Survey Protocols For Survey and Manage Component 2: Bryophytes

Memo to District and Area Managers, et. al.

Diplophyllum plicatum

Kurzia makinoana

Marsupella emarginata

Ptilidium californicum

Tritomaria exsectiformis

Appendices:
A
B
C
D

SURVEY STRATEGY 2 PROTOCOL

for

Kurzia makinoana (Steph.) Grolle

Version 2.0

10 Dec. 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Survey and Manage Strategy 2 Protocol for Kurzia makinoana

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Introduction to the Issues

Kurzia makinoana was rated separately by the bryophyte panels convened by the Forest Ecosystem Management Analysis Team (1993) This species was considered to have an 80 % or greater likelihood of being well distributed throughout its range over the next century for all options, but with some likelihood of being restricted to refugia or extirpated on federal land under Option 9.

Kurzia makinoana is designated under Survey Strategies 1 and 2 in the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994). There are no other State or Federal designations.

Field survey for lichens and bryophytes occurs at a much finer scale than vascular plants given the relatively small size of these organisms. Thus it becomes necessary to scale down and look at the habitat and substrate at a finer level to determine the presence or absence of species like Kurzia makinoana.

B. Unique Characteristics, Biology and Ecology of Kurzia makinoana

Kurzia makinoana is a tiny leafy liverwort, dull or deep green to brownish green (usually brownish according to Schofield pers. comm. 1996) that forms patches or is mixed among other mosses and liverworts. Stems are 5 (-20) mm long, threadlike, creeping to ascending, irregularly to more or less regularly pinnately to bipinnately branched, occasionally terminating in slender, runner-like branches with reduced leaves (flagella). Leaves are asymmetric, barely contiguous to imbricate, transversely inserted, arising from segments 4 cells broad, the basal portion spreading, but lobes usually more or less suberect to erect, or even slightly incurved, thus the leaves look typically hand-like, somewhat cupped.

According to Wagner (Christy and Wagner 1996) Kurzia makinoana could be confused with Blepharostoma trichophyllum a similar species of liverwort. Kurzia makinoana has regularly pinnately branched stems with leaf segments that are 2 or more cells wide at the base, while B. trichophyllum leaf segments are only 1 cell wide at the base and the stems are not regularly pinnately branched.

Technical description: Leaves basically asymmetrically 3-4 lobed, underleaves reduced, formed of 2 (3) strongly elongated cells or forming a 2-5 (6) celled lobe on top of a broad two celled base. Leaves divided nearly to the base, oil bodies scarce, difficult to see, 1-5 per cell or lacking.

Kurzia makinoana is diocious, perianth is 2-2.5 mm long, spindle-shaped and gradually contracted to a toothed mouth. The male inflorescence are terminal or on a short branch. Generally this species is sterile (Schofield, pers. comm.)

Kurzia makinoana is found in forested and bog sites on decaying wood or humus or peaty humus. It also occurs on rocky cliffs, ledges and soil banks, and infrequently in subalpine areas.

C. Protocol Objectives

The objective of the survey protocol for Kurzia makinoana is to determine the presence/absence of the species within the proposed project area.

D. Trigger for Protocol

Implementation of this survey protocol for Kurzia makinoana will occur if the proposed ground-disturbing activity will directly or indirectly impact populations or alter the stand or habitat conditions (e.g., any type of tree removal activity, including removal of dead trees, logs, stumps, or harvest of special forest products), and if any of the following three criteria are met.

• a known site of Kurzia makinoana exists in the proposed project area
• a known site of Kurzia makinoana has been reported in the vicinity (e.g., 5th field watershed adjacent to the proposed project area)
• the proposed project area occurs within the known or suspected range of Kurzia makinoana, and there is suitable habitat within the proposed project area

(Figure 1)

E. Threats to Kurzia makinoana

The major viability consideration for Kurzia makinoana is loss of populations due to management activities that impact the habitat or the populations. Threats to this species include logging of old-growth, particularly the remaining Sitka spruce stands, road construction, campground construction, and the collection of special forest products.

Figure 1.

(Includes Known Site Database (Version 2.0) and new information)

F. Specific Habitat Associations

Kurzia makinoana occurs on rocky cliffs and ledges, soil banks and cuts and on decayed wood, rarely on the base of trees, in shaded moist sites or in bogs. According to Godfrey (1977) it is found in British Columbia in moist, shaded places, in both forests and bogs on humus or peaty humus, decayed wood, rock slopes or rocky pond margins. Although the known sites occur below 100 m (3000 ft.) it is found infrequently in subalpine areas in Japan.

G. Known Range of Kurzia makinoana

Kurzia makinoana has a North Pacific distribution which includes Japan, Alaska, Siberia and the Pacific Northwest. Within the range of the northern spotted owl include two known sites in Washington and two counties in northern California. Both Washington sites occur on federal land (Olympic National Park (Clallam County), and Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (Snohomish County). The California sites include, Fort Bragg, Del Norte County (a reference from the June 1993 bryophyte panel notes) and Redwood State Park (now part of Redwood National Park) Del Norte County.

H. Suspected Range of Kurzia makinoana

Kurzia makinoana occurs in coastal areas with high humidity and in cool, humid patches along the west side of the Cascades. It appears to be more abundant in Washington but this may result from limited inventory in other locations. Suspected range could include any areas along the west slope of the Cascades where cool, humid conditions occur. Additional collecting in these areas will determine the southern extent of its range.

II. INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

A. Sampling Procedures

1. Prefield review

The objective of the pre-field review is to determine if known sites are present in (or in the vicinity of) the proposed ground-disturbing activity area, and to determine if suitable habitat for Kurzia makinoana exists in the proposed ground-disturbing activity area. Consult the current Known Site Database (KSDB) or the Interagency Species Management System (ISMS), GIS layers of potential or current vegetation, stand age maps, stand exam data, ecology program database, Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) inventory, botany program survey records, bryophyte inventory data, and habitat models (if available) for the area of interest to determine if Kurzia makinoana is known to occur in the area. Evaluate the available information to determine the location and habitat of populations of Kurzia makinoana. Mark the locations of reported sites on topographic maps and aerial photos to be used in the field survey.

The prefield review will result in identification of reported sites of Kurzia makinoana and areas of suitable habitat for this species within the proposed project area. These are the areas where the survey will initially be conducted. Field surveys are not required if reported sites do not exist in the proposed ground-disturbing activity area or in the vicinity, and if it is determined that suitable habitat for Kurzia makinonana is not likely to exist in the proposed project area. Documentation of the prefield review will become part of the administrative record.

A habitat review will identify general topographic and special habitat features and determine if suitable habitat for Survey and Manage bryophyte species could occur within the proposed project area. This can be completed in either the office or the field, but should at least consist reviewing project area maps, available aerial photographs, and agency and non-agency records detailing the habitat characteristics and distribution of the bryophytes in the vicinity.

2. Field Survey

The objective of the field survey is to document the presence/absence of Kurzia makinoana within the proposed area of ground-disturbing activity to determine if protective measures are needed. Information beyond presence/absence will contribute to our knowledge of the distribution of Kurzia makinoana throughout the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. Identification of this species requires microscopic examination (see documenting the presence in II A 2a) and vouchers will need to be collected for this purpose (Appendix D).

a. Intuitive Controlled Survey

For large areas proposed for ground-disturbing activity an intuitive controlled survey should be used. These surveys include intensive searches in areas with the highest potential for locating Survey and Manage bryophytes. The surveyor makes bryophyte observations along routes which cover a representative sample of all major topographic and potential microhabitats (see appropriate habitat requirements per species, in section I F). Search routes within the project area will traverse the ground-disturbing activity area as the surveyor moves from one particular potential habitat or topographic feature to another. Intuitive Controlled inventories are particularly effective when performed over a large area (e.g., ground-disturbing activities greater than one hectare or 2.47 acres).

b. Complete Survey

For smaller areas (e.g., ground-disturbing activities less than approximately one hectare (2.47 acres) conduct a Complete Survey. This survey is defined as a 100 percent visual examination of the ground-disturbing activity area. Complete surveys are particularly effective when performed over a small area . This survey would be carried out only when a small area has a high potential for specific Survey and Manage bryophyte species.

c. Documenting the Presence of Kurzia makinoana

If populations of Kurzia makinoana are found, mark the location of the population on field maps and aerial photos. Complete the field form (including habitat information which is needed for species identification) for documentation of known sites of this species (see Appendix A). A small (not larger than the palm of a hand) but adequate voucher specimen should be collected (only if removal of material will not significantly impact the population) to verify the identification and to document the presence of Kurzia makinoana. If the population is very small, remove only enough material needed for microscopic identification. The following references will provide assistance in identifying the species: Christy and Wagner 1996, Inuoe 1974, Schuster 1980.

d. Documenting the Absence of Kurzia makinoana

If Kurzia makinoana was not encountered in the field survey, or is absent in a portion of the area surveyed, then document its absence within the survey area of the proposed ground-disturbing activity. Include in this documentation the areal extent of the survey and project area clearly delineated on topographic maps and aerial photos (see Appendix B, spatial documentation of extent of survey). In addition, the name of the surveyor, date(s) of survey, and project name should be noted. Submit this documentation for the administrative record.

B. Extent of Surveys

The field survey will cover the extent of the proposed project area with a focus on reported sites and suitable habitat for Kurzia makinoana. In addition, the area adjacent to the boundary of the project area may need to be surveyed if the proposed project will directly or indirectly affect the habitat and microclimate conditions of adjacent suitable habitat or reported sites.

C. Timing of Surveys

In general, timing is less restrictive for bryophyte surveys than for vascular plants, given the presence of bryophytes year round, and ability at any time of year to accurately identify Kurzia makinoana. However, surveys should be conducted during the growing season (snow free period) in order to facilitate safe and efficient field work.

D. Information to Collect Beyond Presence/Absence (if time permits)

Collection of information beyond presence/absence, location and basic habitat description is optional, but highly recommended. A complete record of detailed ecological requirements and population information for occurrences of Kurzia makinoana will contribute to our knowledge of the species and will assist us in our management of the species. Use Appendix C to record data for fields currently in the known site database or ISMS for sites where Kurzia makinoana is documented. If you collect this information please forward copies to the Interagency Regional Bryologist/Lichenologist Judy Harpel, c/o Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 10600 N.E. 51st. Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682.

III. DATA MANAGEMENT

A. Data Quality Assurance

A data steward should be designated for each administrative unit who will be responsible for the quality and completeness of the survey data, including the prefield review and the field survey information. This includes adequate and accurate data collection, prompt and accurate data entry into the corporate database (ISMS) when it becomes available, and hard copy formats. This is an important aspect to ensure credibility of the interpretations, and analysis or management direction that are based on this data. Data quality will be assured at the local level, and adhere to any regional agency standards for data management.

B. Data Storage

Data will be stored at the administrative unit (National Forest, BLM District) and be available in a corporate database for local and regional use according to policy developed for the ISMS database and Survey and Manage taxa. Site locations for Kurzia makinoana will be available in a GIS layer that is linked to a database with supporting information. Electronic and hard copies will be maintained and accessible to agency personnel requiring this information to successfully implement the Survey and Manage Standard and Guideline and other agency goals under the Northwest Forest Plan. The hard copy file will include documentation of prefield review, field survey data, field form and field notes, voucher specimen location and any other supporting information and should be kept as case file documentation.

IV. SURVEYING SKILLS

A. Surveyor Background/Qualifications/Skills

Personnel conducting surveys for bryophytes need to have the following skills essential to identification:

• micro-techniques used for identification including the ability to make microscope slides of leaves, sporophytes, cross-sections of stems and leaves
• ability to distinguish different species that are often mixed together
• ability to use the dichotomous bryological keys and literature for the Pacific Northwest

Personnel need to be experienced in field techniques to document the areas surveyed and occupied by the Survey and Manage bryophytes.

V. REFERENCES

Christy, J.A. and D.H. Wagner. 1996. Guide for the identification of rare, threatened or sensitive bryophytes in the region of the northern spotted owl, western Washington, western Oregon, and northwestern California. USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, and Northwest Botanical Institute.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDC National Marine Fisheries Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI National Park Service, and Environmental Protection Agency.

Godfrey, J.L. 1977. The Heaticae and Anthocerotae of Southwestern British Columbia. Ph.D. Thesis. University of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Inuoe, H. Illustrations of Japanese Hepaticae, Vol. 1. Tsukijii Shokan Publ. Co., Ltd., Toyko

Schuster, R.M. 1980. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of North America. Vol. IV. Columbia University Press. New York

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl; Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

VI. LIST OF APPENDICES

A. Survey Strategy 2 Field Form (Required Form)

B. Spatial documentation of extent of survey

C. Field forms for Survey and Manage Cryptogams (Optional Forms)

Field methods, data dictionary, epiphyte abundance rating system

D. Cryptogam packet form for voucher specimens