

Hotelling Gulch, as well as the alluvial fan. While not explicitly a human-built obstacle, 

antropogenic impacts have exacerbated the existing condition, which in turn affects fish 

occupancy. An additional culvert about 0.5 miles upstream of the mouth at the crossing of Forest 

Road 10N16 may be a partial fish barrier, but it has not been evaluated as to its status. 

Man-made barriers to fish occupation are not present on the mainstem SF Salmon River, and 

therefore this system is considered to be “Properly Functioning”.

Sediment/Substrate

Hotelling Gulch is considered to be “Properly Functioning”. Extensive fires in 1987 are 

believed to have detrimentally impacted Hotelling Gulch in regards to sediment, although no 

specific data is available. Settling ponds are known to have been dug at the head of the alluvial 

fan to capture fine sediment and prevent exportation to SF Salmon River. The 1997 Watershed 

Assessment mentioned Hotelling Gulch in respect to the 1987 fires, but concluded that surface 

erosion had probably returned to pre-1987 rates at the time of the report (USFS 1997). A stream 

Photo 2. Confluence of the South Fork (left) 

and North Fork (right) Salmon Rivers, 

December 2014. The SF Salmon River can 

exhibit elevated turbidity following a storm 

event.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

14

habitat survey conducted in 2015 reported fine sediment (particles <2 mm) and embeddedness to 

be within desired condition (USFS 2015). A caveat is that a substantial portion of the channel 

was dry due to drought, which undoubtedly affected the results because many substrate values 

are not collected within dry habitat units. However, the professional judgement of the District 

Fish Biologist is that larger substrate sizes dominated the system, even within dry channel 

segments, and that the values recorded are representative. Pebble counts performed upon and just 

above the alluvial fan during the Project evaluation and design process support Forest Service 

survey conclusions (Love & Associations 2016). There is no sign of remnant fire impact: 

riparian and upslope vegetation within the burn scar has recovered, and any elevated sediment 

load was removed by post-1987 high water events, returning Hotelling Gulch to its normal

baseline condition.

SF Salmon River is best characterized as “Functioning-at-Risk”. No recent substrate data is 

available for the SF Salmon River mainstem. However, data was collected at multiple locations 

in the 1990s, from mouth to headwaters. Original data and summarized datasets show a wide 

range of variability, with finer substrates and greater embeddedness values present lower river 

reaches compared to higher, including Wilderness (USFS 1994, 1997, 1998; unpub. data). In 

general, the Coho Recovery Plan for the Salmon River drainage did not find sediment delivery to 

be a significant stress to fish, with little accumulation of fine substrates in pools and channels 

(NOAA 2014). However, the document also noted that sediment loading to continue to be 

elevated in some areas, which could cause localized effects.

Large Woody Debris

All waterways in the Project area – Hotelling Gulch and SF Salmon River – are “Not Properly 

Functioning” for large woody debris. Both recent and past surveys in the Project area which 

included a large woody debris component found instream wood, as well as potential future 

recruitment, to not be at desirable levels (USFS 2015, 1998, 1997). The lack of large woody 

debris, and the subsequent detrimental effect to fish habitat, including Coho Critical Habitat, has 

been repeatedly identified to be of concern (USFS 1997; NOAA 2014). The reason behind the 

lack of desirable amounts of large woody debris is multifaceted, and has been attributed to a 

combination of timber harvest, mining, altered fire regime, historic “cleaning” (removal) of 

wood from stream channels, and scour from large flood events.

Pool Frequency and Quality

Hotelling Gulch is “Not Properly Functioning” for pool frequency and quality. Surveys 

characterizing pools were conducted in 2015 and 2016.

• The 2015 habitat survey found frequency to be less than one pool per a distance of seven 

stream bankfulls; and no primary pools were present (note: the depth for a “primary pool” 

in a system the size of Hotelling Gulch is 24 inches) (USFS 2015). This result meets “Not 

Properly Functioning” criteria. A caveat is that the survey was performed under drought 

conditions with extensive areas of dry channel. Actual pool numbers may have been 

underestimated because dry pools were not included in the final tally.

• The 2016 survey was conducted by an engineering contractor to characterize a reference 

reach as part of the design process for the Hotelling Gulch channel reconstruction. The 

reference reach was upcanyon of the alluvial fan; and the stream channel was flowing, 

unlike the conditions of the 2015 Forest Service habitat survey. The reach 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

15

characterization found frequency to be at least one pool per distance of three to seven

stream bankfull lengths, but all pools were less than 24 inches in depth (Love & 

Associates 2016). This result meets “Not Properly Functioning” criteria.

No recent comprehensive habitat surveys have been completed on the SF Salmon River. 

However, data was collected at multiple locations in the 1990s, from mouth to headwaters. 

Original data and summarized datasets show a wide range of pool frequencies dependent upon 

Rosgen channel type, substrate composition, and degree of stream confinement; and that primary 

pools (i.e., greater than 36 inches) are common (USFS 1994, 1997, 1998; unpub. data). Overall, 

the best description of the mainstem SF Salmon River appears to be “Functioning-at-Risk”.

Refugia

The determination of existing condition for refugia is a synthesis of presence and degree of 

functionality of habitat elements available for fish throughout their life history.

Hotelling Gulch is “Not Properly Functioning”. The primary subcomponent limiting the refugia 

Indicator are the multiple barriers which exist for fish to move between the SF Salmon River and 

the perennial portion of Hotelling Gulch. These barriers include the County Road culvert; 

floodplain, riparian, and seasonal water flow conditions on the alluvial fan; and access to the 

creek through the steep cascades at the mouth. Within Hotelling Gulch itself, even in the 

perennial channel, additional limitations which affect the ability of habitat to support fish include 

lack of quality pools and in-stream large woody debris. Causes for the existing condition of the 

refugia Indicator are linked to both anthropogenic (e.g., historic mining and timber harvest; 

current roading) and natural (e.g., wildfire, flood) causes. See individual Indicator subsections 

for detailed discussion, as well as Appendix C.

The SF Salmon River is considered to be “Properly Functional” for refugia. While there are 

multiple subcomponent Indicators which do not exhibit optimal condition, the river has 

demonstrated functional habitat elements to support fish throughout their life history. Decades of 

surveys, with a focus on analysis salmonid species, have observed aspects of spawning, rearing, 

and migration, as well the utilization of habitat by fish for each component of their respective life 

histories.

Width/Depth Ratio

Hotelling Gulch is considered to be “Functioning-at-Risk”. The 1997 Watershed Analysis for 

the lower SF Salmon River drainage mentions Hotelling Gulch to have poor channel stability due 

to fire, flood, and other causes; and was therefore considered to be highly sensitive to alteration 

(USFS 1997). A stream habitat survey in 2015 found Hotelling Gulch to be best described as 

having a mixture of Rosgen “A” and “G” type channels within the survey area (USFS 2015). The 

measured bankfull width/depth ratio did meet “Properly Functioning” criteria. However, it is the 

professional judgement of the District Fish Biologist that additional factors must be considered 

in the interpretation of this Indicator. These items include the CWE models under critical 

threshold, low road crossing density, lack of large woody debris, lack of pool habitat, and impact 

to the channel and alluvial fan area by influences both human and natural. Upstream of the 

alluvial fan, it is apparent that flood scour (and, likely, historic mining) has downcut the creek; 

and in many places, the channel stabilized when it encountered bedrock, boulders, and other 

substrates too large to mobilize. Upon the alluvial fan, human-modification of the channel has 

created conditions of entrenchment such that the creek is disconnected from its historic 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

16

floodplain. When all elements are taken into account, the best description of the Hotelling Gulch

appears to be “Functioning-at-Risk”.

No specific data is available for SF Salmon River in regards to the width/depth ratio Indicator. 

Of the available supplementary information which can be used in analysis of this Indicator, 

applicable CWE models are under threshold, stream crossing density is low, and there are few 

mass wasting events caused by management actions. Although pool frequency is not optimal, 

pool quality is very good, with the majority of pools able to be classified as “primary” (i.e., 

greater than 36 inches deep) (see “Pool Frequency and Quality” subsection). Large woody debris 

is not adequate. However, in a system the size and power of the SF Salmon River, it is debatable 

if debris would have a more than localized impact, even if present, because high water events are 

expected to regularly mobilize wood. If wood cannot have long-term stability, its effect upon an 

Indicator such as width/depth ratio is likely to be minimal. Sediment character is also not 

optimal, especially in the lower SF Salmon River, but it does not appear to be impacting the 

width/depth ratio due to the spring run-off discharge mobilizing the bedload on an annual basis. 

Overall, the best characterization of the mainstem SF Salmon River appears to be “Properly 

Functioning”

Streambank Condition

Hotelling Gulch is considered to be “Functioning-at-Risk” for streambank condition. Observed 

bank stability during a 2015 habitat survey was about 85% (USFS 2015). Extensive amounts of 

bedrock and boulders provide for good bank stability, with the caveat that these types of 

substrate may be what has been left following a history of flood scour and historic mining 

removing the smaller, more mobile particles. Much of the channel shows signs of incision, with 

some raveling occurring on steep upper banks which are wetted only during extreme high-water 

events. A focused assessment for Project design found the existing channel through the alluvial 

fan to be relatively unstable compared to a reference reach upstream (Love & Associates 2016). 

The 1997 Watershed Analysis for the lower SF Salmon River drainage mentions Hotelling Gulch 

to have poor channel stability due to fire, flood, and other causes; and was therefore considered 

to be highly sensitive to alteration (USFS 1997). Overall, streambank condition best fits the 

“Functioning-at-Risk” category: the existing condition is one of good stability, but the 

streambanks have been compromised from natural (pre-settlement) state, particularly in the 

alluvial fan, due to both natural and human impacts.

The streambank condition for SF Salmon River is likely “Properly Functioning” when 

considered on the scale of the 5th-field watershed. No specific data is available for this Indicator. 

The SF Salmon River is not a pristine system, and there are multiple examples of historic largescale modification from mining in the form of dredge piles, impacted bars, and berms which do 

cause a localized effect to the streambank. However, there are also extensive areas of no or 

minimal impact, such bedrock canyon reaches which were not conducive to mining and the 

Wilderness where processes are presumed to represent the natural condition. Direct impact to 

river banks by the roads is low: overall crossings are relatively few, and the County Road tends 

to be located high on the side of the canyon and/or away from the river where it cannot affect the 

stream channel. Personal observation by the District Fish Biologist indicates streambanks to 

consist largely of bedrock, boulders, or large cobbles: the Salmon River system is naturally a 

high-energy system, and high flows are a common occurrence, mobilizing smaller substrates 

from the margins, especially where historic flood scour (e.g., 1964) removed trees and normal 

high water events preclude establishment of woody vegetation. Alders and willows can be thick 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

17

in places, holding to finer substrates and assisting in streambank maintenance. There is minor 

raveling and sliding affecting streambanks, but those locales appear to be a natural occurrence.

Floodplain Connectivity

The floodplain connectivity for Hotelling Gulch is “Not Properly Functioning”. Within the 

majority of the drainage, the stream is very constrained, which means little or no floodplain 

development is possible. The natural configuration of the landscape suggests this observation

would have been true even before flood, mining, or other events contributed to channel 

modification. Therefore, the potential for floodplain development is primarily restricted to the 

alluvial fan. Upon the alluvial fan, the channel has been bermed, trenched/ditched, and otherwise 

modified over the decades in such a manner that the stream has become completely disconnected 

from its floodplain.

SF Salmon River is “Properly Functioning” in regards to floodplain connectivity. Although 

there are localized areas affected by berms and other obstacles associated with historic mining 

practices or existing human habitation, for the most part the river can inundate its floodplain as 

appropriate given a particular discharge.

Peak/Base Flow

The determination of existing condition for peak/base flows is a synthesis of ERA, road density, 

and vegetation condition. 

Hotelling Gulch is “Functioning-at-Risk” for peak/base flow. While the ERA model is below 

critical threshold for the larger 7th-field watershed, the elevated road density in Hotelling Gulch 

drainage suggests an impact may be present. Connectivity of the road system to the stream is 

seems to be minimal – most roads are located on or near ridgelines – but Forest Road 10N16 is 

near the creek for the first 0.5 mile; and there are two road crossings of the stream. While most 

of Hotelling Gulch likely exhibits a flow regime within range of “normal” for the drainage, a 

primary consideration for the Indicator is the behavior of water upon the alluvial fan. For base 

flows, the channel across the fan regularly dries by late spring due to water seeping subsurface 

through coarse, relatively unconsolidated substrates. While the natural circumstance, due to flood 

events creating the fan, may be a condition of seasonal disconnection between the SF Salmon 

River and the perennial portion of Hotelling Gulch, human-caused impacts such as historic 

mining have likely aggravated the situation. Except where subsurface water surfaces below the 

County Road, riparian vegetation on the alluvial fan is patchy and underdeveloped. The 

entrenchment of the channel also affects peak flows by preventing normal high water events 

from accessing a floodplain.

The SF Salmon River is best described as “Properly Functioning”. The ERA model is below 

critical threshold. Additionally, an assessment of the Salmon River drainage for the Coho 

Recovery Plan did not identify flows as an issue of concern in regards to the health of the aquatic 

ecosystem and its fauna; and furthermore stated “Though diversions may have localized effects, 

overall peak and low flows are thought to remain primarily unaltered in this area.” (NOAA 2014; 

quote page 35-14).

Drainage Network

Due to the complex history of the Project area, it is not possible to determine how human-caused 

impacts have increased the drainage network over pre-European conditions. In addition to road 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

18

construction to access mining and timber sites, there are many ditches and other surface 

alternations which conveyed water for mine and residential use. 

Change to the drainage network can be roughly considered in light of road density, number of 

road crossings, and overall ERA, but primarily it is an aspect of how “connected” an artificial

drainage feature (road, ditch, or other element) is to the natural hydrologic system. For instance, 

a road on a ridgetop will have less impact to the drainage network than a road adjacent a stream 

or one crossing a stream channel. The more connected a road is to the drainage network, the 

more it potentially influences hydrological regime and inputs of sediment to the stream system. 

Additionally, the gullies and ditches associated with roads can effectively increase the drainage 

length and overall hydrologic connectivity within a basin, with more water flowing through 

channels instead of via normal subsurface or overland routes. Such connectivity can impact local 

hydrologic regimes (Wemple, et al. 1996; Croke and Mockler 2001). The connectivity of 

temporary roads is determined using field review, hillslope placement and distance to a stream 

channel. 

Hotelling Gulch is best described to be “Functioning-at-Risk”. Although relevant CWE models 

are below critical threshold for the larger 7th-field watershed, the elevated road density in 

Hotelling Gulch drainage suggests an impact could be present. Connectivity of the road system 

to the stream appears to be minimal for the most part – most roads are located on or near 

ridgelines – but Forest Road 10N16 is near the creek for the first 0.5 mile. There are also two 

road crossings of Hotelling Gulch. Other considerations within the drainage include ditches 

associated with the historic hydraulic mining areas, as well as a large mid-slope flat which is part 

of an historic mine and most recently used as a County landfill.

The drainage network Indicator for SF Salmon River is likely “Properly Functioning” when 

considered on the scale of the 5th-field watershed based upon CWE modeling and professional 

judgement of the District Fish Biologist. Due to active undertakings such as stormproofing, as 

well as the natural decades of decay of unused historic ditches and roads, the anthropogenic 

increase in the SF Salmon River drainage network has undoubtedly decreased over time. Specific 

effort has been expended to improve watershed conditions in the middle and upper SF Salmon 

River drainage via road improvement activities. Projects include Summerville, Summerville 2, 

and Taylor; stormproofing or closure of individual roads identified as issues; and road 

rehabilitation actions taken within the scope of silviculture projects. Implementation largely 

occurred from late-1990 through 2000s, with some actions occurring more recently.

Disturbance History and Regime

A “Properly Functioning” disturbance regime includes stable natural processes and hydrograph, 

where high quality habitat and watershed complexity provides refuge and rearing for all life 

stages or multiple life-history forms; and all three cumulative watershed models should be below 

the “1” threshold. This description fits all 5th-field and 7th-field watersheds within the Project 

area (Table 4). Alternately, an “At-Risk” disturbance regime, the frequency, duration, and 

magnitude of disturbance events have the potential to be moderately departed from the reference 

condition due to human-mediated impacts upon the watershed; and one or two of the models 

may be over threshold. Finally, a “Not Properly Functioning” disturbance regime is described as 

a watershed with disturbance events significantly departed from reference condition as a 

consequence of past/current human activities; and all three models are over threshold. See 

Appendix B for additional information in regards to baseline Indicator determination.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

19

Of note, the Negro Creek-SF Salmon River 7th-field watershed is a “compound” watershed. A 

compound watershed is one consisting of drainages to either side of a mainstem system – such as 

SF Salmon River – which are not physically connected to each other. Individual watersheds 

within a compound system have the potential to overly influence the larger landscape model, 

especially when associated with excessive roading, intense wildfire, or other issues. In this case, 

roads and other potential impactors (natural and human) appear to be equitably distributed amid 

the various subdrainages of the compound watershed. Therefore, there is no overriding concern 

that the CWE model is not appropriately reflective of the Hotelling Gulch condition.

Table 4. Baseline and post-Project cumulative watershed models for Alternative 2.

Watershed Acres

Baseline Post-Project

ERA %ERA TOC Risk ERA %ERA Risk

7th-Field Watershed(s)

Negro Creek-SF Salmon 

River 6524 247 3.8% 8.0% 0.47 No measurable change

5th-Field Watershed(s)

SF Salmon River 185597 4871 2.6% 8.6% 0.31 No measurable change

Watershed Acres

Baseline Post-Project

USLE 

Risk

GEO 

Risk

USLE 

Risk

GEO 

Risk

7th-Field Watershed(s)

Negro Creek-SF Salmon 

River 6524 0.71 0.87 No measurable change

5th-Field Watershed(s)

SF Salmon River 185597 0.26 0.40 No measurable change

Riparian Reserves

Hotelling Gulch is characterized to be “Functioning-at-Risk”. A 2015 stream habitat survey 

measured a very good to excellent degree of effective shade cover present in most locations 

(USFS 2015). The exception was the alluvial fan where shade was not specifically assessed. 

However, professional judgement by the District Fish Biologist is that shade in this locale is 

likely poor to fair, with riparian vegetation patchy. The caveat with the Riparian Reserve 

Indicator is that other considerations than shade must be taken into account. A combination 

historic timber harvest, altered fire regime, flood events, and other natural/anthropogenic events 

have potentially affected the Riparian Reserves in a detrimental manner (USFS 1997; NOAA 

2014). The Lower SF Salmon River Watershed Assessment mentions general impacts to 

Hotelling Gulch in regards to a 1987 stand-replacing wildfire which affected riparian vegetation, 

as well as scour from the 1997 flood event (USFS 1997). At the time of the document, recovery 

through the early-seral stage was ongoing in regards to the wildfire and that vegetation had 

returned landsliding risk to its pre-1987 values. Hotelling Gulch was not specifically addressed 

in the 2014 Coho Recovery Plan, but it likely meets the same conditions as described for the 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

20

mainstem and forks, with generalized impacts to the riparian forest expected in regards to 

roading and historic mining (NOAA 2014). Recovery of the Riparian Reserve in the Project area 

is continuing and is a long-term process.

The SF Salmon River is “Functioning-at-Risk”. The Coho Recovery Plan lists “degraded 

riparian forests” as a primary stressor in the Salmon River drainage (NOAA 2014). Lack of 

riparian cover along areas of the SF Salmon River was specifically highlighted to be of concern.

Mining and an altered fire regime – increased understory fuel loading – due to timber extraction 

and long-term fire-suppression practices are described as human-mediated impacts affecting 

riparian forests. Natural disturbances include flood scour (particularly from the 1964 event), fire, 

and mass wasting events. The 1997 Watershed Assessment for lower SF Salmon River suggests 

that the riparian in the general Project area are in decent to good state, but that more 

improvement is necessary to fully meet desired condition (USFS 1997).

Table 5. Baseline for analysis Indicators for streams in the Project area.

Stream/River

TemperatureSubstrateTurbidityPhysical BarriersLarge Woody DebrisPool Frequency/QualityWidth/Depth RatioStreambank ConditionFloodplain ConnectivityRefugiaDist. History/RegimePeak/Base FlowsDrainage NetworkRiparian Reserves

Hotelling Gulch P P P NF NF NF FAR FAR NF NF FAR FAR FAR FAR

SF Salmon River NF FAR FAR P NF FAR P P P P FAR P P FAR

P - "Properly Functioning"

FAR - "Functioning-at-Risk"

NF - "Not Properly Functioning"

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action alternative, the Project will not happen and no management actions will be 

taken. Access into Hotelling Gulch habitat will continue to be very difficult to impossible 

dependent upon fish species and size of a given individual. See Table 4 for baseline CWE 

models within the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects

There will be no cumulative adverse impacts to fisheries resources from the No Action 

Alternative. Past and on-going events within or adjacent to the Project area are considered to be 

part of the existing condition.

Future foreseeable actions planned at the time of this document include Knownothing Fuels 

Reduction Project and five active mining (placer) claims along the SF Salmon River (see 

“Alternative 2” subsection for summarized descriptions). All these projects/activities share the 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

21

7th-field watershed with the Hotelling Gulch Project, but are otherwise spatially distinct in 

regards to active footprint.

Cumulative impact occurs when the effect of one project overlaps with or compounds the effects 

of another. The Hotelling Gulch Project does not influence the implementation of any nearby 

project, nor visa-versa. Therefore, without direct effects or a compounding indirect effect, there 

cannot be cumulative effects for the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct Effects

Direct effects to Coho salmon, Forest Service Sensitive species and management indicator 

species and their habitat may occur as a result of water drafting activities and/or actions taken to 

remove fish from the Project area prior to implementation. 

Water Drafting

For the Project, one drafting site – SF Salmon River – is within anadromous waters and therefore 

may affect fish and their habitat. Drafting operations can disturb staging or spawning adult fish, 

as well as impinge or entrain juveniles (Sicking 2003). Additionally, water drafting operations 

can mobilize suspended sediment to downstream aquatic habitat. Suspended sediment increases 

turbidity, exposing juvenile fish to gill damage and reduced oxygen uptake, and/or reduced 

vision and compromised feeding effectiveness. If water drafting were to occur with eggs present 

in adjacent redds, deposition of suspended sediment could fill interstices of stream bottom 

substrate, depriving incubating eggs of dissolved oxygen and resulting in their mortality. The 

drafting site is not located in association with thermal refugia.

While screening intakes can reduce effects to fingerlings and fry, minimization of impingement 

requires the use of specific mesh sizes, pumping rates, and screen areas, as outlined in the NOAA 

Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications (NOAA 2001; Sicking 2003). As described in Project 

BMPs and resource protection measures, NOAA drafting specifications will be implemented 

during project water drafting. There is a very low probability of impingement because the SF 

Salmon River location has sufficient room for adults and juveniles to distance themselves from 

the screens. It is anticipated that fish temporarily avoiding water drafting activities are not likely 

to experience a significant reduction in feeding success, nor result in a significantly higher 

probability of exposure to predators. 

For water drafting, the frequency of effects is only during actual operations. Drafting will be 

done in accordance to the NOAA Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications (NOAA 2001) and 

appropriate Project BMPs, as described Chapter 2 of the Hotelling Gulch Environmental 

Assessment. By following these specifications and considering the mobility of fish in the river, 

the effects of water drafting in fish-bearing areas is likely to have only minor, insignificant direct 

effects on anadromous and resident fish, including habitat, with no long term effects. 

Fish Relocation

Fish relocation may be necessary. Depending on timing of construction and degree of wetted 

channel, fish may need to be relocated from the construction area in one of two places:

• Existing channel, above the County Road

• Remnant historical channel, below the County Road
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

22

The potential for fish to be present is very low. Within the Project area, Hotelling Gulch above 

the County Road is expected to be dry by the time of year construction activities are anticipated 

to commence. Below the County Road, surface discharge from seasonal water sources within the 

remnant historical channel is retained for a longer period of time, but the stream is normally dry 

by summer. When water is present, the amount of flow is very low once spring run-off is 

complete; and fish access into the historical channel under existing conditions is poor.

As discussed in the “Affected Environment” section, Hotelling Gulch is not considered to be 

viable habitat for any life stage of Coho or Chinook salmon. Above the County Road, steelhead 

may be present if the appropriate discharge event occurs to allow spawning adults or rearing 

juveniles/sub-adults to pass the multiple barriers previously described. The most likely fish to be 

present above the County Road is resident rainbow trout, assuming the population survived

recent drought conditions. In the historical channel segment below the County Road, juvenile 

steelhead/rainbow trout could access the creek under the correct discharge conditions, but would 

only be found while surface water was present.

If water is present in the Project area prior to implementation, the channels will be checked for 

fish. Any individuals found will be captured via appropriate electrofishing protocol and 

relocated, as per described by the 2012 Biological Opinion for projects (such as Hotelling Gulch) 

which can be permitted under the NOAA restoration project program (NOAA 2012). The

Biological Opinion lists potential direct effects of fish relocation to be injury or mortality, but the 

expectation is very low; and that relocation activities associated with implementation of 

individual restoration projects will not significantly reduce the number of returning salmonid 

adults. Block nets and other appropriate actions will be taken to prevent channel reoccupation by 

fish should discharge levels change, such as the result of a summer thunderstorm or other 

precipitation event.

Indirect Effects

--Salmonids--

Temperature

The Project could impact stream temperature if (1) vegetation removal during alluvial fan 

channel reconstruction results in reduction in effective stream shade, and/or (2) by reductions in 

stream flow due to water drafting.

Channel Reconstruction

Hoteling Gulch vegetation within the Project area will be impacted by Project activities. Along 

the historical channel alignment below the County Road, most alder trees and brush on the east 

side of the channel within the riparian corridor will be removed for equipment access and 

floodplain/channel reconstruction. Most trees on the west side of the channel will be retained for 

reasons of shade maintenance and habitat complexity, but some may be removed for reasons 

related to safety and channel construction. Above the County Road, trees (conifers, madrone) 

along the historical channel alignment planned for reconstruction will be cut. For the existing 

alignment, it is necessary to remove all organics, including willows and riparian brush, prior to 

beginning activities to plug the channel.

The potential thermal refugia area at the mouth of the historic Hotelling Gulch channel will not 

be affected during or after construction. During the summer months when SF Salmon River 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

23

temperatures are elevated, Hotelling Gulch is dry; and cool-water input originates from 

subsurface seepage. Alteration of surface shade will not affect subsurface water temperature and, 

thus, the thermal refugia will retain its current status.

Hotelling Gulch water temperature will not be impacted during implementation. Both the 

existing and historical channel are dry during the summer. Because there is no water and, 

therefore, no fish within the Project area, a decrease in effective shade will affect neither water 

temperature nor fish. Downstream impacts, and lack thereof, are discussed above in association 

with thermal refugia.

There will be no effect to Hotelling Gulch water temperature or fish in the months following 

construction activities. Reconnection of the perennial portion of the creek with SF Salmon River 

is not expected until late-fall or early-winter. It is at this point that storm events will have 

provided sufficient rain/snow for subsurface water in the alluvial fan to rise high enough to 

permit surface water. The historical channel is likely to reconnect earlier than the current channel 

because reconstruction will result in a streambed which is lower than what is presently existing. 

Nonetheless, but the time reconnection occurs, potential impact to fish will not be of concern due 

to seasonal declines in air and water temperature.

Insignificant temperature effects are most likely in the first several seasons following Project 

implementation. One desired outcome of the Project is for a longer season of surface flow be 

present across the alluvial fan and in the channel below the County Road. Depending on how 

long Hotelling Gulch stays on the surface (see “Barrier” and “Peak/Base Flow” subsections), an 

impact to water temperature may or may not occur. If a wetted channel persists into summer, 

particularly across the alluvial fan, water temperatures will elevate due to a construction-related 

reduction in shade. However, the effect to fish and fish habitat will be minimal: during the 

hottest portion of the year, the channel is still likely to dry, which will render surface water 

temperature irrelevant. 

Any impact to Hotelling Gulch water temperature will begin to diminish within two to three 

years as riparian vegetation re-establishes and grows large enough to provide effective stream 

shade (USFS 2016a). Downstream of the County Road, the trees on the west bank will provide 

partial shade as alders, willows, blackberries, and other vegetation redevelop. Upstream of the 

County Road, willows salvaged from the existing channel will be transplanted; and while 

survivability is expected to be low, some of the transplants should reroot. New vegetation may 

be planted in the spring following construction, if need is identified. Because the alluvial fan 

habitat is drier compared to below the County Road, riparian vegetation will require longer to reestablish, but in the end it is expected to be similar to what is currently present in the existing 

historical segment (Love & Associates 2016). Long term, the expected increase in riparian shade 

is expected to benefit water temperature during those times of the year, especially summer, when 

water is on the surface.

Expectation is for three to five mature trees (oak, alder) to be removed adjacent to the SF 

Salmon River at or near the mouth of the historical Hotelling Gulch channel. Removal of these 

trees is necessary for Project personnel safety, to facilitate equipment access, and for 

floodplain/channel reconstruction activities. While shade to the SF Salmon River will be reduced 

within the immediate area, impact to water temperature is discountable because of the river’s 

large flow volume and the small length of affected shoreline.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

24

Water Drafting

Water drafting results in minor short-term reductions in stream flow during operations. 

Implementation of drafting consistent with NOAA specifications ensures that project drafting 

will not remove greater than 10% of stream flow at a site within anadromous habitat. Drafting 

from SF Salmon River will not have any meaningful impact within range of anadromy to 

temperature due to the stream’s large size and flow volume which would render any short-term 

changes in flow (which would be less than 10% reduction) due to drafting as insignificant to 

overall stream temperature. Additionally, the water drafting site avoids thermal refugia.

Summary

There will be no measureable effect to stream temperature from channel reconstruction activities 

during implementation because Hotelling Gulch channel will be dry and the shade decrease over 

the SF Salmon River will be minimal. Hotelling Gulch may experience an insignificant increase 

in water temperature post-implementation, but the effect will diminish in two or three years as 

effective shade is re-established. Long term, there would be benefits to shade and associated 

stream temperature as the Project is likely to increase ground and surface water connections in 

riparian and floodplain areas. The project will have a minor, short-term effect to stream flow 

during water drafting operations on the SF Salmon River. However, the effects are not likely to 

have any detectable change to stream temperature or have any meaningful impact to fish habitat 

due to the river’s large size and flow volume. Additionally, thermal refugia will be avoided.

Turbidity and Substrate/Sediment

Because turbidity and substrate/sediment Indicators are similar facets of a larger sediment 

component, they will be discussed together.

-----

The Project could impact turbidity and substrate/sediment Indicator values due to (1) work 

associated with the Hotelling Gulch channel reconstruction, and/or (2) water drafting within an 

active stream channel.

Channel Reconstruction

Project activities will affect the focus Indicators for Hotelling Gulch and SF Salmon River. 

Ground-disturbing work will occur throughout the Project footprint, including reconstruction of 

the historic alignment, in-filling of the existing channel, and stockpiling of excess material. 

Management of erosion, including turbidity and the mobilization of fine sediment, is recognized 

as a potential challenge for this Project during and after channel reconstruction activities (Love 

& Associates 2016).

Instream activities produce both short- and long-term effects in regards to turbidity/suspended 

sediment production. A conceptual model includes two main phases: (1) a pulse of suspended 

sediment associated with construction activities, and (2) continued erosion of fine particles from 

disturbed banks until such time that vegetation stabilizes the soil (Sear, et al. 1998). The initial 

suspended sediment release is expected to be short-term, amount of suspended sediment rapidly 

dropping to pre-construction levels both in time and space (Sear, et al. 1998; Madej 2001; Brown

2002; Foltz and Yanosek 2005). There are few studies examining the effects of large 

construction projects upon water quality parameters such as turbidity. One example is 

monitoring of Phase I of the Kissimmee River restoration project in Florida, a much larger 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

25

undertaking compared to Hotelling Gulch, where relatively minimal increases in turbidity was 

found throughout the span of implementation, with a return to baseline within months of project 

completion (Colangelo and Jones 2005). Observations of channel dewatering activities have 

confirmed that turbidity drops within hours after instream work has been completed (D. 

Flickinger, pers. comm.); and the KNF programmatic Facilities Maintenance and Watershed 

Restoration Biological Assessment included consultation upon minor instream activities such as 

culvert replacement, determining that turbidity was undetectable beyond a distance of 300 feet 

(USFS 2004). Most erosion occurs in the first few high water events following channel work, 

with long-term stabilization occurring once appropriate vegetation grows (Madej 2001; Sear, et 

al. 1998). However, residual increases over background may remain due to erosion of exposed 

surfaces and resuspension of settled matter (Brown 2002; Foltz and Yanosek 2005).

The incidence of fine sediment (sands/silts) and turbidity within fish-occupied SF Salmon River 

during in-stream construction activities is expected to be minimal to undetectable. Hotelling 

Gulch in the Project area will be dry during implementation, either due to active dewatering or 

from seasonal channel drying. Turbidity occurs when water mobilizes very fine substrate 

particles; and without flowing water, there can be no turbidity. An erosion and sediment control 

plan will also be developed prior to Project implementation. One of the primary purposes of the 

plan will be to minimize turbidity, and will address topics such as erosion control in association 

with stockpiles and raw, unvegetated surfaces; manage ground water when it is encountered 

during excavation; and manage increases in channel discharge during summer thunderstorms and 

other precipitation events.

Turbidity and the mobilization of fine sediments is most likely to occur following completion of 

the Project, especially following storm events during the first winter after Hotelling Gulch 

reconnects to SF Salmon River. Therefore, it is assumed that there will be a temporary increase 

in turbidity within Hotelling Gulch and adjacent SF Salmon River following channel rewatering, 

as well as a short-term increase in sand/silt mobilization. 

Neither substrate/sediment nor turbidity Indicators will become sufficiently elevated postImplementation to negatively affect fish or fish habitat, including food sources. Due to the 

volume of SF Salmon River compared to Hotelling Gulch, the visual observation of turbidity,

when present, in the mainstem is unlikely to be large in linear extent. The elevation of turbidity 

during storm events will be short-term, returning to baseline by the first year post-construction, if 

not sooner. Similarly, while there may be an insignificant to unmeasurable exportation of fine 

sediment, it will not alter the current substrate composition of SF Salmon River, nor have an 

effect on fish habitat parameters such as pool quality or width/depth ratio. The occurrence of fine 

sediment mobilization will decrease as riparian vegetation regrows along Hotelling Gulch (USFS 

2016a).

Within Hotelling Gulch, it is expected post-construction that there will be both a short-term 

negative impact, as well as a long-term benefit to the substrate/sediment Indicator. Erosion, as 

described above, will occur in the seasons after implementation. The reference reach upon which 

the reconstruction will be based has a slightly coarser substrate composition compared to the 

existing channel, especially in regard to the boulder classes (Love & Associates 2016). Because 

of the relatively small size of Hotelling Gulch and the normally low volume of water, there may 

be an initial measurable adjustment to sediment composition within the reconstructed channel. 

This response is expected and normal. Amount of sediment within the sand/silt classes, while it 

has the potential to detrimentally affect newly constructed fish habitat, should not be enough to 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

26

meaningfully affect pool volume nor width/depth ratio of the channel; and mobilization of fine 

sediment from upland and riparian areas will decrease as vegetation re-establishes. It is 

anticipated that fine sediment will promote the streambed sealing process, a beneficial action 

which will contributing towards the delay in seasonal channel drying (see “Peak/Base Flow”

discussion).

Water Drafting

When drafting from SF Salmon River, a small plume of suspended sediment is expected during 

operations, particularly when hose is set into and pulled from the water. As discussed in the 

Direct Effects section, turbidity will be localized, minimal in extent and duration, with the most 

likely fish behavior to be one of avoidance. No measurable increase in turbidity or bed load is 

expected beyond the immediate area where drafting occurs. Turbidity associated with similar 

water drafting has been observed to be momentary, localized, and quickly dissipating to 

background conditions. It is unlikely that the small, ephemeral plumes of sediment produced in 

the immediate area where drafting occurs might expose fish, including Coho salmon, to gill 

damage, reduced oxygen uptake, reduced vision, or compromised feeding because the expected 

behavioral response of fish is avoidance and their ability to sufficiently avoid the disturbance 

likely.

Summary

There will be an insignificant degree of turbidity during Project implementation and for a short 

time (months) post-construction once Hotelling Gulch reconnects to SF Salmon River. Turbidity 

is only expected to occur during and after storm events. Any turbidity is not likely to be of 

sufficient intensity to negatively affect fish or fish habitat. Turbidity is expected to return to 

normal in less than a year, as vegetation re-establishes. Effects to turbidity from water drafting 

will be localized, minimal in extent and duration, with the most likely fish behavior to be one of 

avoidance.

There will be an insignificant short-term effect of the Project in regards to substrate/sediment 

composition. Fine sediment is expected to mobilize from recently disturbed surfaces following 

construction. However, there will be no measurable impact to fish habitat within the SF Salmon 

River, and the reconstructed Hotelling Gulch channel will be insignificantly affected. Long-term, 

erosion will decrease as vegetation re-establishes. There may be an insignificant benefit from the 

fine sediment in Hotelling Gulch because sands/silts will promote the streambed sealing process, 

thereby contributing towards delay of seasonal channel drying across the alluvial fan.

Physical Barriers

The primary purpose of the Hotelling Gulch Project is to reconnect the perennial portion of 

Hotelling Gulch with SF Salmon River. This will include upgrading the County Road crossing 

with a structure passable by aquatic organisms at all normal (i.e., non-extreme [dry or flood]) 

discharge conditions, as well as modify the mouth and alluvial fan to facilitate access and 

provide a higher quality of habitat. Additionally, natural watershed processes associated with 

sediment regime and woody debris transport will be restored. While these actions will 

significantly improve the ability of Hotelling Gulch to support anadromous and residential fish, it 

will not be possible to upgrade drainage status to “Properly Functioning”. The upstream limit of 

fish distribution in Hotelling gulch may be constrained by the culvert crossing of Forest Road 

10N16, a distance of ~0.5 mile. Above this point there is at least another ~0.3 mile of possible 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

27

habitat, which may expand further in non-drought years. This latter culvert requires assessment 

to determine if it is a partial or complete barrier.

Large Woody Debris

The Project will impart an insignificant detrimental effect to large woody debris during Project 

implementation. In the short- and long-term following Project completion, large wood within the 

Project area, and the processes which rely upon the debris, will be benefited.

Downed wood of all sizes is very important component of stream systems. It provides cover for 

fish and other animals, adds nutrients to the system as it decays, and provides a food substrate for 

the aquatic invertebrates at the base of the food chain. For smaller, steeper forested headwater 

creeks, wood is also a critical element in formation and enhancement of pool habitat (Naiman, et 

al. 2002; Montgomery, et al. 1995); and even the smallest wood pieces (e.g., trunk segments and 

limbs) display a function in sediment storage and step-pool enhancement for headwater systems 

(Naiman, et al. 2002; Jackson and Strum 2002). While all wood is important for the aquatic 

environment, the largest pieces of wood, called key wood, often serve as the “key” pieces of a 

debris jam, the point around which other, smaller debris catch up against. What comprises key 

wood is highly variable and is often dependent on a given stream, with elements such as length 

of wood versus bankfull width, presence or absence of a rootwad, and diameter of debris 

important considerations. Therefore, Hotelling Gulch needs a smaller debris size to provide 

significant habitat maintenance compared to that required by the much larger SF Salmon River. 

Recruitment to the stream and transportation of wood to fish-occupied waters are also important 

components to ensuring wood is available as a habitat component.

Trees – living and dead – will be removed as a consequence of the Project. The primary area of 

tree removal includes the historic channel (1) on the east side of the riparian corridor below the 

County Road and (2) the alignment above the County Road. Some trees may be removed during 

the plugging of the existing channel, but numbers are expected to be small. Amount of already 

down wood which must be moved within the ground-disturbing portion of the Project footprint is 

minimal.

By removing trees adjacent to Hotelling Gulch and SF Salmon River, a detrimental consequence 

is that the Project also removes the potential of those trees to eventually recruit to the system as 

large woody debris. The paucity of large wood in the aquatic system is well established as a 

substantial issue in regards to fish habitat complexity (NOAA 2014; USFS 1997). Note that the 

historical channel trees upstream of the County Road are irrelevant because of the lack of a 

transportation method to reach the SF Salmon River. Similarly, the potential of wood which may 

be associated with the existing channel is very small because Siskiyou County Road crews will 

cut up and remove in-stream or near-stream material which might threaten the County Road 

crossing; and, therefore, it is generally unavailable for recruitment except during the highest 

flows (which overtop the County Road). However, alders and other trees downstream of the 

County Road do currently have the potential to contribute to future large wood recruitment; and 

tree removal eliminates that potential.

Transportation of all wood sizes will experience an immediate benefit upon completion of the 

Project. The road crossing structure to be installed at the historical alignment will accomplish 

more than provide suitable access for aquatic organisms into Hotelling Gulch. Design 

considerations will also take into account the need to accommodate stream processes, including 

the passage of wood through the crossing (Love & Associates 2016). “Wood” can include trees 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

28

which naturally fall into the creek, as well as any material incorporated into constructed channel 

structures which subsequently mobilizes. The largest pieces may still be removed from the 

channel if determined to threaten the crossing structure, but most debris should be free to be 

transported to SF Salmon River in a manner which is not possible under existing conditions.

Trees removed during construction activities will be saved for incorporation into various project 

elements. As appropriate, salvaged trees will be used as a component of pool structures, as 

general in-stream wood, or as floodplain (terrestrial) coarse woody debris habitat. Therefore, 

most trees removed during channel reconstruction will not be lost from the pool of potential 

recruits, and will instead be artificially “recruited” to Hotelling Gulch. Furthermore, trees above 

the County Road which had no possibility of becoming part of the large woody debris population 

will become an aquatic habitat component.

In the very long-term, channel realignment and reconstruction will benefit future production of 

woody debris. One of the expected results of the Project is for the development of a riparian area 

across the alluvial fan which is similar to that currently present below the County Road (Love 

and Associates 2016). This means that the potential for Hotelling Gulch to produce large and 

small wood will be expanded. While alders are likely to be the primary tree component in the 

near future for large debris, conifers are expected to propagate in the longer term. Conifers are 

generally preferred over species like alders due to larger potential maximum size and longer instream longevity (Naiman, et al. 2002). The development of a riparian capable of supplying large 

wood is a process which will require decades (large alders) to over a century (conifers), and is 

dependent upon occurrence of detrimental events such as large flood. However, channel 

reconstruction will produce a system which is more resilient to extreme events, and is therefore 

more likely to move towards a mature riparian compared to the existing condition.

Pool Frequency and Quality

Channel reconstruction will benefit Hotelling Gulch in regards to the pool frequency and quality 

Indicator. While not specifically separated out for analysis, a thalwag profile survey completed 

during the Project design process suggests that pool features within the existing channel where it 

crosses the alluvial fan are rare (Love & Associates 2016). By moving Hotelling Gulch to its 

historic alignment and reconstructing the channel, the frequency and quality of pools will be

enhanced. The improvement will be measureable, but not necessarily significant enough to 

warrant a designation of full restoration. This is because Hotelling Gulch continues to be a highly 

impacted system, due to causes both natural and anthropogenic. The reference reach used to 

build the reconstruction template is far from “undisturbed”, and undoubtedly has been impacted 

within recent (<100 years) times, although to a much lesser extent than the fan. As mentioned in 

the “Existing Conditions” section, the reference reach meets desired pool frequency, but quality 

of pools is deficient; and, therefore, it is expected that Hotelling Gulch will retain its “Not 

Properly Functioning” status. The lack of large woody debris within the drainage is likely a 

contributor to this limitation (see “Large Woody Debris” discussion). However, the purpose of 

the Project is not to return Hotelling Gulch to a pre-settlement state, but rather create an 

increased degree of functionality in regards to connectivity and fish habitat. The channel 

reconstruction, including creation of pools that incorporate wood and rock features, will 

successfully accomplish this goal.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

29

There will be no effect to the SF Salmon River concerning the pool Indicator because there will 

be no in-stream construction and there will be insufficient sediment input during or after 

construction to affect channel configuration.

Refugia

The Project will significantly benefit the refugia Indicator for Hotelling Gulch. Channel 

reconstruction within the historical alignment will positively affect the following key fish habitat 

Indicators (see individual discussions for specifics): temperature, barriers, substrate, pool 

frequency and quality, streambanks, floodplain connectivity, peak/base flows, and Riparian 

Reserves. Some benefits will be observable immediately following Project completion, while 

other responses will require short-term (months), long-term (years), or very long-term (decades) 

to fully transpire. Restoration will not be entire, in that Hotelling Gulch as a whole will continue 

to be impacted by past and current stressors. However, the purpose of the Project is not to fully 

restore Hotelling Gulch, but rather create an increased degree of functionality in regards to 

connectivity and fish habitat. This Project is expected to be sufficiently successful in 

accomplishing that goal to move Hotelling Gulch from “Not Properly Functioning” to 

“Functioning-at-Risk” within the Indicator matrix for refugia.

There will be no effect to the SF Salmon River concerning refugia because the individual 

subcomponents which comprise the Indicator will not be significantly affected by Project 

actions; and where there may be an insignificant and/or immeasurable effect, it has been 

determined that any impact will be short in duration and neutral in the long-term.

Width/Depth Ratio

Channel reconstruction will benefit Hotelling Gulch in regards to width/depth ratio. The 

existing condition across the alluvial fan is one of entrenchment. Without a functional floodplain, 

the creek is narrower and deeper than is normal for a stream of its size. By moving Hotelling 

Gulch to its historic alignment and reconstructing both streambed and floodplain, the state of 

severe entrenchment will be eliminated. The improvement will be measureable, but not 

necessarily significant enough to warrant a designation of full restoration. This is because 

Hotelling Gulch continues to be a highly impacted system, due to causes both natural and 

anthropogenic. The reference reach used to build the reconstruction template is far from 

“undisturbed”, and undoubtedly has been downcut within recent (<100 years) times, although to 

a much lesser extent than the fan. However, it does exhibit a less disturbed condition in 

comparison to the existing channel. The purpose of the Project is not to return Hotelling Gulch to 

a pre-settlement state, but rather create an increased degree of functionality in regards to 

connectivity and fish habitat. The channel reconstruction, including width/depth ratio, will 

successfully accomplish this goal.

There will be no effect to the SF Salmon River concerning the width/depth ratio Indicator 

because there will be no in-stream construction, bank modification will be minimal, and there 

will be insufficient sediment input during or after construction to affect channel configuration.

Streambank Condition

Channel reconstruction will benefit the streambank condition Indicator for Hotelling Gulch. The 

existing channel across the alluvial fan exhibits streambanks less stable and less well developed 

compared to other locations within the drainage. This observation is typical of channelization, 

whereupon stream power concentrates erosion upon the banks and the channel bed. Although 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

30

bank substrates are fairly large and may even appear “stable”, lacking is the ability of the creek 

to retain smaller substrates upon its banks, a process which is necessary to facilitate healthy 

floodplain development, establishment of riparian vegetation, and create habitat complexity for 

aquatic organisms. Moving Hotelling Gulch to its historic alignment and reconstructing the 

channel, including the addition of a floodplain, will enhance functionality of the streambank 

component. In the short-term during and immediately after construction, the streambanks may be 

more erosion-prone. However, the site will stabilize as vegetation will re-establishes in the 

months and years post-implementation. In the long-term, the bank is expected display higher 

stability compared to the existing condition, as well as exhibit a higher functionality in regards to 

biotic and abiotic processes.

There will be no measurable effect to the SF Salmon River concerning the streambank condition 

Indicator. Except at the confluence of Hotelling Gulch, Project activities will avoid the river 

bank. Modification the mouth area may be required to facilitate fish access. Presence of bedrock 

will maintain stability, even if configuration is slightly altered. Total length of bank potentially 

affected is less than 40 feet.

Floodplain Connectivity

Channel reconstruction will significantly benefit the floodplain connectivity Indicator for 

Hotelling Gulch. The existing channel is channelized and does not exhibit a functional 

floodplain through the alluvial fan. Floodplains, even the minimal ones found in montane and 

higher gradient streams, are important for sediment retention; storage of nutrients and organics; 

as a link between upland, riparian, and stream habitat; and other ecological services (Bellmore 

2011; Hupp, et al. 2010). The realignment of Hotelling Gulch to its historical channel will 

include construction of a floodplain. This floodplain, while small and physically restricted due to 

the presence of alluvial fan material, will nonetheless restore a degree of functionality. 

Restoration will not be entire, in that Hotelling Gulch as a whole will continue to possess a 

floodplain impacted by events which have altered the underlying channel condition. However, 

this Project is sufficient to move Hotelling Gulch from “Not Properly Functioning” to 

“Functioning-at-Risk” within the Indicator matrix. 

There will be no effect to the SF Salmon River concerning the floodplain Indicator because 

there are minimal floodplain elements associated with the river within the Project footprint, and 

construction activities will not impact these features.

Peak/Base Flow

The peak/base flow Indicator could be affected by the Project in the following manner: (1) 

beneficial response following channel reconstruction; and/or (2) during water drafting.

Channel Reconstruction

Channel reconstruction will benefit Hotelling Gulch in regards to the peak/base flow Indicator.

For base flow, one of the desired outcomes of the Project is for the creek to maintain flow 

through the alluvial fan for a longer period of time compared to the existing condition. With a 

streambed composed of a high porosity coarse substrate and exhibiting an elevation that is higher 

than the low drainage point (e.g., remnant historical channel below the County Road), the 

existing alignment typically dries by late spring. The historical channel aligns with the low point 

through the alluvial fan; and channel reconstruction will build a streambed which will be much 

closer to local groundwater elevation. During summer, water may still go subsurface, but such is 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

31

normal behavior due to the coarse nature of the fan. The incorporation of finer substrates into the 

constructed bedload will in-fill some channel porosity and further assist in maintaining surface 

flow. One of the anticipated results of normalizing flows closer to expected behavior is for the 

development of a riparian area across the alluvial fan which is similar to the vegetation currently 

below the County Road (Love and Associates 2016).

High flows will also be benefited by the Hotelling Gulch Project. While frequency of high flow 

events and discharge quantity will not be altered, how those flows affect the alluvial fan will be 

modified. The existing channel is so deeply entrenched that there is no functional floodplain and 

only the largest flood events are able to overtop the channelized reach. Channel realignment will 

include the construction of a floodplain. A floodplain will (1) allow high water to dissipate 

energy by being able to leave the channel and spread out upon the adjacent landscape; and (2) 

provide a location for sediment, nutrients, and wood transported by high water to be deposited, 

thereby enhancing the local habitat.

Water Drafting

At the site level, water drafting will occur in the SF Salmon River. Therefore, there is the 

potential for short-term, indirect effects. Water drafting will result in only slight temporary 

decreases in flow, which will be undetectable a short distance downstream because pumping rate 

will not exceed 350 gallons per minute (or 10% of the flow of any anadromous stream) and 

pumping is done in short periods. In large systems, flows are not measurably affected by typical 

short-term drafting operations such as those required to fill a water tender (Sicking 2003).

Additionally, as analyzed in the Facility Maintenance and the Facilities Maintenance and 

Watershed Restoration BA, the effects of water drafting are considered insignificantly small 

(USFS 2004).

Summary

There will be a post-implementation benefit to peak/base flows within the Project area. Flow 

behavior will be normalized: water may still go subsurface during the summer, but the period the 

channel is wetted will be closer to what is expected given the coarse substrate nature of the 

alluvial fan. Additionally, the construction of a floodplain will provide a location for high flows 

to dissipate energy and deposit transported sediment, nutrients, and wood. 

Water drafting to support Project implementation will result in a temporary decrease in flow 

within the SF Salmon River, the effects of which are considered insignificantly small to fish and 

fish habitat.

Drainage Network

The Project will benefit Hotelling Gulch in regards to the drainage network Indicator. A critical 

component of Project activities will be to plug the existing Hotelling Gulch channel. Although 

the amount of channel to be reconstructed is similar to the amount of channel to be abandoned, 

the nature of the two channels is very different. The existing channel is entrenched, has no 

functional floodplain, and otherwise closely resembles a ditch. Hotelling Gulch through the 

alluvial fan has been modified other the years by Siskiyou County and Forest Service to maintain 

its alignment; and it is likely small-scale mining activities have also contributed to its current 

condition. In comparison, the new channel will be constructed based upon the template of a 

reference reach selected to provide functional fish habitat. Additionally, there will be 

replacement of an undersized culvert structure with infrastructure appropriately sized to 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

32

accommodate local hydrologic processes. Overall, while the amount of human-built drainage 

network within the Hotelling Gulch drainage will not measurably change, the quality of what is 

present will be insignificantly altered in a beneficial manner.

Disturbance History and Regime

Ground disturbance within the Project area will include the following activities: reconstruction of 

the historical alignment, in-filling of the existing channel, and stockpiling of excess material. 

Additionally, a bypass will be built adjacent to the crossing structure upgrade site to allow traffic 

to detour around the work area. The bypass will be removed when it is no longer required.

Disturbance indices will not increase as a result of Project implementation (Table 4; USFS 

2016a, b). Therefore, there will be no change in the existing risk represented by the respective 

CWE models at either the 5th- or 7th-field watershed level. All drainages will remain below the 

“1” threshold of concern.

Within the Project area, more than CWE models should be considered when discussing the 

disturbance Indicator. The Hotelling Gulch alluvial fan and adjacent vicinity have been greatly 

altered by past human actions, most notably hydraulic and placer mining; and the general area 

continues to be affected by recent and current activities such as recreation (i.e., Hotelling Gulch 

campground), small-scale mining (i.e., panning, sluicing, dredging [not currently allowed]), and 

a County landfill (closed 1995 [EPA 2016]). Investigations completed during the development of 

the Project were inconclusive as to the cause of the avulsion. However, it was suggested that 

some form of the existing alignment was likely to have been present prior to the avulsion, and 

that it would have been created via historical mining (Love & Associates 2016). By 

implementing the Project, Hotelling Gulch will be reintroduced to its historical channel; and 

while it is unknown what the alignment may have been prior to large-scale mining, it is the most 

“natural” placement available. By executing the realignment, constructing a more natural 

channel form, and plugging the existing channel, the Project will address some of the legacy 

effects associated with human impact to the Hoteling Gulch drainage.

Riparian Reserves

The Project could impact the Riparian Reserves Indicator due to (1) work associated with the 

Hotelling Gulch channel reconstruction, and/or (2) water drafting.

Channel Reconstruction

The Project will benefit the Riparian Reserves Indicator for Hotelling Gulch. Channel 

reconstruction will affect the following principal subcomponent Indicators (see individual 

discussions for specifics): temperature, large woody debris, floodplain connectivity, and 

peak/base flows. There is potential for short-term negative impacts to temperature and large 

woody debris during and/or immediately after implementation. However, all Indicators are 

anticipated to exhibit long-term improvements in the months to years following completion of 

construction. One of the expected results of the Project is for the development of a riparian area 

across the alluvial fan which is similar to that currently present below the County Road (Love & 

Associates 2016). This outcome will be an improvement upon the patchy and underdeveloped 

riparian vegetation found in the existing channel. The overall benefit to Riparian Reserves of 

Hotelling Gulch is insignificant when considered at the landscape level due to the confounding 

influence of past natural and anthropogenic events. However, the purpose of the Project is not to 

fully restore Hotelling Gulch, but rather create an increased degree of functionality in regards to 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

33

connectivity and fish habitat. The improvement of local Riparian Reserves character is a step 

towards long-term recovery of this habitat element.

There will be no effect to the SF Salmon River concerning Riparian Reserves because the 

individual subcomponents which comprise the Indicator will not be significantly affected by 

channel reconstructin; and where there may be an insignificant and/or immeasurable effect, it has 

been determined that any impact will be short in duration and neutral in the long-term.

Water Drafting

Water drafting will involve use of the existing access road and approach. Brushing, grading, and 

rocking of the existing access road and approach will impart effects on Riparian Reserves that 

remain confined to the road prism and immediately adjacent vegetation. Brushing of the 

approach will provide for vehicle passage only, and will therefore not significantly alter effective 

canopy shade in Riparian Reserves. There will be no long-term effects to Riparian Reserves from 

drafting because all effects associated with use of the drafting site will be localized, short term, 

and occur at only one existing site on the SF Salmon River. Therefore, water drafting may have 

insignificantly small localized effects, but will not affect the functional level of the Riparian 

Reserve indicator.

Summary

Project activities will have both a short-term and a long-term effect to Riparian Reserves. In the 

short-term, some of the individual components which comprise the Riparian Reserves Indicator 

will impart an insignificant, localized effect. In the long-term, channel reconstruction activities 

are expected to provide a benefit via the development and expansion of riparian vegetation 

across the alluvial fan. The improvement of local Riparian Reserves character is not significant 

on a drainage level, but it is a step towards long-term recovery of this habitat element in the SF 

Salmon River.

--Lamprey--

For lamprey, indirect effects to habitat are anticipated to be similar to those listed for salmonids. 

Additional focus herein is upon changes in substrate composition and the potential effect to 

ammocoetes (larvae). Because the larvae of both lamprey species require patches of soft sand or 

mud in which to burrow, actions that measurably increase or decrease these materials has the 

potential to affect local distribution and abundance of ammocoetes. However, such is unlikely to 

occur as a result of the Project. As analyzed for salmonids, alteration to substrate composition 

expected to be insignificant (Hotelling Gulch) to undetectable (SF Salmon River). Therefore, 

material suitable for ammocoete rearing will continue to be available at its current levels.

More important than the effect of individual project components to lamprey is the effect of the 

Project to stream habitat as a whole. Maintenance of lamprey habitat and abundance best occurs 

in a heterogeneous system, one which encompasses complex instream features at multiple spatial 

scales (Torgensen and Close 2004). The Project will maintain a complex habitat for salmonids; 

and in doing so, will also benefit lamprey at all life stages. Within Hotelling Gulch, channel 

reconstruction is unlikely to change the existing condition in regards to lamprey habitat 

availability: habitat is unsuitable to support rearing ammocoetes; and while spawning substrate

may be available upon the alluvial fan, successful development of eggs is unlikely to occur due 

to seasonal channel drying.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

34

--Killer Whale (Orca)--

Killer whale (Orca) are marine mammals, and the largest members of the dolphin family. The 

southern resident killer whale (SWKW) population is recognized as the J, K, and L pods, 

normally found in the inland waterways of Washington state and the transboundary waters 

between the United States and Canada. Recent satellite tagging has shown that some members of 

the southern population may be found as far south as central California during the winter months. 

Southern resident Orca are fish-eaters. Therefore, potential prey fish of interest would be 

anadromous salmonid species such as Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and steelhead. Activities 

which measurably affect availability of these species as food could lead to an impact to Orca.

This Aquatic Resource Report concludes effects to anadromous fish habitat to be insignificant. A 

summary of potential Project effects upon fish is provided at the end of this document. For killer 

whale, the determination is “No Effect”. While the Project has the potential to result in lethal 

take of steelhead if individuals must be removed from the construction area prior to 

implementation, NOAA has determined the probability for mortality to be low and would not 

result in an impact to the number of adult fish (NOAA 2012). The Project is expected to increase 

local habitat for anadromous fish, although number of fish to be benefitted would be too low to 

impart a discernable increase to prey availability for Orca. Overall, without a measurable change 

in food-fish species numbers, there can be no effect to Orca.

.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

35

Table 6. Summary of the effects of each Indicator on salmonid fish of Alternative 2 of the 

Hotelling Gulch Project for project element/indicator combinations. Indicator applies to both 

anadromous and resident fish, unless specified otherwise.

Indicators

Site 

Construction 

Activities

Water 

Drafting

Excess Spoils

(terrace) Comments

Temperature -/+ -/0 0

Potential short-term impact to Hotelling Gulch due to 

change in stream shade; insufficient change in flow 

(drafting) to affect fish-occupied waters. (USFS 2016a)

Turbidity -/0 -/0 0

Turbidity may be present during and for a short time 

following stream reconstruction and drafting activities; 

long-term, turbidity will return to baseline. (USFS 2016a)

Chemical 

Contamination 0 0 0 No chemical treatments will be used; BMPs for fuel use

Nutrients 0 0 0 No fertilizers or nutrient treatments will be used

Physical Barriers +/S+ 0 0 Structure upgrade and channel reconstruction 

benefits fish by removing barriers.

Substrate -/+ 0 0

Fine sediments may be mobilized during and for a short 

time after stream reconstruction activities. Erosion will 

decrease long-term; and sands/silts may contribute towards 

sealing the streambed and increasing flow duration. (USFS 

2016a)

Large Woody 

Debris -/+ 0 0

Project activities will decrease potential LWD recruitment. 

In the short- and long-term after implementation, LWD 

recruitment, transportation, and presence will be benefited.

Pool Frequency 

and Quality 0/+ 0 0

Channel reconstruction will create new pool 

habitat and increase quality compared to 

existing conditions.

Off-Channel 

Habitat 0 0 0 Not present in Project area

Refugia +/S+ 0 0

Structure upgrade and channel reconstruction 

provides for increased fish habitat functionality 

and accessibility

Width/Depth 

Ratio 0/+ 0 0

Channel reconstruction will decrease alluvial 

fan entrenchment and move width/depth ratio to 

a less impacted state.

Streambank 

Condition -/+ 0 0

Short-term instability during and after channel 

reconstruction. In the long-term, bank stability and 

functionality of the new channel will be enhanced.

Floodplain 

Connectivity 0/S+ 0 0

The existing channel does not have a functional floodplain. 

Realignment will include construction of a floodplain 

through the alluvial fan.

Change in 

Peak/Base Flows 0/+ -/0 0

Channel reconstruction is expected to result in 

normalization of flow behavior across the alluvial 

fan. Drafting effects will be temporary and 

insignificant.

Increase in 

Drainage Network 0/+ 0 0

The existing, human-impacted channel will be in-filled and 

replaced with a reconstructed stream along the historical 

alignment. Local hydrologic processes will be improved.

Road Density and 

Location 0 0 0

No new roads will be constructed. Temporary 

County Road bypass will be removed when no 

longer needed.

Disturbance 

History and 

Regime

0/+ 0 0

While there is no change in disturbance and 

erosion indices, Project does address some 

legacy mining impacts. (USFS 2016a, b)

Riparian Reserves -/+ -/0 0

Project activities will impart minor, short-term 

effects. Long-term benefits are expected as 

riparian recovers and expands in the Project area

0 = Neutral effects

- = Insignificant or discountable negative effects

+ = Insignificant or discountable positive effects

S-= Significant negative effects

S+ = Significant positive effects

*/* = Short-term/long-term effects
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

36

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects analysis under NEPA:

Focus includes past and foreseeable Federal actions, as well as incorporation of nonFederal activities. To understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects 

of the proposed action, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy 

for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate 

impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment 

and might contribute to cumulative effects.

Cumulative effects analysis for ESA is a subset of the NEPA analysis and is focused upon 

Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate species only.

NEPA Cumulative Effects

Within the Project area, there are no foreseeable non-Federal (i.e., private or State) actions 

planned or undergoing implementation at the time of this document.

Future foreseeable Federal actions include (1) Knownothing Fuels Reduction Project (continued 

implementation); and (2) five active mining claims (continued implementation).

(1) The Knownothing Fuels Reduction Project will continue implementation of fuels reduction 

activities on approximately 11 acres. General location is east of the mouth of Knownothing 

Creek, upslope of County Road 1C02. Actions include manual removal and piling of ladder 

fuels, brush, and hazardous snags. Handpiles are burnt to dispose of the organic matter. 

Implementation started in 2013 and occurs based upon staff and burn window availability.

No cumulative impact is expected. Although the 7th-field watershed is shared, there is no 

physical overlap of Knownothing and Hotelling Gulch projects. As there is no spatial overlap of 

actions, there will be no potential for additive disturbance. Additionally, it was determined that 

the Knownothing Project would have “No Effect” to analysis species (USFS 2011). Finally, 

because the Knownothing Project has been analyzed and is being actively implemented, it is 

considered a current/existing action already included in pre-Project CWE modeling.

(2) Another foreseeable Federal action within the Project area is continued implementation of 

five active mining claims. Mining claims are considered to be a Federal, not private, action when 

located upon Forest Service administered property because oversight for compliance with local, 

State, and Federal regulations concerning mining is the responsibility of the Forest Service. 

(Note: most enforcement actions are the duty of the State.) All claims are placer and associated 

with the SF Salmon River mainstem. As claimants have not filed Plans of Operation, activities 

are expected to be manual and limited in extent: panning, sluicing, high-banking, and similar. 

Dredging is currently not allowed due to a moratorium by the State of California.

No cumulative impact is expected. None of the claims appear to have a physical overlap with the 

Hotelling Gulch Project. Additionally, these claims are considered to be a current/existing action. 

Of note, the claims are not included in CWE analyses because the models are insensitive to 

effects from very spatially limited actions such as these types of activities.

Finally, while past events within the Project area – e.g., mining, timber harvest, road building, 

grazing, flood, fire – contribute to the existing condition, this Project will not produce an 

additive effect.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

37

In summary, there will be no cumulative impacts to aquatics from current and reasonably future 

foreseeable projects within the vicinity of the Hotelling Gulch Project. Cumulative impact occurs 

when the effects of one project overlaps with or compounds the effects of another. In the 

Hotelling Gulch Project area, projects/claims share a common watershed without physical 

boundary overlap. There will be no adverse additive effects to aquatic habitat Indicators.

Cumulative Watershed Effects models remain below the threshold of concern when the effects of 

the Proposed Action and all current and future foreseeable projects are included in the model. 

Mining claims are not included in analyses because the models insensitive to the very small 

amounts of disturbance expected to occur with this activity type.

Summary of Effects

Potential direct impacts to aquatic resources may occur as a result of water drafting (SF Salmon 

River) and fish relocation (Hotelling Gulch).

• Water Drafting. Fish screens and resource protection measures/BMPs, will preclude 

impingement. Fish temporarily avoiding water drafting activities are not likely to 

experience reduced feeding success, nor result in a significantly higher probability of 

exposure to predators.

• Fish Relocation. Potential for fish presence is very low. Hotelling Gulch is not 

considered to be viable habitat for Coho or Chinook salmon. The fish most likely to be 

present is resident rainbow trout, although juvenile steelhead are a possibility. Potential 

direct effects can include injury or mortality, but the expectation is very low; and 

relocation activities will not significantly reduce the number of returning salmonid adults 

(NOAA 2012).

Potential indirect impact to aquatic resources will occur as a result of channel reconstruction 

activities and water drafting. Any detrimental effects will be localized, insignificant, and shortterm and will impart no consequential impact to fish or fish habitat, including Coho and Coho 

Critical Habitat. Ground disturbing activities in Hotelling Gulch will occur under a dry-channel 

condition; and resource protection measures/BMPs, including an erosion and sediment control 

plan, will provide mitigation for potential impactors to aquatic resources. The CWE models will 

not be affected by Project actions. There will be multiple benefits to fish and fish habitat upon 

completion of the Project. Some improvements will be immediate, while others may require 

months or years to be observed. Most importantly, barriers into Hotelling Gulch will be removed 

or modified, normalizing fish access into the drainage and extending accessible Critical Habitat 

for ESA-listed coho salmon. Other elements expected to be benefited include Indicators 

associated with physical habitat parameters and riparian condition.

There will be no indirect impacts to Killer Whale (Orca)/SRKW. There is the potential for 

individual steelhead mortality during fish removal operations; and, long-term, all anadromous 

species are expected to be benefitted by the improvement in habitat condition within Hotelling 

Gulch. However, these actions will not result in a measurable increase or decrease in availability 

of food-fish species within the ocean; and without a discernable change, there can be no effect to 

Orca.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

38

Therefore, the Fish Biologist has reached the following determination:

Table 7. Summary of determinations for Alternative 2 (Proposed Alternative) for the Hotelling 

Gulch Project.

Species Special 

Status

1

Determination

Fishes

Coho Salmon (and CH) Federally 

Threatened NLAA

Chinook Salmon (Spring/Fall runs)

(Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers) FSS MANL

Steelhead Trout

(Klamath Mountains Province) FSS, MIS MANL

Rainbow Trout (resident) MIS MANL

Pacific Lamprey FSS MANL

Klamath River Lamprey FSS MANL

Mammal

Killer Whale (Orca) Federally 

Endangered NE

Other Habitat

Essential Fish Habitat 

(Coho/Chinook) May adversely affect 

1

Federally Listed Species

NE - Will not affect the species or its Critical Habitat

NLAA - May affect, not likely to adversely affect the species or its Critical Habitat

LAA - May affect, likely to adversely affect the species or its Critical Habitat

Forest Sensitive Species (FSS) / Management Indicator Species (MIS)

NE - No effect to the species (FSS and MIS)

MANL - May affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to a trend towards listing (FSS); and/or

 May affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to a decreasing population trend (MIS)

MALT - May affect individuals, and is likely to result in a trend towards listing (FSS); and/or

 May affect individuals, and is likely to lead to a decreasing population trend (MIS)

Reconstructing the alluvial fan channel will be sufficient to upgrade the Indicator standings of 

Refugia and Floodplain Connectivity from “Not Functioning” to “Functioning-at-Risk”. The 

“Physical Barrier” Indicator cannot be upgraded because a culvert of uncertain passage status is 

present at the Forest Road 10N16 crossing of Hotelling Gulch. Other Indicators, while benefited 

long-term, are insufficiently improved to permit a change from current baseline functionality. 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

39

Table 8. Indicator summary for Hotelling Gulch Project alternatives.

Indicator Alternative 1 

(no action)

Alternative 2 

(proposed)

Temperature 0 -/+

Turbidity 0 -/0

Physical Barriers 0 +/S+

Substrate/Sediment 0 -/+

Large Woody Debris 0 -/+

Pool Frequency/Quality 0 0/+

Refugia 0 +/S+

Width/Depth Ratio 0 0/+

Streambank Condition 0 -/+

Floodplain Connectivity 0 0/S+

Peak/Base Flow 0 -/+

Drainage Network 0 0/+

Disturbance History/Regime 0 0/+

Riparian Reserves 0 -/+

0 = Neutral effects

- = Insignificant or discountable negative effects

+ = Insignificant or discountable positive effects

S-= Significant negative effects

S+ = Significant positive effects

*/* = Short-term/long-term effects

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

All Alternatives will meet Forest Plan Standards and Guides, Endangered Species Act, 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Northwest Forest Plan, and all 

other relevant regulations, laws, and policies. Section 7 consultation will be completed with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) by coverage under the 

Restoration Center’s programmatic document (NOAA 2012).

The Project is consistent with the goals and objectives, and would implement specific recovery 

actions, in the SONCC coho salmon recovery plan (NOAA 2014). That document identifies the 

highest priority for recovery of Salmon River stocks to be improving the quality and extent of 

rearing habitat and refugia (pg. 35-20). The Project would increase potential winter rearing in 

Hotelling Gulch for this reach of the SF Salmon River.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

40

Literature Cited

Bellmore, J.R. 2011. The ecological importance of floodplains in montane river networks: 

implications for habitat restoration and salmon recovery. PhD Thesis. Idaho State 

University, Pocatello, ID. 202 p.

Benda, L.E., Litschert, S.E., Reeves, G., and R. Pabst. 2015. Thinning and in-stream wood 

recruitment in riparian second growth forests in coastal Oregon and the use of buffers and 

tree tipping as mitigation. Journal of Forestry Research, 1-16. doi:10.1007/s11676-015-

0173-2

Benda, L.E., and P. Bigelow. 2011. Recruitment, storage, transport and function of wood in 

northern California streams. A report submitted to the California Board of Forestry and 

Fire Protection. 49 p.

Available online: 

http://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/board_committees/monitoring_study_group/msg_supported_reports/2012_suppor

ted_reports/benda_bigelow_cawood1__final_.pdf

Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-

138 in Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitat (W.R. Meeham, ed.). American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

Brown, T.M. 2002. Short-term total suspended-solid concentrations resulting from stream 

crossing obliteration in the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. MS Thesis. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Division of Management and 

Forestry.

Colangelo, D.J., and B.L. Jones. 2005. Phase I of the Kissimmee River restoration project, 

Florida, USA: impacts of construction on water quality. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment 102: 139-158.

Croke, J., and S. Mockler. 2001. Gully initiation and road-to-stream linkage in a forested 

catchment, southeastern Australia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 205-217.

Foltz, R.B., and K.A. Yanosek. 2005. Effects of road obliteration on stream water quality in

Managing watersheds for human and natural impacts (Moglen, G.E., ed.). Proceedings of 

the 2005 Watershed Management Conference (July 19-22), American Society of Civil 

Engineers, Williamsburg, Virginia. 12 p.

Hupp, C.R., Noe, G.B., and Schenk, E.R. 2010. Floodplains, equilibrium, and fluvial geomorphic 

impacts of human alterations: Proceedings of the 2nd Joint Federal Interagency 

Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada. 12p

Jackson, C.R., and C.A. Sturm. 2002. Woody debris and channel morphology in first and 

second-order forested channels in Washington's coast ranges. Water Resources Research

38:16-14.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

41

Love & Associates, Inc. 2016. Technical memorandum – basis of preliminary design for the 

restoration of Hoteling Gulch with a road- stream crossing replacement on Cecilville 

Road, Siskiyou County, California. Memo to Salmon River Restoration Council.

______. 2012. Technical memorandum – fish access to Hotelling Gulch from South Fork 

Salmon River. Memo to Salmon River Restoration Council. 20 p.

Madej, M.A. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery following removal of forest roads. Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms 26:175-190.

May, C., and R. Gresswell. 2004. Spatial and temporal patterns of debris-flow deposition in the 

Oregon Coast Range, USA. Geomorphology 57: 135-149.

______. 2003. Large wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater steams in southern 

Oregon Coast Range, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 1352-1362.

Meehan, W.R. (ed.). 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes 

and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

Montgomery, D.R., J.M. Buffington, R.D. Smith, K.M. Schmidt, and G. Pess. 1995. Pool 

spacing in forest channels. Water Resources Research 31: 1097-1105.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Chapter 35 – Salmon River. National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Arcata, CA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. Biological Opinion for 

program to fund, permit (or both), restoration projects within the NOAA Restoration 

Center’s Northern California Office jurisdictional area. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Southwest Region. 128 p.

______. 2001. NOAA Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Southwest Region.

Available online: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/WaterDrafting-02.htm

Naiman, R.J., E.V. Balian, K.K. Bartz, R.E. Bilby, and J.J. Latterell. 2002. Dead wood dynamics

in stream ecosystems. Gen. Tech Rep. PSW-GTR-181. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Redding, CA. 48 p.

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, eds. 2005. (revised 2008). Wildland fire in 

ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 250 p.

Sear, D.A., A. Briggs, and A. Brookes. 1998. A preliminary analysis of the morphological 

adjustment within and downstream of a lowland river subject to river restoration. Aquatic 

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 167-183.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

42

Sicking, L.P. 2003. Anadromous fish strainers for use in wildland drafting operations. USDA 

Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas, CA. 24 p.

Swanston, D.N. 1991. Natural processes. Pages 139-180 in Influences of forest and rangeland 

management on salmonid fishes and their habitat (W.R. Meeham, ed.). American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

Taylor, R., M. Love, T. Grey, and A Knoche. 2002. Final report: Siskiyou County culvert 

inventory and fish passage evaluation. Report to the Five Counties Salmonid 

Conservation Program (Contract #P9985047).

Available online: http://www.5counties.org/docs/migbar_invrpt_sis.pdf

Torgensen, C.E., and D.A. Close. 2004. Influence of habitat heterogeneity on the distribution of 

larval Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) at two spatial scales. Freshwater Biology

49: 614-630.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2016a. Hydrology Resource Report – Hotelling Fish Passage and 

Stream Restoration Project. Report to Klamath National Forest by Salmon River 

Restoration Council, Sawyers Bar, CA.

______. 2016b. Geology and Soil Resource Report – Hotelling Fish Passage and Stream 

Restoration Project. Klamath National Forest, Salmon-Scott Ranger District, Fort Jones, 

CA.

______. 2015. Hotelling Gulch stream survey. Klamath National Forest, Salmon-Scott River 

Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 14 p.

______. 2011. Fisheries resource report for Knownothing hazardous fuels project. Klamath 

National Forest, Salmon River Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 14 p + appendices.

______. 2004. Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, 

Petitioned and Sensitive Species that may be affected by Facility Maintenance and 

Watershed Restoration. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. 45 p + appendices.

______. 1998. Salmon River and Dillon Creek watersheds fish habitat and channel type analysis. 

Prepared for the Klamath National Forest by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 

Sacramento, CA. 31 pp + appendices.

______. 1997. Lower South Fork of the Salmon River watershed analysis. Salmon River and 

Scott River Ranger Districts, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

______. 1995. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Updated 2007 

with Chapter 4 amendments. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

______. 1994. Upper South Fork of the Salmon River watershed analysis. Salmon River and 

Scott River Ranger Districts, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

43

USDI, USDA, and NOAA. 2004. Analytical process for developing biological assessments for 

federal actions affecting fish within the Northwest Forest Plan area. November 2004. 

17 p + appendices.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Landfill methane outreach program 

database.

Available online: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=930019JH.TXT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2016. IPaC trust resources report for Hotelling Gulch 

Fish Passage and Channel Restoration. Accessed June 6, 2016.

Project code: HGKHX-OGXB5-GDZPR-QYTCZ-SD7VGU

Link online: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/HGKHX-OGXB5-GDZPR-QYTCZ-SD7VGU

Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G.E. Grant. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in 

two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32: 1195-1207.

Personal Communication

Donald Flickinger – NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region (Yreka, CA)
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

44

Report Summary

Methodology

Analysis Indicators and Measures

The analysis of the potential effects to fish and their habitat is organized by direct and indirect 

effects and by effects to seventeen Indicators of anadromous fish habitat conditions. The 

Indicators originate from the “Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for 

Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area” (USDI, USDA, and 

NOAA 2004). Effects of project elements to an Indicator may be neutral (no effect), discountable 

(extremely unlikely to occur), insignificant (effects are not able to be meaningfully measured, 

detected, or evaluated), or significant (effects able to be measured). Furthermore, effects may be 

either positive or negative. After the appropriate Indicators have been evaluated, the resulting 

information is used to determine overall effects on aquatic species, including Coho Critical 

Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat.

Although the methodology for effects analysis only technically applies to anadromous fish 

within the Project area (e.g., Coho, Chinook, and steelhead), it may also be used for resident 

rainbow trout to ensure a consistent assessment of fish species; and indirect effects to 

anadromous fish will serve as a proxy for lamprey. Additionally, Indicators are used to assess the 

existing environment of anadromous systems, with each Indicator labeled as to if it is “Properly 

Functioning,” “Functioning-At-Risk,” or “Not Properly Functioning” for a given stream.

Of the seventeen total Indicators, the following are potentially affected by the Project and will 

undergo further discussion:

• Temperature

• Turbidity

• Physical Barriers

• Sediment/Substrate

• Large Woody Debris

• Pool Frequency and Quality

• Refugia

• Width/Depth Ratio

• Streambank Condition

• Floodplain Connectivity

• Peak/Base Flows

• Drainage Network

• Disturbance History/Regime

• Riparian Reserves

Temperature – This Indicator is rated by stream temperature, and the expected 

increase/decrease from the existing condition due to Project activities in fish-bearing reaches of 

stream channels.

Turbidity – This Indicator is rated by professional judgment following observation of conditions 

after high water events, amount of substrate fines, CWE models (USLE/GEO), and condition of 

Riparian Reserves. In addition, the distance to fish habitat and the likelihood of activities to 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

45

introduce fine sediment into fish-bearing streams will also be incorporated into the effects 

analysis. 

Physical Barriers – This Indicator is rated by presence/absence of human-built barriers which 

affect fish distribution.

Sediment/Substrate – This Indicator is rated by percentage of substrate composition of finer 

material. Considered data can include composition of surface and subsurface of non-pool units, 

as well as volume of pools filled with fines. Where no or limited survey data is available, 

evaluation may utilize CWE (USLE/GEO) models and professional judgment. 

Large Woody Debris – This Indicator is rated using amount of “large wood” per linear length of 

stream; and is only applicable in 3rd or larger order stream systems. The Northwest Forest Plan 

and KNF Land Resource Management Plan offer guidelines as to an acceptable amount of wood, 

as well as provide definitions of “large wood”. If professional judgment concludes guidelines are 

inadequate or do not capture the nature of the system under consideration, channel width and 

potential of the site to produce and retain woody debris may be used. Potential for future large 

woody debris recruitment in both short- and long-term should also be considered. Recruitment 

will be determined using the likelihood of the removal of standing trees that have a high 

probability of becoming large woody debris in the stream channel based on professional 

judgment and scientific literature. 

Pool Frequency and Quality – This Indicator is rated by frequency and quality of pools present 

in a stream system.

Refugia – This Indicator is a synthesis of presence and degree of functionality of habitat 

elements available for fish throughout their life history. Considerations for rating include stream 

temperature, water quality, riparian reserve, water flow, sediment in pools, and connectivity.

Width/Depth Ratio – This Indicator is rated by width-to-depth ratio, in relationship to Rosgen 

stream type, and amount of braiding due to sediment aggradation. If data is limited or lacking, 

other considerations may include drainage history of debris flows and mass wasting, pool 

frequency and depth, frequency of large woody debris, and CWE models.

Streambank Condition – This Indicator is rated bank stability of a stream system. If data is 

limited or not available, considerations may include density of road-stream crossings, amount of 

inner gorge road, type and amount of non-road areas of compaction near the stream, presence of 

artificial berms, and extent of recent debris flows.

Floodplain Connectivity – This Indicator is rated by hydrological connectivity of a stream with 

its floodplain and other areas off the mainstem channel. If data is not available, professional 

judgement may be used to assess the ability of a stream to access the floodplain during highwater flows, frequency thereof, and condition of riparian vegetation and adjacent wetland areas.

Peak/Base Flows – For watershed-level, this Indicator is rated using elements of ERA, road 

density, vegetation and Riparian Reserve condition, and other associated components. Any 

potential effects to flows due to a site-specific Project element are considered individually.

Drainage Network – This Indicator is rated by increase/decrease in drainage network as related 

to roads, ditches, and other similar structures.

Disturbance History/Regime – This Indicator is primarily rated using CWE (ERA/USLE/GEO) 

models. If professional judgment concludes that these models are not fully capturing disturbance 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

46

risk, road density and location, current impacts from past stand-replacing timber harvest and 

wildfire, fire regime, vegetation regime, and development on private property may also be 

considered.

Riparian Reserves – This Indicator is a consideration of the riparian environs, and extending 

into the near uplands. It is rated as a synthesis of shade; large woody debris recruitment; 

disturbance, roading, and other impacts to the Riparian Reserve management zone. 

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The analysis area for aquatic resources includes effects at the site-specific and watershed-scale 

extent.

Watersheds utilized in the analysis are at the 5th- and 7th-field level.

Site-specific analysis discussion will focus on water drafting within the range of anadromous and 

resident fish. For the remainder of the Project area, Project components are outside the 

distribution of analysis species, habitat is not present, and/or distance to occupied/suitable habitat 

is too distant for an effect to occur.

Temporal analysis timeframe includes effects during implementation, short-term effects expected 

to occur within the first year following implementation, and long-term effects (greater than one 

year).

Affected Environment

The Hotelling Gulch Project is situated east of the Forks of Salmon community, about three 

miles upstream SF Salmon River along County Road 1C0C. The Project is located at the mouth 

of Hotelling Gulch and adjacent to Hotelling Gulch Campground. Fish-bearing streams 

potentially affected by the Project include SF Salmon River and Hotelling Gulch.

The only Threatened or Endangered fish in the analysis area is the Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coasts Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), including Critical Habitat. Sensitive fish 

species for the Klamath National Forest in the Project are the Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers 

Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss), Klamath River lamprey (Entosphenus similis), and Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus 

tridentatus) Both steelhead and resident rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are management 

indicator species in the Forest Plan. Additionally, Essential Fish Habitat designation is associated 

with Coho salmon and Chinook salmon. The NMFS has requested action agencies, including the 

KNF, to consider project impacts on species preyed upon by ESA-listed killer whale (Orcinus 

orca).
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

47

Summary of actual and potential occupancy by analysis species of creeks/rivers within 7th- and 

5th-field watersheds:

Species

7th-Field 5th-Field Hotelling Gulch SF Salmon River

Coho X

Chinook X

Steelhead P1 X

Resident Rainbow Trout X X

Pacific Lamprey X

Klamath River Lamprey P

X - confirmed present

P - potential presence 1

Resident rainbow trout have been observed. Origin as offspring 

of resident or steelhead successfully passing obstacles is 

unknown. 

For the analysis Indicators, baseline existing condition – “Properly Functioning”, “Functioningat-Risk”, and “Not Properly Functioning” – applies principally to creeks which directly or 

indirectly support anadromous species. “Direct” can include spawning and/or rearing habitat; and 

“Indirect” may refer to providing a recognized cold-water thermal refugia.

Baseline for analysis Indicators for anadromous streams in the Project area:

Stream/River

TemperatureSubstrateTurbidityPhysical BarriersLarge Woody DebrisPool Frequency/QualityWidth/Depth RatioStreambank ConditionFloodplain ConnectivityRefugiaDist. History/RegimePeak/Base FlowsDrainage NetworkRiparian Reserves

Hotelling Gulch P P P NF NF NF FAR FAR NF NF FAR FAR FAR FAR

SF Salmon River NF FAR FAR P NF FAR P P P P FAR P P FAR

P - "Properly Functioning"

FAR - "Functioning-at-Risk"

NF - "Not Properly Functioning"
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

48

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action alternative, the Project will not happen and no management actions will be 

taken. Access into Hotelling Gulch habitat will continue to be very difficult to impossible 

dependent upon fish species and size of a given individual.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impact occurs when the effect of one project overlaps with or compounds the effects 

of another. The Hotelling Gulch Project does not influence the implementation of any nearby 

project, nor visa-versa. Therefore, without direct effects or a compounding indirect effect, there 

cannot be cumulative effects for the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct Effects

Direct effects to aquatic resources may occur as a result of water drafting activities and/or 

actions taken to remove fish from the Project area prior to implementation.

Water Drafting (SF Salmon River) – Fish screens and resource protection measures/BMPs, 

will preclude impingement. Fish temporarily avoiding water drafting activities are not likely to 

experience reduced feeding success, nor result in a significantly higher probability of exposure to 

predators. The drafting site is not located in association with thermal refugia.

Fish Relocation (Hotelling Gulch) – The potential for fish presence during construction is very 

low because Hotelling Gulch is likely to be dry by the time ground disturbing activities 

commence. Pre-Project, Hotelling Gulch is not considered to be accessible for Coho or Chinook 

salmon. The fish most likely to be present is resident rainbow trout, although juvenile steelhead 

are a possibility. 

If water is present in the Project area, the channels will be checked for fish. Any individuals 

found will be captured via appropriate electrofishing protocol and relocated, as per described by 

the 2012 Biological Opinion for projects (like Hotelling Gulch) which can be permitted under the 

NOAA restoration project program (NOAA 2012). The Biological Opinion lists potential direct 

effects of fish relocation to be injury or mortality, but the expectation is very low; and relocation 

activities will not significantly reduce the number of returning salmonid adults. Block nets and 

other appropriate actions will be taken to prevent channel reoccupation by fish should discharge 

levels change, such as the result of a summer thunderstorm or other precipitation event.

Indirect Effects

Potential indirect impact to aquatic resources will occur as a result of harvest and silviculture 

activities, prescribed fire, legacy site treatment, and water drafting. The indirect effects to 

Indicators which may be affected by Project activities are as follows:

Temperature – There will be no measureable effect to stream temperature from channel 

reconstruction activities during implementation because Hotelling Gulch channel will be dry and 

the shade decrease over the SF Salmon River will be minimal. Hotelling Gulch may experience 

an insignificant increase in water temperature post-implementation, but the effect will diminish 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

49

in two or three years as effective shade is re-established. Long term, there would be benefits to 

shade and associated stream temperature as the Project is likely to increase ground and surface 

water connections in riparian and floodplain areas. The project will have a minor, short-term 

effect to stream flow during water drafting operations on the SF Salmon River. However, the 

effects are not likely to have any detectable change to stream temperature or have any 

meaningful impact to fish habitat due to the river’s large size and flow volume. Additionally, 

thermal refugia will be avoided.

Turbidity – There will be an insignificant degree of turbidity during Project implementation and 

for a short time (months) post-construction once Hotelling Gulch reconnects to SF Salmon River. 

Turbidity is only expected to occur during and after storm events. Any turbidity is not likely to 

be of sufficient intensity to negatively affect fish or fish habitat. Turbidity is expected to return to 

normal in less than a year, as vegetation re-establishes. Effects to turbidity from water drafting 

will be localized, minimal in extent and duration, with the most likely fish behavior to be one of 

avoidance.

Physical Barriers – The perennial portion of Hotelling Gulch will be reconnected with SF 

Salmon River. Actions will include upgrading the County Road crossing with a structure 

passable by aquatic organisms at all normal (i.e., non-extreme [dry or flood]) discharge 

conditions, as well as modify the mouth and alluvial fan to facilitate access and provide a higher 

quality of habitat. Additionally, natural watershed processes associated with sediment regime 

and woody debris transport will be restored. While these actions will significantly improve the 

ability of Hotelling Gulch to support anadromous and residential fish, it will not be possible to 

upgrade drainage status to “Properly Functioning”. The upstream limit of fish distribution in 

Hotelling Gulch may be constrained by the culvert crossing of Forest Road 10N16, a distance of 

~0.5 mile. While additional habitat is available higher in the drainage, this latter culvert requires 

assessment to determine if it is a partial or complete barrier.

Sediment/Substrate – There will be an insignificant short-term effect of the Project in regards to 

substrate/sediment composition. Fine sediment is expected to mobilize from recently disturbed 

surfaces following construction. There will be no measurable impact to the SF Salmon River 

because the amount of sediment which may export from Hotelling Gulch will be very small 

compared to the size of the river; and it will be of insufficient volume to affect existing 

sediment-dependent habitat values. Within Hotelling Gulch, post-Project movement of sediment 

within the site footprint has the potential to detrimentally affect newly constructed channel 

features, but it should not be enough to significantly affect fish habitat parameters. Long-term, 

erosion will decrease as vegetation re-establishes, and the sediment transport and storage regime 

within the stream is expected to normalize. There may be an insignificant benefit from the fine 

sediment in Hotelling Gulch because sands/silts will promote the streambed sealing process, 

thereby contributing towards delay of seasonal channel drying across the alluvial fan.

Large Woody Debris – The Project will impart an insignificant detrimental effect to large 

woody debris during Project implementation. In the short- and long-term following Project 

completion, large wood within the Project area, and the processes which rely upon the debris, 

will be benefited. By removing trees adjacent to Hotelling Gulch and SF Salmon River, a 

potential consequence is that the Project also removes the potential of those trees to eventually 

recruit to the system as large woody debris. However, trees removed during construction will be 

saved for incorporation into various project elements. Salvaged trees will be used, as appropriate,

as a component of pool structures, as general in-stream wood, or as floodplain (terrestrial) coarse 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

50

woody debris habitat. Therefore, most trees removed during channel reconstruction will not be 

lost from the pool of potential recruits, and will instead be artificially “recruited” to Hotelling 

Gulch. Wood transportation will experience an immediate benefit upon completion of the 

Project. Design of the new road crossing structure will take into account the need to 

accommodate stream processes, including the passage of wood. In the very long-term, channel 

realignment and reconstruction will benefit future production of woody debris. One of the 

expected results of the Project is for the development of a riparian area across the alluvial fan 

which is similar to that currently present below the County Road. This means that the potential 

for Hotelling Gulch to produce large and small wood will be expanded. The development of a 

riparian capable of supplying large wood is a process which will require decades (large alders) to 

over a century (conifers), and is dependent upon occurrence of detrimental events such as large 

flood. However, channel reconstruction will produce a system which is more resilient to extreme 

events, and is therefore more likely to move towards a mature riparian compared to the existing 

condition.

Pool Frequency and Quality – Channel reconstruction will benefit Hotelling Gulch in regards 

to the pool frequency and quality Indicator. By moving Hotelling Gulch to its historic alignment 

and reconstructing the channel, the frequency and quality of pools will be enhanced. The 

improvement will be measureable, but not significant enough to fully restore the system. This is 

because Hotelling Gulch continues to be a highly impacted system due to causes both humancaused and natural. However, the purpose of the Project is not to return Hotelling Gulch to a presettlement state, but rather create an increased degree of functionality in regards to connectivity 

and fish habitat. The channel reconstruction, including creation of pools that incorporate wood 

and rock features, will successfully accomplish this goal.

Refugia – The Project will significantly benefit the refugia Indicator for Hotelling Gulch. 

Channel reconstruction within the historical alignment will positively affect the following key 

fish habitat Indicators: temperature, barriers, substrate, pool frequency and quality, streambanks, 

floodplain connectivity, peak/base flows, and Riparian Reserves. Some benefits will be 

observable immediately following Project completion, while other responses will require shortterm (months), long-term (years), or very long-term (decades) to fully transpire. Restoration will 

not be entire, in that Hotelling Gulch as a whole will continue to be impacted by past and current 

stressors. However, the purpose of the Project is not to fully restore Hotelling Gulch, but to 

create an increased degree of functionality in regards to connectivity and fish habitat. This 

Project is expected to be sufficiently successful in accomplishing that goal to move Hotelling 

Gulch from “Not Properly Functioning” to “Functioning-at-Risk” within the Indicator matrix for 

refugia.

Width/Depth Ratio – Channel reconstruction will benefit Hotelling Gulch in regards to 

width/depth ratio. The existing condition across the alluvial fan is one of entrenchment. Without 

a functional floodplain, the creek is narrower and deeper than is normal for a stream of its size. 

By moving Hotelling Gulch to its historic alignment and reconstructing both streambed and 

floodplain, the state of severe entrenchment will be eliminated. The improvement will be 

measureable, but not sufficiently significant enough to consider the system fully restored. This is 

because Hotelling Gulch continues to be a highly impacted system, due to causes both humancaused and natural. However, the purpose of the Project is not to return Hotelling Gulch to a presettlement state, but rather create an increased degree of functionality in regards to connectivity 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

51

and fish habitat. The channel reconstruction will successfully accomplish this goal for this 

Indicator.

Streambank Condition – Channel reconstruction will benefit the streambank condition 

Indicator for Hotelling Gulch in the long term. The existing channel across the alluvial fan 

exhibits streambanks less stable and less well developed compared to other locations within the 

drainage. Moving Hotelling Gulch to its historic alignment and reconstructing the channel, 

including the addition of a floodplain, will enhance functionality of the streambank component. 

In the short-term during and immediately after construction, the streambanks may be more 

erosion-prone. However, the site will stabilize as vegetation will re-establishes in the months and 

years post-implementation. In the long-term, the bank is expected display higher stability 

compared to the existing condition, as well as exhibit a higher functionality in regards to biotic 

processes.

Floodplain Connectivity – Channel reconstruction will significantly benefit the floodplain 

connectivity Indicator for Hotelling Gulch. The existing channel is channelized and does not 

exhibit a functional floodplain through the alluvial fan. The realignment of Hotelling Gulch to its 

historical channel will include construction of a floodplain. This floodplain, while small and 

physically restricted due to the presence of alluvial fan material, will nonetheless restore a degree 

of functionality. Restoration will not be entire, in that Hotelling Gulch as a whole will continue 

to possess a floodplain impacted by events which has altered the underlying channel condition. 

However, this Project is sufficient to move Hotelling Gulch from “Not Properly Functioning” to 

“Functioning-at-Risk” within the Indicator matrix. 

Peak/Base Flows – There will be a post-implementation benefit to peak/base flows within the 

Project area. Flow behavior will be normalized: water may still go subsurface during the 

summer, but the period the channel is wetted will be closer to what is expected given the coarse 

substrate nature of the alluvial fan. Additionally, the construction of a floodplain will provide a 

location for high flows to dissipate energy and deposit transported sediment, nutrients, and wood. 

Water drafting to support Project implementation will result in a temporary decrease in flow 

within the SF Salmon River, the effects of which are considered insignificantly small to fish and 

fish habitat.

Drainage Network – The Project will benefit Hotelling Gulch in regards to the drainage 

network Indicator. A critical component of Project activities will be to plug the existing channel. 

Although the amount of channel to be reconstructed is similar to the amount of channel to be 

abandoned, the nature of the two channels is very different. The existing channel is entrenched, 

has no functional floodplain, and otherwise closely resembles a ditch. In comparison, the new 

channel will be constructed based upon the template of a reference reach selected to provide 

functional fish habitat. Additionally, there will be replacement of an undersized culvert structure 

with infrastructure appropriately sized to accommodate local hydrologic processes. Overall, 

while the amount of human-built drainage network within the Hotelling Gulch drainage will not 

measurably change, the quality of what is present will be insignificantly altered. 

Disturbance History/Regime – Disturbance indices will not increase as a result of Project 

implementation. Therefore, there will be no change in the existing risk represented by the 

respective CWE models at either the 5th- or 7th-field watershed level. Within the Project area, 

more than CWE models should be considered when discussing the disturbance Indicator. The 

Hotelling Gulch alluvial fan and adjacent vicinity have been greatly altered by past human 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

52

actions, most notably mining; and the general area continues to be affected by current and recent 

activities of various kinds. By implementing the Project, Hotelling Gulch will be reintroduced to 

its historical channel; and while it is unknown what the alignment may have been prior to largescale mining, it is the most “natural” placement available. By executing the realignment, 

constructing a more natural channel form, and plugging the existing channel, the Project will 

address some of the legacy effects associated with human impact to the Hoteling Gulch drainage.

Riparian Reserves – Project activities will have both a short- and long-term effect to Riparian 

Reserves. In the short-term, some of the individual components which comprise the Riparian 

Reserves Indicator will impart an insignificant, localized effect. In the long-term, channel 

reconstruction is expected to provide a benefit via the development and expansion of riparian 

vegetation across the alluvial fan. The improvement of local Riparian Reserves character is not 

significant on a landscape level, but it is a step towards long-term recovery of this habitat 

element in the SF Salmon River.

Cumulative Effects

There will be no cumulative impacts to aquatics from current and reasonably future foreseeable 

projects within the vicinity of the Hotelling Gulch Project. Cumulative impact occurs when the 

effects of one project overlaps with or compounds the effects of another. In the Hotelling Gulch 

Project area, projects/claims share a common watershed without physical boundary overlap. 

There will be no adverse additive effects to aquatic habitat Indicators. Cumulative Watershed 

Effects models remain below the threshold of concern when the effects of the Proposed Action 

and all current and future foreseeable projects are included in the model. Mining claims are not 

included in analyses because the models are insensitive to the very small amounts of disturbance 

which may occur with this activity type.

Summary of Effects

Potential direct impacts to aquatic resources may occur as a result of water drafting (SF Salmon 

River) and fish relocation (Hotelling Gulch).

• Water Drafting. Fish screens and resource protection measures/BMPs, will preclude 

impingement. Fish temporarily avoiding water drafting activities are not likely to 

experience reduced feeding success, nor result in a significantly higher probability of 

exposure to predators.

• Fish Relocation. Potential for fish presence is very low. Hotelling Gulch is not 

considered to be viable habitat for Coho or Chinook salmon. The fish most likely to be 

present is resident rainbow trout, although juvenile steelhead are a possibility. Potential 

direct effects can include injury or mortality, but the expectation is very low; and 

relocation activities will not significantly reduce the number of returning salmonid adults 

(NOAA 2012).

Potential indirect impact to aquatic resources will occur as a result of channel reconstruction 

activities and water drafting. Any detrimental effects will be localized, insignificant, and shortterm and will impart no consequential impact to fish or fish habitat, including Coho and Coho 

Critical Habitat. Ground disturbing activities in Hotelling Gulch will occur under a dry-channel 

condition; and resource protection measures/BMPs, including an erosion and sediment control 

plan, will provide mitigation for potential impactors to aquatic resources. The CWE models will 

not be affected by Project actions. There will be multiple benefits to fish and fish habitat upon 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

53

completion of the Project. Some improvements will be immediate, while others may require 

months or years to be observed. Most importantly, barriers into Hotelling Gulch will be removed 

or modified, normalizing fish access into the drainage and extending accessible Critical Habitat 

for ESA-listed coho salmon. Other elements expected to be benefited include Indicators 

associated with physical habitat parameters and riparian condition.

There will be no indirect impacts to Killer Whale (Orca). There is the potential for individual 

steelhead mortality during fish removal operations; and, long-term, all anadromous species are 

expected to be benefitted by the improvement in habitat condition within Hotelling Gulch. 

However, these actions will not result in a measurable increase or decrease in availability of 

food-fish species within the ocean; and without a discernable change, there can be no effect to 

Orca.

Therefore, the Fish Biologist has reached the following determination:

Species Special 

Status

1

Determination

Fishes

Coho Salmon (and CH) Federally 

Threatened NLAA

Chinook Salmon (Spring/Fall runs)

(Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers) FSS MANL

Steelhead Trout

(Klamath Mountains Province) FSS, MIS MANL

Rainbow Trout (resident) MIS MANL

Pacific Lamprey FSS MANL

Klamath River Lamprey FSS MANL

Mammal

Killer Whale (Orca) Federally 

Endangered NE

Other Habitat

Essential Fish Habitat 

(Coho/Chinook) May adversely affect 

1

Federally Listed Species

NE - Will not affect the species or its Critical Habitat

NLAA - May affect, not likely to adversely affect the species or its Critical Habitat

LAA - May affect, likely to adversely affect the species or its Critical Habitat

Forest Sensitive Species (FSS) / Management Indicator Species (MIS)

NE - No effect to the species (FSS and MIS)

MANL - May affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to a trend towards listing (FSS); and/or

 May affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to a decreasing population trend (MIS)

MALT - May affect individuals, and is likely to result in a trend towards listing (FSS); and/or

 May affect individuals, and is likely to lead to a decreasing population trend (MIS)

Reconstructing the alluvial fan channel will be sufficient to upgrade the Indicator standings of 

Refugia and Floodplain Connectivity from “Not Functioning” to “Functioning-at-Risk”. The 

“Physical Barrier” Indicator cannot be upgraded because a culvert of uncertain passage status is 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

54

present at the Forest Road 10N16 crossing of Hotelling Gulch. Other Indicators, while benefited 

long-term, are insufficiently improved to permit a change from current baseline functionality. 

Comparison of effects of alternatives for analysis Indicators:

Indicator Alternative 1 

(no action)

Alternative 2 

(proposed)

Temperature 0 -/+

Turbidity 0 -/0

Physical Barriers 0 +/S+

Substrate/Sediment 0 -/+

Large Woody Debris 0 -/+

Pool Frequency/Quality 0 0/+

Refugia 0 +/S+

Width/Depth Ratio 0 0/+

Streambank Condition 0 -/+

Floodplain Connectivity 0 0/S+

Peak/Base Flow 0 -/+

Drainage Network 0 0/+

Disturbance History/Regime 0 0/+

Riparian Reserves 0 -/+

0 = Neutral effects

- = Insignificant or discountable negative effects

+ = Insignificant or discountable positive effects

S-= Significant negative effects

S+ = Significant positive effects

*/* = Short-term/long-term effects

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

All Alternatives will meet Forest Plan Standards and Guides, Endangered Species Act, 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Northwest Forest Plan, and all 

other relevant regulations, laws, and policies. The appropriate level of Section 7 consultation will 

be completed with the National Marine Fisheries Service for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) by 

coverage under the Restoration Center’s programmatic document (NOAA 2012).

The Project is consistent with the goals and objectives, and would implement specific recovery 

actions, in the SONCC coho salmon recovery plan (NOAA 2014). That document identifies the 

highest priority for recovery of Salmon River stocks to be improving the quality and extent of 

rearing habitat and refugia (pg. 35-20). The Project would increase potential winter rearing in 

Hotelling Gulch for this reach of the SF Salmon River.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

55

Maps and Figures

Map 1. Aquatic resources (salmonids) present within and nearby the Hotelling Gulch Project. 

Includes all proposed Project elements, except drafting. Drafting is located approximate 1.5 

miles upstream the SF Salmon River from the Project site.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

56

Map 2. Aquatic resources (non-salmonid) present within and nearby the Hotelling Gulch Project. 

Includes all proposed Project elements, except drafting. Drafting is located approximate 1.5 

miles upstream the SF Salmon River from the Project site. 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

57

Map 3. Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat for the Hotelling Gulch Project. Includes all 

proposed Project elements, except drafting. Drafting is located approximate 1.5 miles upstream 

the SF Salmon River from the Project site. 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

58

Map 4. Project area with hydrologic Riparian Reserves. 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

59

Figure 1. Draft conceptual view of Hotelling Gulch Project footprint (from Love & Associates 2016). 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-1

Appendix A: Life history and biological 

requirements of Pacific salmonids and lamprey

Coho Salmon

General life history information and biological requirements of Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coastal (SONCC) Coho salmon have been described in various documents (Hassler 

1987; Sandercock 1991; Weitkamp, et al. 1995) as well as NOAA-Fisheries’ final rule listing 

SONCC Coho salmon (May 6, 1997; 62 FR 24588) and the subsequent Recovery Plan (NOAA 

2014).

Coho salmon enter the mainstem of the Klamath River for spawning typically in their third year, 

primarily between September and December, with a peak in October (NFMS 2007). Over most 

of this interval, mainstem flows below Iron Gate Dam often are high (ca. 2500-3000 cfs: NMFS 

2001). Thus, standard methods for observing and counting spawning fish are not easily applied, 

and the size of the spawning population is unknown. Approximations put the entire ESU at about 

10,000 spawning Coho salmon of non-hatchery origin per year (Weitkamp, et al. 1995), of which 

only a small portion is associated with the Klamath Basin, where several important tributary runs 

have been reduced to a handful of individuals (NMFS 2001, 2007). Although a minor amount of 

spawning and growth may occur in the mainstem, the mainstem serves adults primarily as a 

migration route (NFMS 2007).

Spawning occurs from November to January (Hassler 1987) in the tributaries to the Klamath 

River, but occasionally as late as February or March (Weitkamp, et al. 1995). Coho salmon eggs 

incubate for 35-50 days between November and March. Successful incubation depends on 

several factors including dissolved oxygen levels, temperature, substrate size, amount of fine 

sediment, and water velocity. Fry start emerging from the gravel two to three weeks after 

hatching and move into shallow areas with vegetative or other cover. As fry grow larger, they 

disperse up or downstream. In summer, Coho salmon fry prefer pools or other slower velocity 

areas such as alcoves, with woody debris or overhanging vegetation. Juvenile Coho salmon overwinter in slow water habitat with cover as well. Juveniles may rear in fresh water for up to 15 

months then migrate to the ocean as smolts from March to June (Weitkamp, et al. 1995). Coho 

salmon adults typically spend two years in the ocean before returning to their natal streams to 

spawn as three-year olds. 

Available historical and most recent published Coho salmon abundance information are 

summarized in the NOAA-Fisheries coast-wide status review (Weitkamp, et al. 1995). The rivers 

and tributaries in the California portion of this ESU were estimated to have average recent runs 

of 7,080 natural spawners and 17,156 hatchery returns, with 4,480 identified as native fish 

occurring in tributaries having little history of supplementation with non-native fish. However, 

limited information exists regarding Coho salmon abundance in the Klamath River basin. What 

information exists [NOAA 2014; CDFW unpub. data; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

unpub. data] suggests adult populations are small to nonexistent in most years. The decline of 

SONCC Coho salmon across the ESU is not the result of one single factor, but rather a number 

of natural and anthropogenic factors that include dam construction, instream flow alterations; 

land use activities coupled with large flood events, fish harvest and hatchery effects.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-2

Hotelling Gulch – Coho Surveys

Coho are not present in Hotelling Gulch. No surveys targeting Coho have been completed in 

Hotelling Gulch; and a comprehensive review of datasets originating from multiple 

agencies/entities was conducted by CDFW, however, due to lack of information, Hotelling 

Gulch was not included (Garwood 2012). A fish and habitat survey conducted in 2015 did not 

observe Coho salmon (USFS 2015). Above County Road 1C02, this creek is not considered to be 

accessible to fish except under specific flow conditions which may occur during spring run-off 

and/or flood events.

The lower portion of Hotelling Gulch has experienced substantial anthropogenic modification, 

creating multiple barriers to fish entry and occupation. Existing conditions include (1) steep 

cascade habitat between SF Salmon River confluence and County Road 1C02, the current 

alignment of which appears to go through a historic ditch complex; (2) undersized culverts at 

County Road 1C02; and (3) the alluvial fan.

• Cascade habitat below the County Road. An assessment of fish access into Hotelling 

Gulch under existing conditions concluded that the appropriate flow conditions occur 

infrequently (Love & Associates 2012). The cascades are described as being made of 

bedrock with an 8 feet of drop over 30 to 35 feet of channel. Access to upstream habitat 

by juvenile Coho for rearing is likely precluded, except under extremely infrequent 

conditions. Large adult Coho might be able to successfully navigate the barrier. This 

report did not consider access through the County Road culverts.

• County Road culverts. Fish passage issues are present where two culverts cross under the 

County road, approximately 250 feet above the confluence with SF Salmon River. These 

culverts was assessed by Taylor, et al. (2002), whom determined the structure to rate 

“Red” in regards to an initial evaluation; and a FishXing model estimated the culvert to 

be 0% passable at all considered flows. Furthermore, while surveyors did see 

(unidentified) juvenile salmonids below the crossing during visits between December 

2001 and March 2002, no attempt to pass through the culverts was observed.

• Alluvial fan. An additional barrier to fish entry and occupation of Hotelling Gulch is the 

alluvial fan, of which past mining and other activities have created conditions whereupon 

the channel goes subsurface annually by late spring or early summer. The portion which 

goes dry is approximately 600 feet, above which the channel generally retains water. 

Because of discharge timing requirements, physical barriers (natural and human-built), and early 

season channel drying, Hotelling Gulch is not currently considered viable habitat for any life

stage of Coho salmon. 

*CalFish query performed on 6/6/2016

• No live/dead fish nor redd counts available

• Coho distribution maps do not include Hotelling Gulch

----

Garwood, J. 2012. Historic and recent occurrence of Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in 

California streams within the Southern Oregon/Northern California Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit. Fisheries Branch Administrative Report, 2012-03. California 

Department Fish and Wildlife, Arcata, CA. 77 p.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-3

Love & Associates, Inc. 2012. Technical memorandum – fish access to Hotelling Gulch from 

South Fork Salmon River. Memo to Salmon River Restoration Council. 20 p.

Taylor, R., Love, M., Grey, T., and A. Knoche. 2002. Final report: Siskiyou County culvert 

inventory and fish passage evaluation. Report for the California Department of Fish and 

Game. 55 p.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2015. Hotelling Gulch stream survey. Klamath National Forest, 

Salmon-Scott River Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 14 p.

SF Salmon River – Coho Surveys

Coho are present in the SF Salmon River in the general project area, with a focus on the reach 

between O’Farrill Creek and Forks of Salmon (~River mile 5 to mile 0). 

Coho spawning surveys of the SF Salmon River within the Project area are not conducted due to 

dangerous discharge conditions and poor water visibility present during mid-winter. Occasional

adult Coho – live or carcasses – are incidentally reported in the SF Salmon River during fall 

Chinook spawning surveys, including the focus reach which includes Hotelling Gulch (USFS 

2011, 2012, 2013).

Observations of rearing juveniles during summer and fall is considered the best indicator of 

Coho presence. Surveys of thermal refugia and other habitat for juvenile salmonids were 

conducted on the SF Salmon River in 2005 and 2014 (SRRC 2005, 2014). While the mouth of 

Hotelling Gulch was not included in the visitation list either year due to lack of surface flow, 

Coho were observed at other locations upstream and downstream of the Project area.

Finally, a comprehensive review of datasets originating from multiple agencies/entities was 

conducted by CDFW, with the conclusion that Coho presence in SF Salmon River was

substantiated (Garwood 2012).

*Location restricted, where possible, to general Project area (O’Farrill Creek to Forks of 

Salmon) 

*CalFish query performed on 6/6/2016

• No live/dead fish nor redd counts available

• Coho distribution maps include the SF Salmon River in the Project area

----

Garwood, J. 2012. Historic and recent occurrence of Coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch) in 

California streams within the Southern Oregon/Northern California Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit. Fisheries Branch Administrative Report, 2012-03. California 

Department Fish and Wildlife, Arcata, CA. 77 p.

Salmon River Restoration Council (SRRC). 2014. Salmon River juvenile Coho survey report. 

Salmon River Restoration Council, Sawyers Bar, CA. 3 p.

_____. 2005. Salmon River Coho salmon presence/absence and refugia use assessment 

summary. Unpub. data.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-4

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2013. 2012 Fall Chinook spawning ground survey – Salmon-Scott 

Rivers Ranger District. Prepared by M. Meneks for Klamath National Forest, SalmonScott Rivers Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 15 p + appendices.

_____. 2012. 2011 Fall Chinook spawning ground survey – Salmon-Scott Rivers Ranger 

District. Prepared by M. Meneks for Klamath National Forest, Salmon-Scott Rivers 

Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 15 p + appendices.

_____. 2011. 2010 Fall Chinook spawning ground survey – Salmon-Scott Rivers Ranger 

District. Prepared by M. Meneks for Klamath National Forest, Salmon-Scott Rivers 

Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 12 p + appendices.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-5

Chinook Salmon

The following information was excerpted or summarized from NMFS status review of Chinook

salmon (Meyers, et al. 1998). Chinook salmon mature between 2 and 6+ years of age (Meyers, et 

al. 1998). Fall-run Chinook salmon enter freshwater at an advanced stage of maturity, move 

rapidly to their spawning areas on the mainstem or lower tributaries of the rivers, and spawn 

within a few days or weeks of freshwater entry (Healey 1991). Incubation temperature for eggs is 

5.0 to 14.4°C, with below 13.0°C preferred for optimal development in most stocks 

(McCullough 1999). Emerging fry generally do not develop normally above 12.8°C 

(McCullough 1999). Post-emergent fry seek out shallow, nearshore areas with slow current and 

good cover, and begin feeding on small terrestrial and aquatic insects and aquatic crustaceans. 

Once feeding, the optimal growth range for juveniles is 10.0 to 15.6°C, with fingerlings 

preferring to hold at 12 to 14°C (McCullough 1999). In preparation for their entry into a saline 

environment, juvenile salmon undergo physiological transformations known as smoltification 

that adapt them for their transition to salt water. For Chinook salmon, the recommended 

maximum temperature to maintain migratory response and seaward adaptation is 12.0°C; and at 

temperatures greater than 13.0°C, some physiological processes of smolting may be delayed, 

and, in extreme cases, reversed (McCullough 1999). Chinook salmon spend between one and 

four years in the ocean before returning to their natal streams to spawn (Meyers, et al. 1998). 

Chinook salmon addressed in this document exhibit an ocean-type life history, and smolts outmigrate predominantly as subyearlings, generally during April through July. Chinook salmon 

spend between 2 and 5 years in the ocean (Healey 1991), before returning to freshwater to 

spawn. Some Chinook salmon return from the ocean to spawn one or more years before fullsized adults return. 

The UKT ESU includes fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon in the Klamath and Trinity River 

Basin upstream of the confluence of the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Historically, spring-run 

Chinook salmon were probably the predominate run. This ESU still retains several distinct 

spring-run populations, albeit at much reduced abundance levels. Fish from this ESU exhibit an 

ocean-type life history; however genetically and physically, these fish are quite distinct from 

coastal and Central Valley Chinook salmon ESUs. Genetic analysis indicated that this ESU form 

a unique group that is quite distinctive compared to neighboring ESUs. The majority of springand fall-run fish emigrate to the marine environment primarily as subyearlings, but have a 

significant proportion of yearling smolts. Recoveries of coded wire tags indicate that both runs 

have a coastal distribution off the California and Oregon coasts. The 2015 fall-run Chinook

salmon run into the Klamath River system, as compiled by CDFW, was estimated to be 43,125

fish (39,205 adult and 3,920 grilse). Of the 31,596 basin-wide natural spawners (i.e., not of 

hatchery origin), 2,070 were from the Salmon River and 2,113 from the Scott River. The 

Klamath River run in 2016 was projected to be below average compared to recent historical 

average (KRTT 2016).
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-6

Hotelling Gulch– Chinook Surveys

Chinook are not present in Hotelling Gulch. No surveys targeting Chinook have been completed 

in Hotelling Gulch. A fish and habitat survey conducted in 2015 did not observe Chinook salmon 

(USFS 2015). Above County Road 1C02, this creek is not considered to be accessible to fish 

except under specific flow conditions which may occur during spring run-off and/or flood 

events.

See the Coho discussion concerning fish access limitations into Hotelling Gulch. The same 

barriers and access issues which preclude Coho use also apply to Chinook. Additionally, due to 

timing in respect to expected discharge conditions, adult Chinook are not able to access 

Hotelling Gulch during their fall spawning season.

In summary, because of discharge timing requirements, physical barriers (natural and humanbuilt), and early season channel drying, Hotelling Gulch is not currently considered viable 

habitat for any life stage of Chinook salmon. 

*CalFish query performed on 6/6/2016

• No live/dead fish nor redd counts available

• Chinook distribution maps do not include Hotelling Gulch

----

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2015. Hotelling Gulch stream survey. Klamath National Forest, 

Salmon-Scott Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 14 p.

SF Salmon River – Chinook Surveys

Chinook are present in the SF Salmon River in the general project area, with a focus on the reach 

between O’Farrill Creek and Forks of Salmon (~River mile 5 to mile 0). 

Spawning surveys targeting Chinook have occurred on the SF Salmon River in the Project area 

since 1985, with fish and/or redds reported most years (most recent report: USFS 2016). Focus 

has primarily been on the fall-run, although some surveys have happened early enough 

(September through early-October) to captured spring-run Chinook. Also, spring Chinook are 

routinely reported during the annual spring Chinook/summer steelhead dive event (late-July or 

early-August) since 1990 (most recent report: USFS 2015).

Surveys of thermal refugia and other habitat for juvenile salmonids were conducted on the SF 

Salmon River in 2005 (SRRC 2005). While the mouth of Hotelling Gulch was not included in 

the visitation list due to lack of surface flow, Chinook were observed at other locations upstream 

and downstream of the Project area.

*Location restricted, where possible, to general Project area (O’Farrill Creek to Forks of 

Salmon) 

*CalFish query performed on 6/6/2016

• See project record for expanded datasets referred in summary

• Chinook distribution maps include the SF Salmon River in the Project area

Live/Dead Fish Count

• CalFish records available (5): 91143, 91482, 91483, 91486, 91487

o Inclusive years (all datasets): 1980, 198, 1990-2013
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-7

• Summary: Chinook recorded all years (within the focus reach)

Redd Count

• CalFish records available (2): 90075

o Inclusive years (all datasets): 1971, 1972, 1978, 1981-1992, 1994

• Summary: Redds recorded all years

• Note: specific locations not provided; lower SF Salmon River, including focus reach, not part of the record 

in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989

----

Salmon River Restoration Council (SRRC). 2005. Salmon River Coho salmon presence/absence 

and refugia use assessment summary. Unpub. data.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2016. 2015 Fall Chinook spawning ground survey – Salmon-Scott 

Rivers Ranger District. Prepared by M. Meneks for Klamath National Forest, SalmonScott Rivers Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 23 p + appendices.

_____. 2015. 2015 Spring Chinook/Summer Steelhead dive results. Klamath National Forest 

Service, Salmon-Scott Rivers Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 1 p.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-8

Steelhead

Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two basic run-types, based on the state of sexual 

maturity at the time of river entry and duration of spawning migration (Moyle 2002). The 

stream-maturing type, or summer steelhead, enters fresh water in a sexually immature condition 

and requires several months in freshwater to mature and spawn. The ocean-maturing type, or 

winter steelhead, enters fresh water with well-developed gonads and spawns shortly after river 

entry (August 9, 1996, 61 FR 41542; Barnhart 1986). South of Cape Blanco, Oregon, summer 

steelhead are known to occur in the Rogue, Smith, Klamath, Trinity, Mad, and Eel rivers, and in 

Redwood Creek (Busby, et al. 1996). 

Winter steelhead in California enter fresh water after rivers rise in response to fall/winter rains, 

typically from December through March, with a peak in January and February, with spawning 

soon after reaching the breeding grounds (Moyle 2002). In contrast, summer steelhead enter 

systems as flows taper off in the spring, then spawn the following winter (Moyle 2002). 

Steelhead require a minimum depth of 0.18 m and a maximum velocity of 2.44 m/s for active 

upstream migration (Smith 1973). Spawning and initial rearing of juvenile steelhead generally 

take place in small, moderate-gradient (generally 3-5%) tributary streams (Nickelson, et al. 

1992). A minimum depth of 0.18 m, water velocity of 0.30-0.91 m/s, and clean substrate 0.6-

10.2 cm (Nickelson, et al. 1992) are required for spawning. Steelhead spawn in 3.9-9.4°C water 

(Bell 1991). Depending on water temperature, steelhead eggs may incubate for 1.5 to 4 months 

(August 9, 1996, 61 FR 41542) before hatching, generally between February and June (Bell 

1991). After two to three weeks, in late spring, and following yolk sac absorption, alevins 

emerge from the gravel and begin actively feeding. After emerging from the gravel, fry usually 

inhabit shallow water along banks of perennial streams. Fry occupy stream margins (Nickelson, 

et al. 1992). Summer rearing takes place primarily in the faster parts of pools, although youngof-the-year are abundant in glides and riffles. Winter rearing occurs more uniformly at lower 

densities across a wide range of fast and slow habitat types. Productive steelhead habitat is 

characterized by complexity, primarily in the form of large and small wood. Some older 

juveniles move downstream to rear in larger tributaries and mainstem rivers (Nickelson, et al. 

1992). Steelhead prefer water temperatures ranging from 12-15°C (Reeves et al. 1987). Juveniles 

live in freshwater from one to four years (usually two years in the California ESUs), then smolt 

and migrate to the ocean in March and April (Barnhart 1986). Winter steelhead populations 

generally smolt after two years in fresh water (Busby, et al. 1996). 

The KMP steelhead ESU occurs in coastal river basins between the Elk River in Oregon and the 

Klamath River in California, inclusive. The KMP steelhead ESU contains populations of both 

winter and summer steelhead. The Rogue and Klamath River basins are distinctive in that they 

are two of the few basins producing “half-pounder” steelhead. In 2001, NOAA-Fisheries 

reconsidered the status of KMP steelhead under the ESA (66 FR 17845, April 4, 2001) and 

determined that KMP steelhead do not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at this time. 

In California, the largest proportions of naturally spawning hatchery fish are believed to occur in 

the Trinity River, where estimates from 1990s range from 20-70 percent hatchery. These 

estimates apply to fall-run fish. Because the hatchery program in the Trinity River basin 

propagates mostly fall-run fish, natural spawners in this basin that return at other times are 

believed to be predominantly of natural origin. Counts at Willow Creek weir provide an estimate 

of about 2000 natural origin fall-run spawners per year. The Willow Creek weir samples 

steelhead only over a period of about 3 months during the fall run and thus provides no 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-9

information about other runs in the basin. CDFW biologists estimated natural escapement in the 

California portion of the ESU to be approximately 30,000-50,000 adults per year.

Rainbow Trout

Rainbow trout are native to Pacific slope drainages from the Kuskokwim River in Alaska to Baja 

California, Mexico (Moyle 2002). However their distribution has expanded significantly, 

including previously fishless streams and lakes, due to introductions. Rainbow trout is a 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) in on the Klamath National Forest. 

Rainbow trout inhabit a wide variety of habitats. However, stream dwelling rainbows tend to 

prefer waters with a higher percentage of riffles than pools. Optimal habitat conditions include 

temperatures between 15 and 18oC, slightly alkaline water (pH 7-8), and oxygen concentrations 

close to saturation. Temperatures above 28oC are known to be lethal to rainbow trout; and for 

large fish, lethal temperatures may be around 23-25oC. In summer, where water temperatures 

begin to approach the upper range of tolerance, trout will seek cooler microhabitats (Moyle 

2002). 

Adult forage and dispersal patterns appear to vary with local conditions, environmental factors, 

and the presence of other fish species (Meehan and Bjornn 1991, Moyle 2002). Rainbow trout 

are typically diurnal, opportunistic feeders. They are carnivores that feed in a rover-predator 

style. The majority of their diet consists of aquatic insects, although they will eat crayfish, 

grasshoppers, winged bugs, worms, salamanders, and other fish (including other trout). They 

occasionally feed on benthic invertebrates when the benthic food supply is great and/or when 

there is increased competition for prey form the water column (Behnke 2002). 

Rainbow trout usually spawn between the ages of 2 to 4 years old. Age of first spawn can vary 

greatly depending on size and genetics (Behnke 2002). Female fecundity ranges from 1,200-

3,200 eggs per kilogram of body weight (Behnke 2002). Rainbow trout spawning behavior 

typically begins during the spring but can begin as early as in December and varies due to 

temperature and water flow conditions. Temperatures of 3-6o

C often initiate spawning behavior, 

although actual spawning does not usually occur until temperatures reach 6-9o

C (Behnke 2002). 

In lakes, this often means moving from the lake into their natal stream. If the lake is not streamfed, rainbow trout will move into near-shore shallow waters (Moyle and Cech 2000). In rivers, 

rainbow trout will migrate from feeding areas into smaller, cool-water tributaries (Moyle and 

Cech 2000). Both rainbow and steelhead trout are iteroparous, meaning that they can spawn 

more than once throughout their lifetime
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-10

Hotelling Gulch – Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Surveys

Steelhead presence in Hotelling Gulch is possible. No surveys targeting steelhead have been 

completed. See the Coho discussion concerning fish access limitations into Hotelling Gulch. The 

same barriers and access issues which preclude Coho use also apply to steelhead. Of the three 

anadromous salmonid species present in the SF Salmon River drainage, steelhead is the most 

likely to have the opportunity and ability to access Hotelling Gulch, either as spawning adults or 

rearing juveniles/sub-adults.

Resident rainbow trout are present in Hotelling Gulch. Fish surveys by the Forest Service were 

completed on Hotelling Gulch in 2015 (USFS 2015). Ocular surveys recorded trout from about 

0.2 mile to 0.4 mile, an area located within a bedrock canyon. Due to extended drought, fish 

were restricted either to isolated pools, else pools connected by a very shallow trickle of water. 

The number of fish was low (10), encompassing individuals of a size to represent age-0+ to age2+. Over the course of the survey, several pools inhabited by fish dried; and fish in other pools 

disappeared, presumably due to predation. It is likely, but unconfirmed, that the local trout 

population of Hotelling Gulch became extirpated in 2015.

It is not possible to visually differentiate between juvenile resident rainbow trout and steelhead. 

However, due to the difficulty of access into the Hotelling Gulch drainage to reach the creek 

segment which normally displays perennial flow, it is presumed that the fish seen during the 

2015 survey were residents. However, the mere presence of trout indicate that it is possible for 

fish (of resident or steelhead origin) to enter Hotelling Gulch and take up residence, given the 

appropriate spring run-off and/or flood discharge conditions.

Upstream limit of potential fish distribution in Hotelling Gulch may be constrained by the culvert 

crossing of Forest Road 10N16, a distance of ~0.5 mile. Above this point there is another ~0.3 

mile of possible habitat, which may expand further in non-drought years.

*CalFish query performed on 6/6/2016

• No live/dead fish nor redd counts available

• Steelhead distribution maps do not include Hotelling Gulch

----

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2015. Hotelling Gulch stream survey. Klamath National Forest, 

Salmon-Scott Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 14 p.

SF Salmon River – Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Surveys

Steelhead/rainbow trout are present in the SF Salmon River in the general project area, with a 

focus on the reach between O’Farrill Creek and Forks of Salmon (~River mile 5 to mile 0). 

Juvenile steelhead/rainbow trout cannot be visually differentiated.

Steelhead spawning surveys of the SF Salmon River within the Project area have rarely been 

conducted due to dangerous discharge conditions and poor water visibility present during spring 

when spawning activity is occurring. Records for the lower (i.e., from mouth to Matthew Creek) 

SF Salmon River are available for 1989, 1992, and 1995, although specific locations of redds are 

not recorded. Surveys were conducted from kayak or the road, so it is likely that many redds 

were missed.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-11

While live adult steelhead may be incidentally reported during Chinook surveys in fall, fish are 

most routinely observed during the annual spring Chinook/summer steelhead dive event (lateJuly or early-August), which has occurred since 1990 (most recent report: USFS 2015).

Surveys of thermal refugia and other habitat for juvenile salmonids were conducted on the SF 

Salmon River in 2005 (SRRC 2005). While the mouth of Hotelling Gulch was not included in 

the visitation list due to lack of surface flow, steelhead/rainbow trout juveniles were observed at 

other locations upstream and downstream of the Project area.

*Location restricted, where possible, to general Project area (O’Farrill Creek to Forks of 

Salmon) 

*CalFish query performed on 6/6/2016

• See project record for expanded datasets referred in summary

• Steelhead distribution maps include the SF Salmon River in the Project area

Live/Dead Fish Count

• CalFish records available (6): 91038, 91136, 91480, 91481, 91484, 91485

o Inclusive years (all datasets): 1982, 1990-2013

• Summary: Steelhead recorded in all years within focus reach

Redd Count

• CalFish records available (1): 90720

o Inclusive years (all datasets): 1989-1993

• Summary: Redds recorded all years

• Note: specific location not provided; only one year (1992) includes the section of river where the Project is 

located. Other surveys SF Salmon River at or above Cecilville.

----

Unpublished data and/or field notes from: 1989, 1992, 1995 

Salmon River Restoration Council (SRRC). 2005. Salmon River Coho salmon presence/absence 

and refugia use assessment summary. Unpub. data.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2015. 2015 Spring Chinook/Summer Steelhead dive results. 

Klamath National Forest Service, Salmon-Scott Rivers Ranger District, Fort Jones, CA. 

1 p.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-12

Critical Habitat for Coho Salmon (and)

Essential Fish Habitat for Coho/Chinook Salmon

Designated Critical Habitat (CH) for Coho salmon encompasses accessible reaches of all rivers 

(including estuarine areas and tributaries) between the Mattole River in California and the Elk River 

in Oregon, inclusive (May 5, 1999, 64 FR 24049). The area described in the final rule represented the 

current freshwater and estuarine range of Coho salmon. Land ownership patterns within the Coho 

salmon ESU analyzed in this document and spanning southern Oregon and northern California are 

53% private lands; 36% Federal lands; 10% State and local lands; and 1% Tribal lands. The Forest 

Service manages about 1,680,000 acres (90.6%) of land within the Forest boundaries and about 

200,000 acres (9.4%) of land are within the Forest boundaries but in other ownership (LRMP, Page 3-

12). Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is considered for both Coho and Chinook salmon, with consultation 

occurring under 305 (b) (4) (A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. The definition of Coho/Chinook EFH components and extent is described by Amendment 14 

(Appendix A, pages 12-35 [adopted year 2000]) of the 1978 Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

Salmon Fisheries Management Plan.

Conclusions regarding CH and EFH occurrence are based on field review of habitat suitability, 

professional judgment, District fish survey records, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW) information. In general, the KNF Coho Presence (GIS) layer defines CH, and Coho or 

Chinook distribution (whichever is of maximal extent) defines EFH. As appropriate, the California 

state information in Calfish.org may also be utilized. Where information on Coho or Chinook is 

lacking (e.g., no/few surveys have been completed), else it is the professional judgment of the Fish 

Biologist that neither KNF nor Calfish.org range maps fully capture CH/EFH extent, the KNF 

Steelhead Trout Distribution (GIS) layer may be used as a proxy for maximum range of anadromous 

fishes. This dataset is recognized as a conservative approach for assessment of effects to anadromous 

fish habitat because Coho and Chinook salmon may not occupy the same waters as steelhead due to 

differences in jumping abilities. The maximum jumping height (under ideal conditions) for Coho is 

2.2 meters; Chinook salmon is 2.4 meters; and steelhead is 3.4 meters (Meehan 1991). Therefore, 

steelhead trout can access more habitat than Coho or Chinook salmon (i.e., steelhead trout can make a 

3-meter jump to migrate up a stream, but Coho and Chinook salmon cannot.). Additionally, 

differences in spawn timing may also affect actual distribution. As an example, steelhead spawn in 

the spring, encountering higher discharge conditions than Chinook, which spawn in the fall. In 

consequence, Chinook may be denied access to streams, or segments thereof, due to the presence of 

low-water barriers that are passible to steelhead during spring flows.

In all cases, field review and site-specific surveys may refine the location of CH or EFH.

Map 3 shows the distribution of CH and EFH the Action Area and Analysis Area. This map is based 

on fish distribution with site-specific changes made per professional fisheries biologist knowledge, 

stream surveys, or CDFW data. Field review, survey history, and CalFish.org agree that Coho (for 

CH/EFH) and Chinook (for EFH) for SF Salmon River in the Project area is appropriately reflected 

by the existing Forest Service map database.

For Hotelling Gulch, the existing condition of the drainage precludes access by Coho and Chinook. 

While the objective of the Project is to reconnect the system and, thus, open the stream to 

anadromous salmonids, at the present neither Coho nor Chinook can utilize the stream. Therefore, 

Hotelling Gulch is excluded from CH/EFH. After Project implementation, it will be appropriate to 

modify the KNF CH/EFH map database to include Hotelling Gulch.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-13

Lamprey

Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentata)

Pacific lamprey are found in north Pacific coast streams from Japan, through Alaska, and down the 

North America continent coast, potentially as far as southern California or Baja California (USFWS 

2012; Moyle 2002). This species has many derivative forms, including anadromous (the most 

common), resident, and landlocked; and the relationship between E. tridentata and its multiple forms, 

as well as similar species, is not fully resolved (Moyle 2002). Pacific lamprey is a Sensitive species 

for the Klamath National Forest.

Pacific lamprey are usually anadromous, with two distinct parts of their complex life cycle. 

Following is a generalized life cycle description, as summarized from Moyle (2002), Close, et al. 

(2010), and USFWS (2012). After hatching in freshwater in the late spring and early summer, larvae 

(ammocoetes) leave the nest and passively drift until suitable substrate – sand/silt – is encountered. 

Once a site is colonized, the blind larvae filter feed upon detritus for an extended period of time. 

Length of in-stream residence is uncertain, an individual may retain a larval form between three to 

seven years, with four to six years typical. Time to metamorphosis is dependent upon how long it 

takes to grow to a particular size. At 14-16 centimeter total length, larvae begin metamorphosis to the 

ocean-going adult form. Metamorphosis occurs over multiple months, and requires physiological 

changes from sessile filter-feeder to active predator, including changes in sensory system (such as 

growing eyes), digestive system, and tolerance to sea water. Downstream migration appears 

correlated with high flow events of winter and spring. Adults spend up to four years in the ocean 

where feeding is by parasitism: an individual latches to its prey (usually fish, but sometimes marine 

mammals), rasps a hole through the skin, extracts body fluids and flesh, and finally drops off once 

full. Upmigration from the ocean occurs from winter through early summer, although lamprey may 

hold in a river up to a year before the final migration into spawning streams. Once the spawning 

migration starts, lamprey stop eating. Pacific lamprey do not appear to home to a natal stream, instead 

following the smell of pheromones produced by ammocoetes to find suitable spawning habitat. In late 

spring through early summer, nests are constructed, and while some adults may survive to return to 

the ocean, most die soon after spawning.

Specifics of the general Pacific lamprey life cycle as applied to the Klamath River system, much less 

its individual tributaries, are largely uncertain. Initial movement of spawners from the ocean into the 

river may occur at any time of the year, but is primarily late winter and into spring (Larson and 

Belchik 1998, Close, et al. 2010). Additionally, there is evidence of at least two distinct runs: a spring 

run that spawns shortly after entering freshwater, and a fall run that holds over and spawns the 

following spring (Anglin 1994). Downstream emigration of lamprey occurs year-round, with final 

outmigration to saltwater of transformed adults in late fall through spring (Anglin 1994; Close, et al. 

2010). Other particulars, such as details about the ammocoete stage and spawning specifics (i.e., 

months, locations) for the various Klamath River tributaries, are unknown.

Habitat for Pacific lamprey ammocoetes is very important due to the long in-stream residence. Sands 

and silts are the preferred habitat of larvae, with larger substrate sizes utilized by larger (older) 

individuals (Sugiyama and Goto 2002; Stone and Barndt 2005). Finer particles are endemic of lower 

velocity environments such as stream margins, backwaters, eddies, and pools. Although ammocoetes 

are often considered to be sedentary, they will actively seek new habitat if a particular site becomes 

unsuitable (Moyle 2002; USFWS 2010). Most important is that the stream velocity has to be fast 

enough to allow filter feeding, yet sufficiently slow to retain the preferred sediments (Torgensen and 

Close 2004). For poorly known reasons, distribution of lamprey larvae in a stream tends to be patchy 

– not all suitable habitats are utilized – but it may be a function of microhabitat, variation between 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-14

stream reaches, and seasonal movement to take advantage of different habitat (Sugiyama and Goto 

2002; Torgensen and Close 2004). Optimal temperature requirements for ammocoetes, as well as 

other water quality parameters, needs further study. However, it is known that eggs will successfully 

hatch from 10° to 22°C, with highest survival 10° to 18°C; and that local spawning peaks are likely 

tied with water temperatures most advantageous for embryo development (Meeuwig, et al. 2005).

Pacific lamprey spawning habitat is very similar to that required by salmonids. Redds are generally 

built in gravel and cobble substrates, with moderate velocity flowing water. Of the 125 Pacific 

lamprey nests surveyed in the Smith River, Oregon, most were observed in low gradient riffles, pool 

tailouts and lateral scour pools (Gunckel, et al. 2009). Most of these nests were associated with cover, 

including gravel and cobble substrates, vegetation and woody debris. Likewise, nests observed 

elsewhere have also largely associated with pool-tail outs, low gradient riffles and runs, including 

Cedar Creek, Washington (Stone 2006) and various tributaries within the Willamette River basin, 

Oregon (Mayfield, et al. 2014). Spawning activity has been observed to commence in association 

with the descending limb of the spring hydrograph once water temperature exceeds 10oC, and be at its 

most intense between 10oC and 15oC (Mayfield, et al. 2014). Upstream extent of spawning Pacific 

lamprey is often considered synonymous with salmonid anadromy, although there are indications that 

this assumption may not always be true – under natural conditions, lamprey may be able to pass 

traditional barriers to upmigrating steelhead and salmon, such as waterfalls (USFWS 2012). Research 

is on-going on this topic. Until consensus is reached within the scientific community, it is appropriate 

to continue to utilize salmonid anadromy as Pacific lamprey extent.

Pacific lamprey numbers in the Klamath River appear to be decreasing. While there is no estimate of 

the current population, oral history taken from tribal fishers indicates a long-term decline in adult 

catch (Larson and Belchik 1998; USFWS 2012). A downward trend is suggested for outmigrating 

juveniles caught in rotary screw traps in the Klamath River basin between 1997 and 2004 (USFWS 

2004). The Scott River and Shasta River rotary screw trap datasets (2001-2015) also exhibit longterm declines (B. Chesney, pers. comm.)

Klamath River Lamprey (Entosphenus similis)

Klamath River lamprey are found in the upper and lower Klamath River system, including its 

tributaries (Moyle 2002). This species is non-migratory and can be found within both rivers and lakes 

(Moyle 2002; CWS 2013). Klamath River lamprey is a Sensitive species for the Klamath National 

Forest.

Specifics concerning the life history and habitat needs of the Klamath River lamprey are few, but it is 

presumed to be broadly similar to the Pacific lamprey. One primary difference is that this species is 

limited to freshwater (i.e., is not anadromous), and therefore adults feed on prey such as salmonids, 

suckers, and cyprinids throughout their life (Moyle 2002; CWS 2013). Downstream of Iron Gate 

Dam, the distribution of Klamath River lamprey is presumed to be similar to anadromous salmonids, 

its primary food source (CWS 2013).

All Locations – Lamprey Surveys

Understanding of the full extent of distribution of Sensitive lamprey species within Project area 

waterways is unknown.

Rearing for Entosphenus ssp. has been documented in the Salmon River drainage. As it is not 

possible at this time to tell apart live Pacific lamprey and Klamath River lamprey under field 

conditions, the proportions and specific locations where each may be found is unknown. Lamprey of 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-15

an appropriate age/size to be distinguished to species (e.g., Pacific lamprey) have been captured in the 

Karuk rotary screw trap located near the mouth (Karuk 2013). However, as the trap is a passive 

capture device of drifting organisms, it is not possible to determine origination other than “Salmon

River drainage”. More recently, ammocoete surveys (Entosphenus ssp.) were conducted in the 

Salmon River drainage, with positive observations made at multiple locations on the SF Salmon 

River between Forks of Salmon to about 1 mile downstream of the Petersburg Guard Station (USFS 

2016, 2015). It is thus presumed that lamprey are present in the SF Salmon River adjacent the Project 

focus area.

Hotelling Gulch is not considered to be suitable habitat for lamprey. Although Hotelling Gulch is not 

judged to be an anadromous system (see salmonid discussion), the mouth may be accessible to adult 

lamprey. However, the creek reach which retain perennial water does not contain suitable ammocoete 

rearing habitat; and the small stream size and heavily shaded nature of the drainage means that the 

system is unlikely to provide the support for development of drifting organic food required for 

ammocoete filter feeding. In regards to spawning, pockets of suitable habitat is present for resident 

rainbow trout, but these areas are small in extent with a very patchy distribution. While the best 

potential spawning location for lamprey may the alluvial fan, the annual drying of the channel 

precludes successful development of eggs into larvae.

----

Karuk Tribe. 2013. Salmon River screw trap – 2006-2011. Unpub. data.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2016. Lamprey distribution investigation summary, Salmon-Scott 

Ranger District – 2016. Klamath National Forest, Salmon-Scott River Ranger District, Fort 

Jones, CA. 15 p.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2015. Lamprey distribution investigation summary, Salmon-Scott 

Ranger District – 2015. Klamath National Forest, Salmon-Scott River Ranger District, Fort 

Jones, CA. 13 p.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-16

References

Anglin, D.R. 1994. Lower Klamath River instream flow study: scoping evaluation for the Yurok 

Indian Reservation. Completed under interagency agreement No: AG1J520003. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Lower Columbia River Fishery Resource Office, Vancouver, WA. 46 p.

Barnhart, R.A. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes 

and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) – steelhead. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological 

Report 82 (TR-EL-82-4/82-11-60). 27 p.

Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America. (George, S., ed.). The Free Press, New 

York, New York. 359 p.

Bell, M.C. 1991. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria, 3rd edition. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon.

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. 

Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 

and California. Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-27. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington.

Available online: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm27/tm27.htm

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. Klamath River basin fall Chinook salmon 

spawner escapement, in-river harvest and run-size estimates, 1979-2014. Available from W. 

Sinnen, CDFW, 5341 Ericson Way, Arcata, California.

Center for Watershed Sciences (CWS). 2013. Klamath River lamprey – Entosphenus simulis. UC 

Davis Pices Database.

Available online: http://pisces.ucdavis.edu/content/entosphenus-similis

Close, D., Docker, M., Dunne, T., and G. Ruggerone. 2010. Scientific assessment of two dam 

removal alternatives on lamprey – Klamath River Expert Panel. Final report prepared for U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 56 p + appendices.

Gunckel, S.L., Jones, K.K., and S.E. Jacobs. 2009. Spawning distribution and habitat use of adult 

Pacific and western brook lampreys in Smith River, Oregon. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 72: 173-189.

Hassler, T.J. 1987. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes 

and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest). Coho Salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Report 82(11.70). 26 p.

Available online: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-070.pdf

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 313-393 in

Pacific Salmon Life Histories (C. Croot and L. Macolis, eds.). UBC Press, University of 

British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Klamath River Technical Team (KRTT). 2016. Ocean abundance projections and prospective harvest 

levels for Klamath River Fall Chinook, 2016 Season.

Available online: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/krtt.stock_.proj_.final_.03Mar2016.pdf

Larson, Z.S., and M.R. Belchik. 1998. A preliminary status review of eulachon and Pacific lamprey 

in the Klamath River Basin. Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program, Klamath, CA. 24 p.

Mayfield, M.P., Schultz, L.D., Wyss, L.A., Clemens, B.J., and C.B. Schreck. 2014. Spawning 

patterns of Pacific lamprey in tributaries to the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 143: 1544-1554.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-17

Meehan, W.R. (ed.). 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and 

their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

Meehan, W.R. and T.C. Bjornn. 1991. Salmonid distribution and life histories. in Influences of forest 

and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats (Meehan, W.R., ed.). 

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:47-82.

Meeuwig, M.H., Bayer, J.M., and J.G. Seelye. 2005. Effects of temperature on survival and 

development of early life stage Pacific and western brook lampreys. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 134: 19-27.

Meyers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. 

Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon 

from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC35. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, 

Washington. Available online: http://www.fws.gov/yreka/HydroDocs/Myers_etal_1998.pdf

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 

502 p.

Moyle, P.B., and J.J. Cech, Jr. 2000. Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology. 4th edition. Prentice-Hall, 

Saddle River, New Jersey.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch). National Marine Fisheries Service. Arcata, CA.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act Klamath 

River Coho Salmon Recovery Plan. Prepared by Rogers, F. R., I. V. Lagomarsino and J. A. 

Simondet for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region Long Beach, 

California. 48 p.

Available online: http://www.swr.noaa.gov/salmon/MSRA_RecoveryPlan_FINAL.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Biological Opinion. Ongoing Klamath Project 

Operations. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Long Beach, California. 

61 p.

Available online: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/psd/kbo.pdf

Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest, and J.B. Hall. 1987. Interactions between the redside shiner 

(Richardsonius balteatus) and the steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) in western Oregon: the 

influence of water temperatures. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 44: 1603-

1613.

Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 397-446 in

Pacific Salmon Life Histories (C. Croot and L. Macolis, eds.). UBC Press, University of 

British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Smith, A.K. 1973. Development and application of spawning velocity and depth criteria for Oregon 

salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 102: 312-316.

Stone, J. 2006. Observations on nest characteristics, spawning habitat, and spawning behavior of 

Pacific and western brook lamprey in a Washington stream. Northwestern Naturalist 87: 225-

232.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

A-18

Stone, J., and S. Barndt. 2005. Spatial distribution and habitat use of Pacific lamprey (Lampetra 

tridentata) ammocoetes in a western Washington stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 20: 

171-185.

Sugiyama, H. and A. Goto. 2002. Habitat selection by larvae of a fluvial lamprey, Lethenteron 

reissneri, in a small stream and an experimental aquarium. Icthyological Research 49: 62-68.

Torgensen, C.E., and D.A. Close. 2004. Influence of habitat heterogeneity on the distribution of 

larval Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) at two spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 49: 

614-630.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) –

assessment and template for conservation measures in California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA. 117 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Best management practices to minimize adverse 

effects to Pacific lamprey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 25 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. 90-day finding on a petition to list three species of 

lamprey as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 69: 77158-77167.

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples. 

1995. Status review of Coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, Seattle, Washington.

Available online: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm24/tm24.htm

Personal Communication

Bill Chesney – Biologist, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Yreka, CA)
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

B-1

Appendix B: Table of Pathway and Indicators

Klamath National Forest Matrix: Table of Population and Habitat Indicators 

for Use on the Klamath National Forest in the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Aquatic Habitat Conditions Analysis Guidelines

AP = Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal 

Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area (USDI, USDA, 

and NOAA 2004). 

Available at www.blm.gov/or/esa/reports/Analytical_Process_110504.doc.

The table(s) within this Appendix show criteria used to determine baseline conditions in 7th-and 5th-field 

watersheds within the KNF boundaries that contain anadromous fish habitat. The criteria in the Table and 

footnotes are used to describe the current condition of Klamath Mountains watersheds, and to determine if 

projects are likely to affect anadromous salmonids via effects on salmonid habitat components. Current 

conditions of watershed(s) are assessed and documented in the Table of Habitat Indicators; and effects to 

Indicators from proposed actions are discussed in the narrative within the BA/BE and summarized in the Table 

of Habitat Indicators. 

The initial KNF-NMFS Level 1 review of the Table criteria was completed by Perrochet, Thomas, and 

Flickinger in April 2007. Edits to LWD were made in March 2009 to reflect LRMP EIS values. The Table was 

updated in 2004 as part of the Analytical Process for ESA consultation with NMFS. In May 2012 Grunbaum 

and Meneks provided updates/edits to this document and the Table of Habitat Indicators.

The Table, as designed in the 2004 Analytical Process, and in earlier versions (1997 NMFS BO for the

LRMP), suggests values to determine a level of functioning for anadromous fish bearing streams. A note about 

rigid values to assess level of functioning: in addition to fixed habitat parameters not allowing for natural 

variability, fixed habitat parameters set standards that may be geomorphically inappropriate (Bisson et al. 

1997). Variability is an inherent property of aquatic ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest and habitats at any 

given location will change from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century (Bisson et al. 1997). 

Healthy lotic ecosystems require different parts of the channel system to exhibit very different in-channel 

conditions and that those conditions change through time (Reid and Furniss 1998). Also, data may not be 

available for the stream being assessed. Therefore, a conclusion of function must be evaluated with 

professional judgment recognizing the streams capability to perform within rigid values. In some cases, a 

stream’s morphology, aspect or size may not support “Properly Functioning” criteria values for one or more 

habitat Indicators. If an Indicator for a particular stream is determined to be functioning at its capability (due to 

morphology, aspect, or size), it is rated as Properly Functioning even if it doesn’t meet Table criteria values. In 

the absence of available data, table and associated footnotes suggest factors that should be considered when 

evaluating indicators. 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

B-2

Klamath National Forest Tributaries Table of Pathways and Indicators

Klamath National Forest Tributaries Table of Pathways and Indicators:

Pathways Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly 

Functioning

Habitat: Non Watershed Condition Indicators

Water Quality: Temperature (1)

1st - 3rd Order Streams 

[instantaneous] 69 F degrees (~ 20.5 C) or less > 69 to 70.5 degrees F 70.5 F degrees (~ 21.3 C) or more

4th-5th Order Streams

[Maximum Weekly 

Maximum Temperature]

70.5 F degrees (~ 21.4 C) or less > 70.5 to 73.5 degrees F 73.5 F degrees (~ 23.0 C) or more

Suspended 

Sediment/Turbidity 

Little to no quantitative turbidity 

data exists for streams on the 

Klamath National Forest. Use the 

following criteria to infer 

condition of turbidity Indicator: 

(1) professional judgment from 

years of direct observation of 

tributary streams; (2) amount of 

fines in substrate from stream 

survey data, (3) CWE modeled 

level of watershed surface erosion 

and mass wasting, and (4) 

condition of stream buffer RR and 

channel (particularly if there has 

been recent debris flows that 

altered the channel).

Professional judgment of turbidity 

is based on observations of water 

clarity after peak flows in 

tributaries to the mainstems of the 

Klamath, Scott, and Salmon 

Rivers that have watersheds with 

varying degrees of disturbance 

from nearly pristine to highly 

disturbed.

Properly Functioning: Water 

clarity returns quickly (within 

three days) following peak flows. 

Water clarity slow (four to six 

days) to return following peak 

flows, moderate to high fines in 

substrate, moderate modeled 

surface erosion and mass wasting, 

and riparian reserves are not fully 

functioning. 

Water clarity poor for long periods of 

time (one week or more) following 

peak flows. Some suspended 

sediments occur even at low flows or 

base flow. High fines in substrate, 

stream buffers in poor condition, high 

modeled surface erosion and mass 

wasting, and riparian reserves are in 

poor condition.

Chemical/Nutrient

Contamination (2)

Scott, Salmon, and Klamath River 

mainstems: Low levels of 

contamination from agriculture, 

industrial, and other sources; no 

excess nutrients. No CWA 303d 

designated reaches. 

Scott, Salmon, and Klamath River 

tributaries: None or low levels of 

chemical and/or nutrient 

contamination from agriculture, 

industrial, and other sources; no 

excess nutrients.

Scott, Salmon, and Klamath 

River mainstems: Moderate levels 

of contamination from 

agriculture, industrial, and other 

sources; some excess nutrients. 

One or more CWA 303d 

designated reaches 

Scott, Salmon, and Klamath 

River tributaries: Moderate levels 

of contamination from 

agriculture, industrial, and other 

sources and/or moderate excess 

nutrients.

Scott, Salmon, and Klamath Rivers: 

mainstems: High levels of 

contamination from agriculture, 

industrial, and other sources; high 

levels of nutrients. One or more CWA 

303d designated reaches 

Scott, Salmon, and Klamath River 

tributaries: High levels of 

contamination from agriculture, 

industrial, and other sources and/or 

moderate to high excess nutrients.

Habitat 

Access: Physical Barriers (AP) 

Any man-made barriers present in 

watershed allow upstream and 

downstream passage at all flows.

One or more human -made 

barriers present in watershed do 

not allow upstream and/or 

downstream passage at base/low 

flows.

Human-made barriers present in 

watershed do not allow upstream 

and/or downstream passage at a range 

of flows for at least one life history 

stage.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

B-3

Klamath National Forest Tributaries Table of Pathways and Indicators:

Pathways Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly 

Functioning

Substrate character (3)

Use stream survey data for determining substrate character. In addition, use USLE and GEO models to 

determine functioning level of Indicator and potential effects of sediment delivery to streams that may 

affect anadromous fish and their habitat. Can also infer substrate character functioning level from other 

factors such as high road density and hydrologic connection, recent large intense wildfires, and recent (last 

20 years) altered channel.

Habitat 

Elements:

Less than 15% fines (<2 mm) in 

spawning habitat (pool tail-outs, 

low gradient riffles, and glides) 

and cobble embeddedness less 

than 20%.

Additional desired conditions, as 

per TMDL/NCRWB water quality 

compliance, include:

*Pool sediment vol (V*): ≤21%

*Subsurface, <0.85 mm: ≤14%

*Subsurface, <6.4 mm: ≤30%

15% or greater fines (<2 mm) in 

spawning habitat (pool tail-outs, 

low gradient riffles, and glides) 

and/or cobble embeddedness is 

20% or greater.

Greater than 20% fines (<2 mm) in 

spawning habitat (pool tail-outs, low 

gradient riffles, and glides) and 

cobble embeddedness greater than 

25%.

Large Woody Debris (4)

See KNF LRMP EIS Chapter 3, 

text and tables on Pages 68-69. 

For stream reaches on the 

Westside of the Forest, manage for 

an average of 20 pieces of large 

wood per 1,000 ft in 3-5th order 

streams (LRMP Page 4-143). 

Large wood is defined as a 

minimum length of 50 feet and 

diameter of 24 inches on the 

Westside. However, site potential 

and channel width must be 

considered rather than using strict 

numbers. Also consider the 

potential for future LWD 

recruitment in both the short- and 

long-term. 

Current levels are being 

maintained at minimum levels 

desired for “properly functioning” 

but potential sources for long term 

woody debris recruitment are 

lacking to maintain these 

minimum values.

Current levels are not at those desired 

levels for “properly functioning” and 

potential sources of woody debris for 

short and/or long term recruitment 

are lacking.

Pool Quality and 

Frequency (5)

At least one primary pool every 

three to seven bankfull channel 

widths. In 1st through 3rd order 

streams, a primary pool must have 

a maximum depth of two feet or 

greater. In 4th and 5th order 

streams, a primary pool must have 

a maximum depth of three feet or 

greater. In 6th order and larger 

streams, a primary pool must have 

a maximum depth of four feet or 

greater.

At least one pool every three to 

seven bankfull channel widths. At 

least half of the pools are primary 

pools. At least half the pools have 

a maximum depth of at least 24 

inches (1st- 3rd order streams) or 36 

inches (4th order and greater).

There is less than one pool every 

three to seven bankfull channel 

widths and/or less than half the pools 

have maximum depth of at least 24 

inches (1st-3rd order streams) or 36 

inches (4th order and greater). 

Off-Channel Habitat

Fish have unrestricted access to 

off-channel habitats (such as 

oxbows, off-channel ponds, 

backwaters, and areas of low flow 

velocity and cover) in 

unconstrained reaches during high 

flows and flooding events in 

winter. And these off-channel 

areas are relatively undisturbed by 

dikes, levees, dredge tailings, 

roads, excavations, fills, flow 

diversions, development, 

vegetation clearing, wood 

removal, poor water quality, etc. 

Fish access to off-channel 

habitats, and the quantity and 

quality of off-channel habitats, in 

unconstrained reaches, is 

diminished due to dikes, levees, 

dredge tailings, roads, 

excavations, fills, flow diversions, 

development, vegetation clearing, 

wood removal, poor water quality, 

etc. 

Fish access to off-channel habitats in 

unconstrained reaches is severely 

restricted or impossible due to dikes, 

levees, dredge tailings, roads, 

excavations, fills, flow diversions, 

development, etc., and/or the quality 

of the off-channel habitats is poor 

due to vegetation clearing, wood 

removal, poor water quality, and the 

other factors listed above. .
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

B-4

Klamath National Forest Tributaries Table of Pathways and Indicators:

Pathways Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly 

Functioning

Habitat 

Elements:

Refugia (important 

remnant habitat for 

sensitive aquatic species)

Critical habitats necessary for 

successful completion of all 

anadromous salmonid life history 

phases (spawning, incubation, 

emergence, freshwater rearing, 

and migration) are functioning, 

accessible, and well-distributed. 

Critical summer refugia in 

Klamath Mountain streams 

include: (1) thermal refugia and 

(2) anadromous stream reaches 

with intact riparian reserves, cool 

clean water, pools that are not 

filled-in or partially filled-in with 

excess sediment, adequate stream 

flows, and good water quality. 

Critical winter habitat for 

anadromous salmonids includes 

side channels, off-channel 

habitats, and floodplain habitats.

Not all critical habitats necessary 

for successful completion of all 

anadromous salmonid life history 

phases are functioning and/or 

accessible for salmonids and/or 

well-distributed. Habitat quality 

and/or accessibility is diminished 

due to dikes, levees, dredge 

tailings, other fills, roads, 

excavations, flow diversions, 

development, vegetation clearing, 

wood removal, poor water quality, 

etc. 

Many of the critical habitats 

necessary for successful completion 

of all anadromous salmonid life 

history phases are not functioning 

and/or not accessible for salmonids, 

and are thus are poorly distributed 

across the stream network and not 

providing adequate biological 

connectivity.

Channel 

Condition and 

Dynamics:

Width/Depth Ratio (6)

Width-to-Depth ratio < 12 on all 

reaches that could otherwise best 

be described as 'A', 'G', and 'E' 

channel types. Width-to-Depth 

ratio > 12 on all reaches that could 

otherwise best be described as 'B', 

'F', and 'C' channel types. No 

braided streams formed due to 

excessive sediment loads. 

Lacking data, width-to-depth ratio 

should be evaluated considering 

the following factors: (1) recent 

(last 20 years) history of debris 

flows that have scoured channel 

and resulted in aggradation or 

degradation of the stream bed, (2) 

recent history of mass wasting that 

delivered large volumes of 

sediment to the stream that may 

have filled in pools, (3) pool 

frequency and depth information 

from stream surveys, (4) 

watershed disturbance as 

estimated with CWE modeling for 

mass wasting (GEO) and peak 

flows (ERA/TOC), and (5) 

frequency of large woody debris 

in the stream channel. For 

properly functioning, stream 

crossing density is low, there have 

been few mass wasting events 

caused by management actions, 

there are numerous deep pools, 

modeled mass wasting and surface 

erosion is low, and there is 

adequate LWD. If there is no or 

little management disturbance 

legacy in a watershed, then widthto-depth ratio is assumed to be 

properly functioning.

More than 10% of the reaches are 

outside of the ranges given for 

Width/Depth ratios for the channel 

types specified in "Properly 

Functioning" block. Braiding has 

occurred in some alluvial reaches 

as a result of excessive 

aggradation due to high sediment 

loads. 

For at-risk, stream crossing 

density is moderate to high, there 

have been some mass wasting 

events caused by management 

actions, pool frequency and quality 

is at-risk, modeled mass wasting 

and surface erosion is moderate to 

high, and there is inadequate 

LWD. 

More than 25% of the reaches are 

outside of the ranges given for 

Width/Depth ratios for the channel 

types specified in "Properly 

Functioning" block. Braiding has 

occurred in many alluvial reaches as 

a result of excessive aggradation due 

to high sediment loads. 

For not properly functioning, stream 

crossing density is high, there have 

been some large mass wasting events 

caused by management actions, pool 

frequency and quality is poor, 

modeled mass wasting and surface 

erosion is moderate to high, and there 

is inadequate LWD.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

B-5

Klamath National Forest Tributaries Table of Pathways and Indicators:

Pathways Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly 

Functioning

Streambank Condition 

(AP)

> 80% of any stream reach has >

90% stability. Most watersheds 

have no bank stability surveys 

data so the level of streambank 

stability should be evaluated by 

considering: (1) density of roadstream crossings per stream or 

stream reach, (2) amount of inner 

gorge road, (3) other clearing 

and/or compaction directly 

adjacent to the stream, (4) 

artificial banks created by pushing 

up berms, and (5) recent (since 

1996) channel altering debris 

flows.

For properly functioning: Stream 

crossing density is low to 

moderate, there is little to no inner 

gorge road, there is no or only 

minor disturbance next to the 

stream channel, there are few or 

no berms, dikes, or levees 

constraining the channel, and/or 

there has been no or minor 

channel alteration/filling due to 

debris flows/landslides related to 

past management actions.

50-80% of any stream reach has >

90% stability. 

For at-risk: Stream crossing 

density is moderate to high, there 

is some inner gorge road, there is 

some disturbance next to the 

stream channel, there are some 

berms, dikes, or levees 

constraining the channel, and/or 

there has been some channel 

alteration/filling due to debris 

flows/landslides related to past 

management actions.

< 50% of any stream reach has >90% 

stability

For not properly functioning: Stream 

crossing density is high, there is over 

a mile of inner gorge road, there is 

significant disturbance next to the 

stream channel, berms, dikes, or 

levees constrain over a mile of 

channel; and/or there has been 

significant channel alteration/filling 

due to debris flows/landslides related 

to past management actions.

Floodplain Connectivity 

(AP) 

Off-channel areas are frequently 

hydrologically linked to main 

channel; overbank flows occur and 

maintain wetland functions, 

riparian vegetation, and 

succession.

Reduced linkage of wetland, 

floodplains, and riparian areas to 

main channel; overbank flows are 

reduced relative to historic 

frequency, as evidenced by 

moderate degradation of wetland 

function, riparian 

vegetation/succession.

Severe reduction in hydrologic 

connectivity between off-channel, 

wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

areas; wetland area drastically 

reduced and riparian 

vegetation/succession altered 

significantly.

Flow / 

Hydrology:

Change in Peak/Base 

Flows (7)

Properly functioning watersheds 

for peak flow have low modeled 

ERA/TOC, low road density, few 

large clearings in the rain-snow 

transition zone, and vegetation 

close to reference condition. 

Properly functioning watersheds 

for base flow have low modeled 

ERA/TOC, low road density and 

hydrologic connectivity, and 

vegetation close to reference 

condition. 

Watersheds at-risk for change in 

peak flow have moderately high to 

high modeled ERA/TOC, 

moderate to high road density, 

and/or some large recent clearings 

in the rain-snow transition zone. 

Watersheds at-risk for change in 

base flow have denser vegetation 

compared to reference conditions, 

several water diversions, and 

moderate density of roads that 

have hydrologic connectivity.

Watersheds not properly functioning 

or change in peak flow have high 

modeled ERA/TOC, high road 

density, and may have large recent 

clearings in the rain-snow transition 

zone. 

Watersheds not properly functioning 

for change in base flow have much 

denser vegetation compared to 

reference conditions, numerous or 

large water diversions, and high 

density of roads that have hydrologic 

connectivity.

Increase in Drainage 

Network (AP) 

Zero or minimum increases in 

active channel length correlated 

with human caused disturbance 

(e.g., trails, ditches, compaction, 

impervious surface, etc). The 

primary cause of drainage network 

increase in Klamath Mountain 

watersheds is hydrologic 

connectivity between the road 

system and the stream network.

Low to Moderate increases in 

active channel length correlated 

with human caused disturbance 

(e.g., trails ditches, compaction, 

impervious surface, etc).

Greater than moderate increase in 

active channel length correlated with 

human caused disturbance (e.g., trails 

ditches, compaction, impervious 

surface, etc).
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

B-6

Klamath National Forest Tributaries Table of Pathways and Indicators:

Pathways Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly 

Functioning

Watershed Condition Indicators

Watershed 

Conditions:

Road Density and 

Location (AP) Less than 2 miles per square mile. Two to three miles per square mile. Over 3 miles per square mile.

Riparian Reserves – NW 

Forest Plan (AP) (8)

The riparian reserve system 

provides adequate shade, large 

woody debris recruitment, and 

habitat protection and connectivity 

in all subwatersheds, and buffers 

or includes known refugia for 

sensitive aquatic species (> 80% 

intact), and/or for grazing impacts; 

percent similarity of riparian 

vegetation to the potential natural 

community/composition > 50%. 

Moderate loss of connectivity or 

function (shade, LWD 

recruitment, etc) of riparian 

reserve system, or incomplete 

protection of habitat and refugia 

for sensitive aquatic species 

(approx. 70-80% intact), and/or 

for grazing impacts; percent 

similarity of riparian vegetation to 

the potential natural 

community/composition 25-50% 

or better. Some past standreplacement timber harvest or 

intense fire in RR, moderate road 

and landing density in RR, minor 

to moderate level of mining in RR, 

vegetation/fuels moderately 

departed from historic fuels 

conditions, species diversity and 

vegetation structure in stream 

buffers moderately altered from 

reference condition due to fire 

suppression and past timber 

harvest, and moderate modeled 

CWE values.

Riparian reserve system is 

fragmented, poorly connected, or 

provides inadequate protection of 

habitat and refugia for sensitive 

aquatic species (approx. less than 

70% intact), and/or for grazing 

impacts; percent similarity of riparian 

vegetation to the potential natural 

community/composition is 25% or 

less. Extensive past standreplacement timber harvest or intense 

fire in RR, high road and landing 

density in RR, moderate to high 

intensity of mining in RR, 

vegetation/fuels greatly departed 

from historic fuels conditions, species 

diversity and vegetation structure in 

stream buffers significantly altered 

from reference condition due to fire 

suppression and past timber harvest, 

and high modeled CWE values.

Disturbance 

History/Regime 

Frequency, duration, and 

magnitude of stochastic 

disturbance events are close to 

reference condition. The following 

factors should be considered in 

rating the Watershed 

Disturbance/Regime indicators: 

(1) overall watershed disturbance 

as determined through CWE 

modeling, (2) road density and 

location, (3) current impacts from 

past stand-replacing forestry, 

mining, and intense fires, (4) 

departure from historic fire 

regime, (5) departure from historic 

vegetation structure and 

composition, and (6) character of 

development on private property. 

For properly functioning, a 

watershed should have low CWE 

and road density (all models under 

“1” threshold), few impacts from 

past stand-replacement forestry or 

intense fire, are not significantly 

departed from historic 

vegetation/fuels condition and fire 

regime, and/or have low 

disturbance on private property. 

In at-risk watersheds, frequency, 

duration, and magnitude of 

stochastic disturbance events are 

moderately departed from 

reference condition. At-risk 

watersheds have moderate to high 

CWE and road density (one or two 

models over “1” threshold), some 

significant impacts from past 

stand-replacement forestry or 

intense fire, are moderately 

departed from historic 

vegetation/fuels condition and fire 

regime, and/or have moderate 

disturbance on private property. 

In not properly functioning 

watersheds, frequency, duration, and 

magnitude of stochastic disturbance 

event is significantly departed from 

reference condition. Not properly 

functioning watersheds have high 

CWE and road density (all models 

over “1” threshold), significant 

impacts from past stand-replacement 

forestry or intense fire, are 

significantly departed from historic 

vegetation/fuels condition and fire 

regime, and/or have significant 

disturbance on private properties. 

Summary 

Integration of all 

species and 

habitat 

indicators effects

How do the effects to indicators affect each fish species and their habitat? Describe by 

species and by 7th and 5th field watersheds. See AP guidance. In addition to the narrative 

summary, use Summary Table in Tables required for BA/BE.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

B-7

Footnotes to Table Above: Table of Population and Habitat Indicators For Use on the Klamath 

National Forest in the Northwest Forest Plan Area, as adjusted from Appendix A in the Analytical 

Process.

1) (Temperature) Proper Functioning criteria for 4th -5th Order streams is derived from 

temperature monitoring near the mouth of streams of relatively undisturbed watersheds (Clear, 

Dillon, and Wooley Creeks). –Maximum Weekly Maximum Temperatures (MWMT) as high as 

70.5 degrees F have been recorded on these streams (EA Engineering, 1998 Salmon River and 

Dillon Creek Watershed Fish Habitat and Channel Type Analysis, Appendix 2). At-Risk criteria 

for 4th/5th order streams is derived from monitoring in streams that support populations of 

anadromous fish, although temperatures in this range (70.5 to 73.5 degrees F) are considered 

sub-optimal. The Not Properly Functioning criterion is sustained temperatures above 73.5 

degrees F - that causes cessation of growth and approach lethal temperatures for salmon and 

steelhead. Properly Functioning criteria for 1st - 3rd order streams is derived from Desired 

Future Conditions (DFC) values given in the LRMP EIS p 3-68. At Risk and Not Properly 

Functioning criteria for 1st – 3rd order streams are assigned on a temperature continuum with 

values given for 4th/5th order streams, with the maximum instantaneous temperature of At Risk 

1st - 3rd order streams coinciding with the minimum MWMT of 4th/5th order At Risk streams. 

[Stream Order according to Strahler (1957).] 

(2) (Chemical/Nutrient Contamination) For projects within the river corridors of the mainstem 

Scott, Salmon, and Klamath Rivers the criteria is unchanged from AP Table. For tributaries to 

the Scott, Salmon, and Klamath Rivers use the criteria from the AP table. Although these 

tributaries have CWA 303d designation, Klamath National Forest tributaries are typically 

properly functioning for dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and microcystin, and because temperature 

and sediment is assessed in the Temperature and Substrate Character Indicators. Chemical 

contamination and nutrients should be assessed for Scott, Salmon, and Klamath River tributaries. 

(3) (Substrate Character) Use recent stream survey data where available. Properly Functioning 

criteria for % fines in gravel is from the LRMP EIS p 3-68. Additional Forest-wide desired 

conditions for sediment (pool sediment, subsurface sediment) are described by Laurie and Elder 

(2012) in relation to monitoring for TMDL and NCRWB water quality standards. When

location-specific information is unavailable, use the following as best appropriate: use USLE and 

GEO models to determine functioning level of Indicator and potential effects of sediment 

delivery to streams that may affect anadromous fish and their habitat, infer substrate character 

functioning level from other factors such as high road density and degree of hydrologic 

connection, recent large intense wildfires, and recent (last 20 years) debris flows that altered 

channels, and lastly use professional judgment to describe existing conditions and to estimate 

effects based upon model output interpretation, research results, or other information. The KNF 

CWE modeling procedure describes the risk (probability) of project-caused sediment production 

(see 2004 CWE process paper, by Elder and Reichert, in fisheries sufficiency guides). For 

existing condition and effects of the action: 

1. Properly Functioning: USLE and GEO values are less than 1.0

2. At Risk: USLE and GEO values are between 1.0-1.20

3. Not Properly Functioning: USLE and GEO values are greater than 1.20

(4) (Large Woody Debris) See KNF LRMP EIS Chapter 3, text and tables on Pages 68-69. For 

stream reaches on the Westside of the Forest, manage for an average of 20 pieces of large wood 

per 1,000 ft in 3-5th order streams (LRMP Page 4-143). Large wood is defined as a minimum 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

B-8

length of 50 feet and diameter of 24 inches on the Westside. However, site potential and channel 

width must be considered rather than using strict numbers. Also consider the potential for future 

LWD recruitment in both the short- and long-term.

Criteria for length of LWD for larger streams may be based on average bankfull channel width of 

the reach: in streams larger than 3rd order a piece of woody debris may qualify as large woody 

debris in a stream reach if its length is 1.5 times the average bankfull channel width, or if it has a 

rootwad attached and its length is 11⁄4 times the average bankfull channel width. Stable pieces of 

woody debris remain stationary during normal to high flows. Channel width and depth largely 

determines whether large woody debris recruited into a stream reach will be stable, and largely 

determines the average size of wood retained in streams (Bilby and Ward 1989, 1991; Robison 

and Beschta 1990). As channels become wider and deeper, the average size of a stable piece of 

wood increases. Pieces shorter than bankfull width and with a diameter less than bankfull depth 

are more likely to be transported out of a reach by streamflow (Bilby 1984, Braudrick et al. 

1997). Length of woody debris appears to be most important to its stability where stream 

discharge is sufficient to float large diameter stems (Bilby 1985, Swanson and others 1984). 

Branches and/or rootwads, if still attached, add to the stability of woody debris. Therefore, 

criteria for length of LWD for larger streams may be based on average bankfull channel width of 

the reach: in streams larger than 3rd order a piece of woody debris may qualify as large woody 

debris in a stream reach if its length is 1.5 times the average bankfull channel width, or if it has a 

rootwad attached and its length is 11⁄4 times the average bankfull channel width. 

(5) (Pool Quality and Frequency) A measurable pool is an area of channel which (1) shows clear 

signs that the pool was created by scour at high flows and/or that the pool is the result of the 

channel being dammed at the downstream end; (2) has a significant residual depth - the deepest 

part of the pool must be at least twice as deep as the water flowing out of the pool at the riffle 

crest; (3) has an essentially flat water surface during low flow - water surface slope <0.05 

percent; and (4) includes most of the channel - it must include the thalweg and occupy at least 

half of the width of the low-flow channel. “Primary” pools are defined by their maximum depth 

in relationship to size or stream order. As the order or size of the stream increases the required 

minimum depth for a primary pool increases. In 1st through 3rd order streams, a primary pool 

must have a minimum depth of two feet or greater. In 4th and 5th order streams, a primary pool 

must have a minimum depth of three feet. In 6th order and larger streams, a primary pool must 

have a minimum depth of four feet. 

(6) (Width/Depth Ratio) The Width-to-Depth ratio for various channel types is based on 

delineative criteria of Rosgen (1996). Properly Functioning means that Width-to-Depth ratio falls 

within expected channel type as determined by the other four delineative factors (entrenchment, 

sinuosity, slope, and substrate). Aggradation on alluvial flats causing braiding is well known 

phenomenon that often accompanies changes in Width-to-Depth ratio as watershed condition 

deteriorates. Stream width is a function of streamflow occurrence and magnitude, size and type 

of transported sediment, and the bed and bank materials of the channel (Rosgen 1996). Channel 

widths generally increase with flow volume downstream. Channel widths can be modified by 

changes in riparian vegetation, landslides particularly debris flows, changes in streamflow 

regimes, and changes in sediment supply. The AP Table indicates that confined or entrenched 

channel types (such as A, G, and E types) are Properly Functioning when Width-to-Depth ratios 

are <12, and wider channel types (such as B, C, and F types) are Properly Functioning when 
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

B-9

Width-to-Depth ratios are >12. To meet the Properly Functioning criteria channels must also 

have no or minimal braiding due to excessive sediment. 

(7) (Peak/Base Flows) In most cases, sufficient hydrograph data is not available to determine 

comparative changes in peak flows as suggested in the AP. Infer changes in peak flows when no 

hydrograph data is available by considering the following factors: (1) CWE runoff model 

(ERA/TOC) outputs, (2) road density and the degree of hydrologic connectivity between the road 

system and the stream network, and (3) number, size, and vintage of openings in the forest 

canopy resulting from past stand-replacement forestry in the snow-rain transition zone where 

increased openings can result in elevated runoff from rain-on-snow events. The potential for 

decreased base flows in the Project HUC7 watersheds should be evaluated by considering the 

following factors: (1) increased/decreased evapotranspiration due to denser/sparser vegetation 

than reference condition that has resulted from stand-replacement forestry and/or fire 

suppression, (2) number and size of water diversions, and (3) degree of hydrologic connectivity 

between the road system and the stream network (watersheds with high road density likely have 

reduced base flows due to impervious surfaces and groundwater interception in road cuts). 

(8) (Riparian Reserves) The following factors should be considered in determining the condition 

of stream buffer (hydrologic) RR: (1) amount and age of past stand-replacement forestry or 

intense fire in stream buffers, (2) road and landing density in stream buffers, (3) mining in stream 

buffers, (4) departure from historic fire regime, (5) condition of riparian vegetation for providing 

shade, large woody debris, sediment-filtering, and nutrient cycling, and (6) the amount of overall 

disturbance in the watershed particularly as estimated by the peak flow (ERA) and mass wasting 

(GEO) models. The following two factors should be considered in determining the condition of 

geologic RR: (1) amount and age of past stand-replacement timber harvest and/or recent intense 

wildfire on geologic RR and (2) road and landing density on geologic RR.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

C-1

Appendix C: Environmental Baseline and 

Proposed Effects Checklist

Checklists for documenting environmental baseline and effects of proposed actions(s) on 

relevant indicators for

Hotelling Gulch Fish Passage and Channel Restoration Project

Legend For Reference Information Used to Determine Baseline Conditions: 

ND: No data

N/A: Not applicable

PJ: Professional judgment (M. Meneks – District Fish Biologist)

Quiñones 2011:Recovery of Pacific Salmonids in the Face of Climate Change: A Case Study of the 

Klamath River Basin, California [PhD Thesis] (Quiñones 2011)

Siskiyou 2002: Siskiyou County Culvert Inventory and Fish Passage Assessment (Taylor, et al. 

2002)

SSRS 2002: Salmon River Subbasin Restoration Strategy (Elder, et al. 2002) 

SRCA 1998: Salmon River and Dillon Creek Watersheds Fish Habitat and Channel Type 

Analysis (USFS 1998)

Coho-Sal 2014: SONC Coho Recovery Plan, Chapter 35 – Salmon River (NOAA 2014)

L&A 2016: Technical memo – preliminary design for Hotelling Gulch (Love and Associates

2016)

WA 1997: Lower South Fork Salmon River Ecosystem Analysis (USFS 1997)

WA 1994: Upper South Fork Salmon River Ecosystem Analysis (USFS 1994)

CWE: CWE data by watershed (see Table 4 in document text)

CDFW 2016: Passage assessment database query

FishPass 2001: Regional Fish Passage Assessment, 2001

Temps-SFSal: Summer temperature data (2010-2015) – SF Salmon River

USFS 2015: Hotelling Gulch stream survey report (USFS 2015)

CA-EPA: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/303d/
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

C-2

Table of Pathway and Indicators for 7th Field Watershed:

Negro Creek-SF Salmon River (for Hotelling Gulch)

Hotelling Gulch supports resident rainbow trout, but is not considered to be habitat for anadromous species. 

However, the objective of the Project is to reconnect the system to SF Salmon River, thus, returning access of 

anadromous salmonids to the drainage.

DIAGNOSTIC OR PATHWAY

and

INDICATOR

Environmental Baseline Effects of the Action

PROPERLY 

FUNCTIONING

FUNCTIONING

- AT RISK

NOT PROP. 

FUNCT. RESTORE MAINTAIN DEGRADE

HABITAT:

Habitat Quality

Temperature

USFS 2015; WA 

1997 X

Suspended Sediment - Intergravel 

DO/Turbidity PJ; CWE X

Chemical Contamination/ 

Nutrients PJ X

Habitat Access

Physical Barriers

PJ; CDFW 2016; 

Siskiyou 2002 <== X1

Habitat Elements

Substrate Character and 

Embeddedness 

PJ; CWE; USFS 

2015; WA 1997 X

Large Woody Debris N/A for streams less than 3rd order; however, not properly 

functioning (USFS 2015) X

Pool Frequency and Quality PJ; L&A 2016;

USFS 2015 X

Large Pools

Off-channel Habitat N/A - Not present

Refugia PJ <== X

Channel Cond & Dyn

Average Width/Maximum Depth

PJ; CWE; USFS 

2015; WA 1997 <== X

Streambank Condition

PJ; L&A 2016; 

USFS 2015; WA 

1997

<== X

Floodplain Connectivity PJ X

Flow/Hydrology

Change in Peak/Base Flows PJ; GIS <== X

Increase in Drainage Network PJ <== X

Watershed Conditions

Road Density & Location GIS; WA 1997 X

Disturbance History & Regime PJ; L&A 2016; 

WA 1997 X

Riparian Reserves - Northwest 

Forest Plan 

PJ; Coho-Sal 

2014; WA 1997 X

SPECIES AND HABITAT:

Species and Habitat:

Summary/Integration of all Species 

and Habitat Indicators

X <== X

Hotelling Gulch not considered anadromous at this time due to 

culvert barrier and other access issues.

For the Salmon River drainage in general, long-term trends for 

most anadromous species/runs are unclear (Quiñones 2011). 

The exceptions include spring Chinook (increasing) and 

summer steelhead (decreasing), but these trends also show a 

signal of hatchery influence (Quiñones 2011). See Life History 

section for additional information.

See Env. Conseq. and Table 6 for an Indicator 

effects summary. The Env. Conseq. section also 

describes effects to fish and their habitat. Project 

will not cause adverse effects.

1

Remediation of County Road crossing and alluvial fan channel will improve access of fish to creek. Complete access to the 

drainage may be (partially) restricted at ~0.5 miles upstream by culvert crossing of Forest Road 10N16. This culvert 

requires additional evaluation as to need for replacement or other action.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

C-3

Table of Pathway and Indicators for 5th Field Watershed:

South Fork Salmon River (for mainstem SF Salmon River)

DIAGNOSTIC OR PATHWAY

and

INDICATOR

Environmental Baseline Effects of the Action

PROPERLY 

FUNCTIONING

FUNCTIONING

- AT RISK

NOT PROP. 

FUNCT. RESTORE MAINTAIN DEGRADE

HABITAT:

Habitat Quality

Temperature

Temps-SFSal; 

Coho-Sal 2014; 

SRCA 1998; 

WA 1997, 1994

X

Suspended Sediment - Intergravel 

DO/Turbidity 

PJ; WA 1997, 

1994 X

Chemical Contamination/ 

Nutrients CA-EPA X

Habitat Access

Physical Barriers

CDFW 2016; CohoSal 2014; Siskiyou 

2002; FishPass 2001

X

Habitat Elements

Substrate Character and 

Embeddedness 

SRCA 1998; WA 

1997, 1994 X

Large Woody Debris

Coho-Sal 2014; 

SRCA 1998; 

WA 1997, 1994

X

Pool Frequency and Quality SRCA 1998; WA 

1997, 1994 X

Large Pools

Off-channel Habitat PJ; Coho-Sal 

2014 X

Refugia PJ X

Channel Cond & Dyn

Average Width/Maximum Depth PJ; CWE 2015 X

Streambank Condition ND - likely Properly Functioning (PJ) X

Floodplain Connectivity PJ, Coho-Sal 2014 X

Flow/Hydrology

Change in Peak/Base Flows

PJ; CWE; Coho-Sal 

2014 X

Increase in Drainage Network PJ; CWE X

Watershed Conditions

Road Density & Location CWE; SRSS 2002 X

Disturbance History & Regime

PJ; Coho-Sal 

2014; WA 1997, 

1994

X

Riparian Reserves - Northwest 

Forest Plan 

PJ; Coho-Sal 

2014; WA 1997, 

1994

X

SPECIES AND HABITAT:

Species and Habitat:

Summary/Integration of all 

Species and Habitat Indicators

X X

For the Salmon River drainage, long-term trends for most 

anadromous species/runs are unclear (Quiñones 2011). The 

exceptions include spring Chinook (increasing) and summer 

steelhead (decreasing), but these trends also show a signal of 

hatchery influence (Quiñones 2011). See Life History section 

for additional information.

See Env. Conseq. and Table 6 for a Indicator 

effects summary. The Env. Conseq. section also 

describes effects to fish and their habitat.
Aquatics Resource Report Hotelling Gulch Project

C-4

References:

Elder, D., B. Olson, A. Olson, J. Villeponteaux, and P. Brucker. 2002. Salmon River subbasin 

restoration strategy: steps to recovery and conservation of aquatic resources. Report 

prepared for: The Klamath River Basin Fisheries Restoration Task Force (Interagency 

Agreement 14-48-11333-98-H019). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka, CA.

Love & Associates, Inc.. 2016. Technical memorandum – basis of preliminary design for the 

restoration of Hoteling Gulch with a road- stream crossing replacement on Cecilville 

Road, Siskiyou County, California. Memo to Salmon River Restoration Council. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Chapter 35 – Salmon River. National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Arcata, CA.

Quiñones, R.M. 2011. Recovery of Pacific salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the face of climate 

change: a case study of the Klamath River Basin, California. PhD Thesis. University of 

California, Davis, California. 129 p.

Taylor, R., M. Love, T. Grey, and A Knoche. 2002. Final report: Siskiyou County culvert 

inventory and fish passage evaluation. Report to the Five Counties Salmonid 

Conservation Program (Contract #P9985047).

Available online: http://www.5counties.org/docs/migbar_invrpt_sis.pdf

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2015. Hotelling Gulch stream survey report. Klamath National 

Forest, Yreka, CA. 14 p.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1998. Salmon River and Dillon Creek watersheds fish habitat and 

channel type analysis. Prepared for the Klamath National Forest by EA Engineering, 

Science, and Technology, Sacramento, CA. 31 pp + appendices.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1997. Lower South Fork of the Salmon River watershed analysis. 

Salmon River and Scott River Ranger Districts, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1994. Upper South Fork of the Salmon River watershed analysis. 

Salmon River and Scott River Ranger Districts, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.