Project Management Indicator Species Report

Rim Fire Recovery

Supervisor’s Office

Stanislaus National Forest

Prepared By: Laura Conway

Forest Biologist

Lewis and Clark National Forest

03/12/2014
2

1. Introduction

The purpose of this report is to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Rim Fire Recover Project 

on the habitat of the two (2) Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the 

Forest (NF) Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA 1991) as amended by the 

Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment)

Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2007a). This report documents the effects of the 

proposed action and alternatives on the habitat of selected project-level MIS. Detailed

descriptions of the Rim Fire Recovery Project alternatives are found in the Rim Fire Recovery

Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (USDA Forest Service 2014, Chapter 2 

pages 2-27). 

MIS are animal species identified in the SNF MIS Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) 

signed December 14, 2007, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land 

and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). Guidance 

regarding MIS set forth in the Stanislaus NF LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS 

Amendment ROD directs Forest Service resource managers to (1) at project scale, analyze the 

effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each MIS affected by such projects, and (2) at the 

bioregional scale, monitor populations and/or habitat trends of MIS, as identified in the 

Stanislaus NF LRMP as amended.

1.a. Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on MIS Habitat

Project-level effects on MIS habitat are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This involves examining the impacts of 

the proposed project alternatives on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects will change the habitat in the analysis area. 

These project-level impacts to habitat are then related to broader scale (bioregional) population

and/or habitat trends. The appropriate approach for relating project-level impacts to broader 

scale trends depends on the type of monitoring identified for MIS in the LRMP as amended by 

the SNF MIS Amendment ROD. Hence, where the Stanislaus NF LRMP as amended by the 

SNF MIS Amendment ROD identifies distribution population monitoring for an MIS, the 

project-level habitat effects analysis for that MIS is informed by available distribution population 

monitoring data, which are gathered at the bioregional scale. The bioregional scale monitoring 

identified in the Stanislaus NF LRMP, as amended, for MIS analyzed for the Rim Fire Recovery

Project is summarized in Section 3 of this report.

Adequately analyzing project effects to MIS generally involves the following steps:

□ Identifying which habitat and associated MIS would be either directly or indirectly 

affected by the project alternatives; these MIS are potentially affected by the project.

□ Summarizing the bioregional-level monitoring identified in the LRMP, as amended, for 

this subset of MIS.

□ Analyzing project-level effects on MIS habitat for this subset of MIS. 
3

□ Discussing bioregional scale habitat and/or population trends for this subset of MIS.

□ Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and/or population trends at the 

bioregional scale for this subset of MIS.

These steps are described in detail in the Pacific Southwest Region’s draft document “MIS 

Analysis and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5 Environmental Coordination” (May 25, 

2006) (USDA Forest Service 2006a). This Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report 

documents application of the above steps to select project-level MIS and analyze project effects 

on MIS habitat for the Rim Fire Recovery Project.

1.b. Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends at the 

Bioregional Scale. 

The bioregional scale monitoring strategy for the Stanislaus NF’s MIS is found in the Sierra 

Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of 

Decision (ROD) of 2007 (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Bioregional scale habitat monitoring is 

identified for all twelve of the terrestrial MIS. In addition, bioregional scale population 

monitoring, in the form of distribution population monitoring, is identified for all of the 

terrestrial MIS except for the greater sage-grouse. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, the 

bioregional scale monitoring identified is Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat. The current 

bioregional status and trend of populations and/or habitat for each of the MIS is discussed in the 

2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) 

Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

● MIS Habitat Status and Trend. 

All habitat monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent with 

the LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

Habitats are the vegetation types (for example, early seral coniferous forest) or ecosystem 

components (for example, snags in green forest) required by an MIS for breeding, cover, and/or 

feeding. Aquatic MIS for the Sierra Nevada National Forests represent 3 major habitats (USDA 

Forest Service 2007a), as listed in Table 1. These habitats are defined using the California 

Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) System (CDFG 2005). The CWHR System provides the 

most widely used habitat relationship models for California’s terrestrial vertebrate species (ibid). 

It is described in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Habitat status is the current amount of habitat on the Sierra Nevada Forests. Habitat trend is the 

direction of change in the amount or quality of habitat over time. The methodology for assessing 

habitat status and trend is described in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA 

Forest Service 2010a). 

● MIS Population Status and Trend. 

All population monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent 

with the LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 

2007a). The information is presented in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA 

Forest Service 2010a).
4

Population monitoring strategies for MIS of the Stanislaus NF are identified in the 2007 Sierra 

Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment ROD (USDA Forest 

Service 2007a). Population status is the current condition of the MIS related to the population 

monitoring data required in the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD for that MIS. Population trend 

is the direction of change in that population measure over time.

There are a myriad of approaches for monitoring populations of MIS, from simply detecting 

presence to detailed tracking of population structure (USDA Forest Service 2001, Appendix E, 

page E-19). A distribution population monitoring approach is identified for all of the terrestrial

MIS in the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment, except for the greater sage-grouse (USDA Forest 

Service 2007a). Distribution population monitoring consists of collecting presence data for the 

MIS across a number of sample locations over time. Presence data are collected using a number 

of direct and indirect methods, such as surveys (population surveys), bird point counts, tracking 

number of hunter kills, counts of species sign (such as deer pellets), and so forth. The specifics 

regarding how these presence data are assessed to track changes in distribution over time vary by 

species and the type of presence data collected, as described in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS 

Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

● Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status and Trend. 

For aquatic macroinvertebrates, condition and trend is determined by analyzing 

macroinvertebrate data using the predictive, multivariate River Invertebrate Prediction And 

Classification System (RIVPACS) (Hawkins 2003) to determine whether the macroinvertebrate 

community has been impaired relative to reference condition within perennial water bodies. This

monitoring consists of collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates and measuring stream habitat 

features according to the Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) manual (Frazier et al. 2005). 

Evaluation of the condition of the biological community is based upon the “observed to 

expected” (O/E) ratio, which is a reflection of the number of species observed at a site versus the 

number expected to occur there in the absence of impairment. Sites with a low O/E scores have 

lost many species predicted to occur there, which is an indication that the site has a lower than 

expected richness of sensitive species and is therefore impaired. 

2. Selection of Project level MIS

Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Stanislaus NF are identified in the 2007 

Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment (USDA Forest 

Service 2007a). The habitats and ecosystem components and associated MIS analyzed for the

project were selected from this list of aquatic MIS, as indicated in Table 1. In addition to 

identifying the habitat or ecosystem components (1st column), the CWHR type(s) defining each 

habitat/ecosystem component (2nd column), and the associated MIS (3rd column), the Table 

discloses whether or not the habitat of the MIS is potentially affected by the Rim Fire Recovery

Project (4th column). 
5

Table 1. Selection of MIS for Project-Level Habitat Analysis for the Rim Fire Recovery

Project.

Habitat or Ecosystem 

Component

CWHR Type(s) defining 

the habitat or ecosystem 

component1

Sierra Nevada Forests

Management 

Indicator Species

Scientific Name

Category 

for 

Project 

Analysis 2

Riverine & Lacustrine lacustrine (LAC) and 

riverine (RIV)

aquatic 

macroinvertebrates

3

Wet Meadow Wet meadow (WTM), 

freshwater emergent 

wetland (FEW)

Pacific tree (chorus) 

frog

Pseudacris regilla

2

1 All CWHR size classes and canopy closures are included unless otherwise specified; dbh = diameter at breast 

height; Canopy Closure classifications: S=Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy closure); P= Open cover (25-39% 

canopy closure); M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy closure); D= Dense cover (60-100% canopy closure); Tree 

size classes: 1 (Seedling)(<1" dbh); 2 (Sapling)(1"-5.9" dbh); 3 (Pole)(6"-10.9" dbh); 4 (Small tree)(11"-23.9" 

dbh); 5 (Medium/Large tree)(>24" dbh); 6 (Multi-layered Tree) [In PPN and SMC] (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). 

2 Category 1: MIS whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project.

 Category 2: MIS whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or indirectly 

affected by the project.

 Category 3: MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

Pacific tree frog will not be discussed further in this document. Within the project boundary are 

just over 2006 acres of wet meadow habitat; 783 acres on private land, 42 acres on tribal land, 39 

acres in Yosemite National Park, and 1143 acres on National Forest Lands. Of this, each of the 

proposed action alternatives include a little over 17 acres of wet meadow habitat. Although 

located within proposed units, no equipment will operate within these wet meadows and dead 

trees will only be removed from around the edges of the meadows. Of the four habitat factors 

identified for analysis for tree frog there will be no changes in (1) acres of wet meadow habitat, 

(2) CWHR herbaceous height classes, (3) herbaceous ground cover, or (4) meadow hydrology.

The aquatic MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the Rim Fire 

Recovery Project, identified as Category 3 in Table 1, are carried forward in this analysis, which 

will evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives 

on the habitat of these MIS. The aquatic MIS selected for project-level MIS analysis for the Rim 

Fire Recovery Project are: aquatic macroinvertebrates.

3. Bioregional Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Project-Level 

Analysis

3.a. MIS Monitoring Requirements.

The Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment (USDA 

Forest Service 2007a) identifies bioregional scale habitat and/or population monitoring for the 

Management Indicator Species for ten National Forests, including the Stanislaus NF. The habitat 

and/or population monitoring requirements for Stanislaus NF’s MIS are described in the 2010 
6

Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) 

Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a) and are summarized below for the MIS being analyzed for 

the Rim Fire Recovery Project. The applicable habitat and/or population monitoring results are 

also described in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a) and are 

summarized in Section 5 below for the MIS being analyzed for the Rim Fire Recovery Project.

Bioregional Monitoring for aquatic macroinvertebrates: Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) and 

habitat condition and trend are measured by collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates, and analyzing 

the resulting data using the River Invertebrate Prediction And Classification System (RIVPACS) 

(Hawkins 2003) to determine whether the macroinvertebrate community has been impaired 

relative to reference condition within perennial water bodies. In addition, stream habitat features 

are measured according to the Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) manual (Frasier et al. 2005). 

3.b. How MIS Monitoring Requirements are Being Met.

Habitat and/or distribution population monitoring for all MIS is conducted at the Sierra Nevada 

scale. Refer to the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a) for details

by habitat and MIS. 

4. Description of Proposed Project. The Rim Fire Recovery Project proposes salvage of dead trees, removal of hazard trees along 

level 2 roads, fuels treatments and associated road work. A full description of the proposed 

actions is found in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in Section 2.01 (Rim Fire 

Recovery Project DEIS 2014). Table 2 summarizes the proposed actions by alternative. 

Table 2. Summary of Treatments 

Proposed Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Ground based salvage 24,127 acres 26,252 acres 24,176 acres

Ground based/skyline swing salvage 16 acres 16 acres 16 acres

Aerial based salvage 2,930 acres 3,035 acres 2,568 acres

Cable system salvage 1,253 acres 1,096 acres 1,066 acres

Biomass removal fuels 7,626 acres 8, 379 acres 7,975 acres

Machine piling and burning fuels 24,143 acres 22, 036 acres 20,320 acres

Jackpot burning fuels 4,199 acres 4,147 acres 3.650 acres

Mastication fuels 1,309 acres 1,309 acres

Drop and lop fuels 2,228 acres 1,798 acres

Removal of Hazard Trees- Level 2 

roads

341.0 miles 

(16,315 acres)

314.8 miles 

(15,253 acres)

324.6 miles 

(15,692 acres)

Road management - reconstruction 319.9 miles 323.6 miles 315.0 miles

Road management - maintenance 216.1 miles 200.6 miles 209.3 miles

Road management – temporary road 21.6 miles 35.5 miles 33.8 miles

Road management - new road 

construction

5.4 miles 1.0 miles 0 miles
7

5. Effects of Proposed Project on the Habitat for the Selected Project-Level MIS. The following section documents the analysis for the following ‘Category 3’ species: aquatic 

macroinvertebrates. The analysis of the effects of the Rim Fire Recovery Project on the MIS 

habitat for the selected project-level MIS is conducted at the project scale. The analysis used the 

following habitat data: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) NHD (National Hydrography 

Data) layer showing perennial and intermittent streams and lakes; Stanislaus Streamscape 

Inventory program. Detailed information on the MIS is documented in the 2010 SNF

Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by 

reference. 

Cumulative effects at the bioregional scale are tracked via the SNF MIS Bioregional monitoring, 

and detailed in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates) 

Habitat/Species Relationship. 

Aquatic or Benthic Macroinvertebrates (BMI) were selected as the MIS for riverine and 

lacustrine habitat in the Sierra Nevada. They have been demonstrated to be very useful as 

indicators of water quality and aquatic habitat condition (Resh and Price 1984; Karr et al. 1986; 

Hughes and Larsen 1987; Resh and Rosenberg 1989). They are sensitive to changes in water 

chemistry, temperature, and physical habitat; aquatic factors of particular importance are: flow, 

sedimentation, and water surface shade.

Project-level Effects Analysis – Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: Flow; Sedimentation; and Water surface shade. 

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area: The Rim Fire 

Recovery Watershed Management Report thoroughly discusses the existing conditions in 

the project area. That information is summarized here. There have been multiple large 

scale fires in the project area, as well as vegetation and road management actions, 

recreation and grazing. The Rim Fire was a mixed severity fire that burned upland areas 

at higher severity than near the streams in the 18 HUC 6 watersheds that encompass the 

fire perimeter (see Watershed Management Report page 29 and Table 6). 

In the first year after a fire, water flow typically increases due to a reduction in soil water 

storage, interception and evapotranspiration when vegetation is killed. (Watershed 

Management Report, page 46) As vegetation recovers, the water yield will decrease. 

Post fire erosion and sedimentation increases are expected. Table 10 of the Watershed 

Management Report displays the results of erosion modeling in the fire area by 

watershed. In an undisturbed watershed erosion rates average 0.5 tons per acre. The 

HUC 6 watersheds encompassing the Rim Fire are modeled to have from 0.7 to 3.6 tons 
8

per acre. The actual magnitude is dependent upon the timing and severity of winter 

weather events and to date the fire area has received below average precipitation. 

Observations after the 1987 Stanislaus Complex Fire, that occurred in some of the same 

watersheds as the Rim Fire (Watershed Management Report, Figure 2), indicated that 

increased sediments were essentially gone from streams within 3 to 5 years (Watershed 

Management Report, page 16). 

Water surface shade was reduced by the Rim Fire, particularly in areas where the 

vegetation burn severity was higher. Table 6 of the Watershed Management Report 

displays the soil and vegetation burn severity by watershed within the Riparian 

Conservation Areas (RCAs) along intermittent and perennial streams in the project area. 

There is a notable loss of stream shade from conifers and riparian obligate trees and 

shrubs in many watersheds. Riparian trees and shrubs will recover and provide shade 

within 5 years, while conifers trees will recover in a longer time frame. (Watershed 

Management Report, page 29).

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat. The Rim Fire Recovery Project proposes to 

remove dead trees, as well as hazard trees along level 2 roads. Stream flow would not be 

altered by the project as dead trees do not contribute to soil water storage, interception, or 

evapotranspiration and their removal does not contribute to the changes brought by the 

Rim Fire. Hazard trees along Level 2 roads will be removed adjacent to approximately 

38 miles of stream, with no more than 8 miles in any one HUC6 watershed. Live trees 

will only be removed if they are a hazard, and the quantity of trees would not be enough 

to alter flow rates. (Watershed Management Report, page 46).

Sedimentation levels can increase as a result of salvage operations. This is primarily a 

result of soil compaction and disturbance (see Soils Reports), and in areas with 

hydrologically connected segments of roads. Erosion modeling (Watershed Management 

Report, Table 9, Table 17 and Table 23) indicates that the action alternatives would either 

have no effect on or reduce post-fire erosion in every HUC6 watershed considered. 

Alternative 3 would result in the greatest decrease in erosion. Modeling also shows an 

increase in the smaller HUC7 Granite Creek drainage under Alternative 1. Granite Creek 

was burned with 30 percent high soil burn severity and 62 percent moderate soil burn 

severity. The increase in erosion is slight (0.1 ton/acre) and is attributed to a reduction in 

ground cover from hazard tree treatment in lightly burned areas (Watershed Management 

Report, page 38). The Watershed Management Report describe the erosion and 

sedimentation effects expected from the action alternatives in detail. Also described are 

the effectiveness of Best Management Practices. In general, erosion is expected to 

increase somewhat in the first year after activities, and decrease within 2 to 5 years as 

vegetation recovers. Erosion will result in sediment input to the river systems. The 

bedrock controlled stream reaches will generally transport sediment, with fine sediments 

accumulating in pools and pool tails in the less steep stream sections. 
9

Removal of dead trees under the action alternatives would not reduce water surface 

shade. Removal of hazard trees along Level 2 roads adjacent to approximately 38 miles 

of stream will not result in measurable changes in stream shading. Riparian vegetation 

recovery will increase stream shading within 5 years.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area. Cumulative Effects were 

analyzed at the level of the 18 HUC6 level watersheds that encompass the Rim 

Fire. Activities considered are described in Appendix B. Cumulative Effects, of 

the Rim Fire Recovery DEIS. The Watershed Management Report used the 

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERAs) methodology to analyze the risk of cumulative 

effects, as described in Appendix A: Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis 

Methodology. The effects are compared to a threshold of concern, set at 12-14%. 

Tables 13, 14, 20 and 26 in the Watershed Management Report display the Era 

values by watershed over time. Under the action alternatives 2 HUC6 watersheds 

(Jawbone Creek – Tuolumne River and Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River) 

exceed the threshold of concern. Additional analysis was conducted on smaller 

HUC7 watersheds where Rim Fire effects were greater. Five HUC 7 drainages

(Corral Creek, Lower Jawbone Creek, Bear Springs Creek, Lower Reed Creek 

and Granite Creek) exceed the threshold of concern (see Watershed Management 

Report). Further evaluation in the watershed report indicates that Lower Jawbone 

Creek and Bear Springs Creek have low acreages of proposed treatment on high 

risk areas and it is “likely any increases in sedimentation would be minimal” 

(Watershed Management Report pages 53 and 54). Corral Creek, Lower Reed 

Creek, Granite Creek and the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River are areas 

which have the greatest potential for stream sedimentation following treatment. 

Management recommendations within these waters, implementation of Best 

Management Practices, and monitoring to identify and correct problem areas

indicate the action alternatives are not anticipated to result in adverse off-site 

cumulative effects to sediment-related water quality parameters or to watershed 

condition (i.e. degradation of stream channel morphology, accelerated erosion or 

loss of soil productivity) (See Watershed Management Report).

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Changes in flow and water surface shade will 

be too small to be measured. Sedimentation will increase slightly as a result of 

proposed actions, however the amount of increase will be indiscernible compared 

to the increased sediment from the Rim Fire. 

Summary of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The Stanislaus NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale 

Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat monitoring for aquatic macroinvertebrates; hence, the 

lacustrine and riverine effects analysis for the Rim Fire Recovery Project must be informed by 

these monitoring data. The sections below summarize the Biological Integrity and Habitat status 

and trend data for aquatic macroinvertebrates. This information is drawn from the detailed 

information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS 

Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
10

Habitat and Index of Biological Integrity Status and Trend. Aquatic habitat has been 

assessed using Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) data collected since 1994 (Frasier et al. 

2005) and habitat status information from the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) 

(Moyle and Randall 1996). Moyle and Randall (1996) developed a watershed index of 

biotic integrity (IBI) based on distributions and abundance of native fish and amphibian 

species, as well as extent of roads and water diversions. According to this analysis, seven 

percent of the watersheds were in excellent condition, 36 percent were in good condition, 

47 percent were in fair condition and nine percent were in poor condition.

Sierra Nevada MIS monitoring for aquatic (benthic) macroinvertebrates (BMI) was 

conducted in 2009 and 2010 (Furnish 2011). Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected 

from stream sites during both the 2009 and 2010 field seasons according to the 

Reachwide Benthos (Multihabitat) Procedure (Ode 2007). The initial BMI data from 

2009 and 2010 found 46% (6 of 13) of the surveyed streams indicate an impaired 

condition and 54% (7 of 13) indicate a non-impaired condition (see USDA Forest Service 

2010a, Table BMI-1). This is similar to the IBI conditions estimated by Moyle and 

Randall (1996). Therefore, current data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that status and 

trend in the RIVPACS scores appears to be stable. 

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates Habitat Trend As the change in flow, and shade are too small to be 

measured and the increase in sedimentation above the levels resulting from the Rim Fire are 

indiscernible, the Rim Fire Recovery Project will not alter the existing trend in the habitat or 

aquatic macroinvertebrates across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

References Cited

Brown, C. 2008. Summary of Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) Occupancy in the Sierra 

Nevada within the range of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa). Sierra Nevada 

Amphibian Monitoring Program draft assessment, January 18, 2008.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2005. California Department of Fish and Game 

and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

(CWHR) version 8.1. personal computer program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. (Accessed: January 3, 2008).

Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. 

Staab, S.L. Grant. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pp.

Furnish, J. 2011. Progress report on monitoring of aquatic management indicator species (MIS) in 

the Sierra Nevada Province: 2009-2010 Field Seasons. December 2010. 6pp.

Hawkins, C.P. 2003. Development, evaluation, and application of a RIVPACS-type predictive 

model for assessing the biological condition of streams in Region 5 (California) national forests. 

Completion Report. Western center for Monitoring and Assessment of Fresh Water Ecosystems. 

Utah State University. Logan, Utah 23 pp.

Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1987. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection. Journal 

of the Water Pollution Control Federation 60:486-493.
11

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological 

integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special 

Publication 5, Champaign, IL.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166pp. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp

Moyle, P.B. and P.J. Randall. 1996. Biotic Integrity of Watersheds. Pages 975-985 in Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Assessments and scientific basis for 

management options, Vol II, chp 34. University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland 

Resources, Davis, CA 95616. http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/pubs/web/PDF/VII_C34.PDF

Ode. P.R., A.C. Rehn and J.T. May. 2005. A quantitative tool for assessing the integrity of southern 

coastal California streams. Environmental Management 35:493-504.

Ode, P.R. 2007. Standard operating procedure for collecting macroinvertebrate samples and

associated physical and chemical data for ambient bioassessments in California. California State 

Water Resources Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) 

Bioassessment SOP 001.

Resh, V.H. and D.G. Price. 1984. Sequential sampling: a cost-effective approach for monitoring 

benthic macroinvertebrates in environmental impact assessments. Environmental Management 

8:75-80.

Resh, V.H. and D.M. Rosenberg. 1989. Spatial-temporal variability and the study of aquatic 

insects. Canadian Entomologist 121:941-963.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/finalseis/

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 

2004. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Draft - MIS Analysis and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, 

R5 Environmental Coordination, May 25, 2006. Pacific Southwest Region. 3pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 

2005. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator 

Species Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 

2006. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-149. 12pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada 

National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe 

National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, 

CA. January 2008. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_January_2008.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2007. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2007/
12

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada 

National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe 

National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, 

CA. December 2010. 132pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 

2008. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2008/

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Rim Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Document.