DOCSLIB.ORG

Leismer to Kettle River Crossover Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

August 29, 2013 MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT Supplemental Vegetation and Wetlands Survey Report Submitted to: NOVA Gas Transmission Limited A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited 450 - 1st Street SW Calgary, AB T2P 4K5 Report Number: 1213440055/3000/3010 Distribution: REPORT Electronic Copy - TransCanada, Calgary, AB MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT - SUPPLEMENTAL VEGETATION AND WETLANDS SURVEY REPORT Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 Listed Plant Species Surveys .............................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Invasive Plant Surveys ........................................................................................................................................ 4 3.3 Vegetation Community Classification .................................................................................................................. 5 3.4 Wetlands Classification........................................................................................................................................ 5 4.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 Listed Plant Species ............................................................................................................................................ 5 4.1.1 Historical Listed Plant Observations .............................................................................................................. 5 4.1.2 Listed Plant Field Survey Results .................................................................................................................. 5 4.2 Listed Ecological Communities ............................................................................................................................ 7 4.3 Invasive Plant Species......................................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Vegetation Community Classification .................................................................................................................. 8 4.5 Wetlands Classification........................................................................................................................................ 8 5.0 PROJECT AND VEGETATION INTERACTIONS, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS ...................................... 10 6.0 IMPLICATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT....................................................................................... 12 7.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13 8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 August 29, 2013 Report No. 1213440055/3000/3010 i MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT - SUPPLEMENTAL VEGETATION AND WETLANDS SURVEY REPORT TABLES Table 1 Area of Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Units Affected by the Project within the Terrestrial Local Study Area (LSA) ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 2 Area of Wetlands Affected by the Project within the Terrestrial Local Study Area (LSA) .......................................... 9 Table 3 Recommended Mitigation for Listed Plant Species and Ecological Communities Observed Within and Adjacent to the Project Footprint ............................................................................................................................. 11 Table 4 Recommended Mitigation for Regulated Invasive Plant Species Observed Within and Adjacent to the Project Footprint ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 FIGURES Figure 1 Listed Plant and Weed Species Observations in 2012 and 2013 .............................................................................. 6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Ecological land Classification Units in the Terrestrial LSA and Vegetation Survey Plot Locations August 29, 2013 Report No. 1213440055/3000/3010 ii MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT - SUPPLEMENTAL VEGETATION AND WETLANDS SURVEY REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada), retained Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) to prepare this Supplemental Vegetation and Wetlands Survey Report to the environmental and socio-economic assessment (ESA) report completed in June 2013. The supplemental report supports NGTLs application under the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) Section 58 for the Moosa Crossover Project (the Project). The Project is located in northeastern Alberta, approximately 35 km northwest of Fort McMurray, Alberta and 30 km south of Fort McKay. The Project consists of construction of 5 kilometres (km) of 508.0 millimetres (mm) (NPS 20) pipeline from the Fort McKay Mainline – Birchwood Creek Section to the Pelican Mainline. The Project will tie-in to an existing valve at the Moosa Exchange Meter Station at NW 25-91-12 W4M and to the Pelican Mainline at NW 28-91-11 W4M. A below ground NPS 16 shut-down valve will be constructed approximately 150 m west of the eastern tie-in location. The pipeline and shut-down valve site are the only permanent Project infrastructure. Due to the timing of application preparation and submission, appropriately timed surveys of early flowering listed plant species were not completed until after the ESA was filed with the NEB on July 2, 2013. The supplemental surveys were completed in July 2013 for the length of the route alignment to collect information during the appropriate timing window for early flowering listed plant species and confirm the results of the desktop assessment and September 2012 vegetation reconnaissance field survey. This report presents the methods and results of the listed plant species and wetlands surveys conducted, as well as a summary of any changes to potential vegetation and wetlands issues, recommended mitigation and predicted residual effects as described in the ESA filed with the NEB on July 2, 2013 (Golder 2013). 2.0 OBJECTIVES The main objectives of the supplementary vegetation and wetlands surveys were to: search for and document populations of listed plant species and listed ecological communities along the proposed route as defined by the Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), the committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD), and Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS); search for and document populations of invasive plant species; identify listed plant species and ecological communities, and confirm and map vegetation communities and wetlands along the route alignment; and provide mitigation recommendations in the event that listed plants, listed ecological communities or invasive plants are observed. 3.0 METHODS Supplementary surveys for listed plant species and ecological communities, vegetation communities and wetlands were undertaken, focused along the Project footprint, on July 3, 2013 during the early-flowering period. Survey areas were accessed by Argo and by foot. For locations of 2012 and 2013 field surveys points, refer to Appendix A, Figure A-1 and A-2. August 29, 2013 Report No. 1213440055/3000/3010 3 MOOSA CROSSOVER PROJECT - SUPPLEMENTAL VEGETATION AND WETLANDS SURVEY REPORT 3.1 Listed Plant Species Surveys Provincial and federal agencies maintain lists of plant species of conservation concern. Provincially, the Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) maintains tracking and watch lists of species. Species on the tracking list are of high priority because they are considered rare or of conservation concern in some other way (Kemper 2009). Species on the watch list are not of immediate conservation concern, but ACIMS may want to gather more information. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) also has a provincial process to evaluate the well-being, or soundness, of wild species populations referred to in General Status of Alberta Wild Species (ESRD 2011). Prior to a species being designated as endangered or threatened under Alberta’s Wildlife Act, the general status of the species is first determined. Status ranks for species are classed to one of the following categories: Extirpated/Extinct, At Risk, May Be At Risk, Sensitive, Secure, Undetermined, Exotic/Alien, Accidental, or Not Assessed. Similarly, COSEWIC assesses and designates plants and fungi (and animals) that are in some danger of disappearing from Canada (COSEWIC 2012). There are seven COSEWIC status categories:
Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."

    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
  • The Role of the Brown Bear Ursus Arctos As Seed Disperser: a Case Study with the Bilberry Vaccinium Myrtillus

    The Role of the Brown Bear Ursus Arctos As Seed Disperser: a Case Study with the Bilberry Vaccinium Myrtillus

    The role of the brown bear Ursus arctos as seed disperser: a case study with the bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus Rola niedźwiedzia brunatnego Ursus arctos w rozprzestrzenianiu nasion: studium przypadku na przykładzie borówki czarnej Vaccinium myrtillus PhD thesis Alberto García-Rodríguez Kraków, 2021 To the memory of José Ignacio and Javier Rodríguez Val Female brown bear with two cubs of the year feeding on bilberry fruits in Tatra National Park (July 2020) “They thought they were burying you, they did not know they were burying a seed” Ernesto Cardenal, Nicaraguan priest, poet and politician PhD CANDIDATE mgr. ALBERTO GARCÍA-RODRÍGUEZ Institute of Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy of Sciences Al. Adama Mickiewicza 33, 31-120, Krakow, Poland SUPERVISOR dr. hab. NURIA SELVA FERNÁNDEZ Institute of Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy of Sciences Al. Adama Mickiewicza 33, 31-120, Krakow, Poland CO-SUPERVISOR dr. JÖRG ALBRECHT Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F) Senckenberganlage 25, 60325, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The PhD thesis was prepared during doctoral studies in the Doctoral Study of Natural Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków. CONTENTS SUMMARY…………..……………..…………………………...………………………………………………...5 STRESZCZENIE……...………….……………………………………………………………………………….8 INTRODUCTION……………………...………………………………………………….……………………...11 PAPER I The role of the brown bear Ursus arctos as a legitimate megafaunal seed disperser………………..…30 PAPER II The bear-berry connection: ecological and management implications of
  • Prepared For: Prepared By

    Prepared For: Prepared By

    PDF Page 1 of 29 APPENDIX F TERA Vegetation Survey Results Summary PDF Page 2 of 29 VEGETATION SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. NORTH MONTNEY MAINLINE (AITKEN CREEK SECTION) March 2013 8860 Prepared for: Prepared by: NOVA Gas transmission Ltd. A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited TERA Environmental Consultants Calgary, Alberta Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 Ph: 403-265-2885 PDF Page 3 of 29 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Vegetation Summary Report North Montney Mainline (Aitken Creek Section) March 2013/8860 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Details ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Ecosystem Classification .................................................................................................... 3 2.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Study Area Boundaries ....................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Desktop Review .................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Field Data Collection ..........................................................................................................
  • Prepared For: Prepared By

    Prepared For: Prepared By

    RARE PLANT SURVEY FOR THE PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. KEARL EXTENSION PIPELINE PROJECT August 2010 6426 Prepared for: Prepared by: NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of TERA Environmental Consultants TransCanada PipeLines Limited Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 Calgary, Alberta Ph: 403-265-2885 NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Rare Plant Survey Kearl Lake Pipeline Project August 2010 / 6426 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Ecosystem Classification .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Pre-Field Assessment......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Study Area Boundaries ....................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Rare Plant Surveys ............................................................................................................. 4 2.4 Non-Native and Invasive Species....................................................................................... 5 3.0
  • National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996

    National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996

    National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary Indicator by Region and Subregion Scientific Name/ North North Central South Inter- National Subregion Northeast Southeast Central Plains Plains Plains Southwest mountain Northwest California Alaska Caribbean Hawaii Indicator Range Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex Forbes FACU FACU UPL UPL,FACU Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FAC FACW FAC,FACW Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. NI NI NI NI NI UPL UPL Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir. FACU FACU FACU Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. FACU-* NI FACU-* Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. NI NI FACU+ FACU- FACU FAC UPL UPL,FAC Abies magnifica A. Murr. NI UPL NI FACU UPL,FACU Abildgaardia ovata (Burm. f.) Kral FACW+ FAC+ FAC+,FACW+ Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL FACU- FACU- UPL UPL UPL UPL UPL NI NI UPL,FACU- Acacia choriophylla Benth. FAC* FAC* Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. FACU NI NI* NI NI FACU Acacia greggii Gray UPL UPL FACU FACU UPL,FACU Acacia macracantha Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. NI FAC FAC Acacia minuta ssp. minuta (M.E. Jones) Beauchamp FACU FACU Acaena exigua Gray OBL OBL Acalypha bisetosa Bertol. ex Spreng. FACW FACW Acalypha virginica L. FACU- FACU- FAC- FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea (Raf.) Cooperrider FACU- FAC- FACU FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Humm. FAC* NI NI FAC* Acanthomintha ilicifolia (Gray) Gray FAC* FAC* Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl OBL OBL Acer circinatum Pursh FAC- FAC NI FAC-,FAC Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU* FAC FACU FACU*,FAC Acer grandidentatum Nutt.
  • Floristic Discoveries in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia

    Floristic Discoveries in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia

    Knapp, W.M., R.F.C. Naczi, W.D. Longbottom, C.A. Davis, W.A. McAvoy, C.T. Frye, J.W. Harrison, and P. Stango, III. 2011. Floristic discoveries in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Phytoneuron 2011-64: 1–26. Published 15 December 2011. ISSN 2153 733X FLORISTIC DISCOVERIES IN DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA WESLEY M. KNAPP 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Wye Mills, Maryland 21679 [email protected] ROBERT F. C. NACZI The New York Botanical Garden Bronx, New York 10458-5126 WAYNE D. LONGBOTTOM P.O. Box 634 Preston, Maryland 21655 CHARLES A. DAVIS 1510 Bellona Ave. Lutherville, Maryland 21093 WILLIAM A. MCAVOY Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 4876 Hay Point, Landing Rd. Smyrna, Delaware 19977 CHRISTOPHER T. FRYE Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Wye Mills, Maryland 21679 JASON W. HARRISON Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Wye Mills, Maryland 21679 PETER STANGO III Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1 Author for correspondence ABSTRACT Over the past decade studies in the field and herbaria have yielded significant advancements in the knowledge of the floras of Delaware, Maryland, and the Eastern Shore of Virginia. We here discuss fifty-two species newly discovered or rediscovered or whose range or nativity is clarified. Eighteen are additions to the flora of Delaware ( Carex lucorum var. lucorum, Carex oklahomensis, Cyperus difformis, Cyperus flavicomus, Elymus macgregorii, Glossostigma cleistanthum, Houstonia pusilla, Juncus validus var. validus, Lotus tenuis, Melothria pendula var. pendula, Parapholis incurva, Phyllanthus caroliniensis subsp.
  • Conservation Assessment for Arctic Raspberry (Rubus Acaulis) Michx

    Conservation Assessment for Arctic Raspberry (Rubus Acaulis) Michx

    Conservation Assessment for Arctic Raspberry (Rubus acaulis) Michx. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region May 2002 This Conservation Assessment/Approach was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. Conservation Assessment for Artic Raspberry (Rubus acaulis) Michx. 2 Table Of Contents INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES .........................................................................4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................5 NOMENCLATURE AND TAXONOMY..............................................................6 SPECIES DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................7 GEOGRAPHIC
  • Algific Talus (Cts46)

    Algific Talus (Cts46)

    Species Frequently Found in Native Plant Communities Southern Algific Talus (CTs46) Types in Class: Algific Talus (CTs46a) Limestone Subtype (CTs46a1) Dolomite Subtype (CTs46a2) Scientific Name Column1 Common Name Rare Status Abies balsamea Balsam fir Acer saccharum Sugar maple Acer spicatum Mountain maple Adoxa moschatellina Moschatel Special Concern Allium cernuum Nodding wild onion Threatened Arabis hirsuta Hairy rock cress Betula alleghaniensis Yellow birch Chrysosplenium iowense Iowa golden saxifrage Endangered Cryptogramma stelleri Slender cliff brake Cystopteris bulbifera Bulblet fern Dicentra cucullaria Dutchman's breeches Enemion biternatum False rue anemone Gymnocarpium robertianum Northern oak fern Impatiens spp. touch-me-not Impatiens capensis Spotted touch-me-not Impatiens pallida Pale touch-me-not Laportea canadensis Wood nettle Linnaea borealis var. longiflora Twinflower Mertensia paniculata Panicled bluebells Mitella nuda Naked miterwort Pinus strobus White pine Rhamnus alnifolia Dwarf alder Ribes hudsonianum Northern black currant Rubus idaeus var. strigosus Red raspberry Sambucus racemosa Red-berried elder Saxifraga pensylvanica Swamp saxifrage Taxus canadensis Canada yew Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis Stinging nettle Viburnum trilobum Highbush cranberry Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2005). Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. MNDNR St. Paul, MN. Limestone Subtype (CTs46a1) Scientific Name Column1 Common Name Rare Status No information available Dolomite Subtype (CTs46a2) Scientific Name Column1 Common Name Rare Status No information available Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2005). Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program.
  • Complete Iowa Plant Species List

    Complete Iowa Plant Species List

    !PLANTCO FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE: IOWA DATABASE This list has been modified from it's origional version which can be found on the following website: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~herbarium/Cofcons.xls IA CofC SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PHYSIOGNOMY W Wet 9 Abies balsamea Balsam fir TREE FACW * ABUTILON THEOPHRASTI Buttonweed A-FORB 4 FACU- 4 Acalypha gracilens Slender three-seeded mercury A-FORB 5 UPL 3 Acalypha ostryifolia Three-seeded mercury A-FORB 5 UPL 6 Acalypha rhomboidea Three-seeded mercury A-FORB 3 FACU 0 Acalypha virginica Three-seeded mercury A-FORB 3 FACU * ACER GINNALA Amur maple TREE 5 UPL 0 Acer negundo Box elder TREE -2 FACW- 5 Acer nigrum Black maple TREE 5 UPL * Acer rubrum Red maple TREE 0 FAC 1 Acer saccharinum Silver maple TREE -3 FACW 5 Acer saccharum Sugar maple TREE 3 FACU 10 Acer spicatum Mountain maple TREE FACU* 0 Achillea millefolium lanulosa Western yarrow P-FORB 3 FACU 10 Aconitum noveboracense Northern wild monkshood P-FORB 8 Acorus calamus Sweetflag P-FORB -5 OBL 7 Actaea pachypoda White baneberry P-FORB 5 UPL 7 Actaea rubra Red baneberry P-FORB 5 UPL 7 Adiantum pedatum Northern maidenhair fern FERN 1 FAC- * ADLUMIA FUNGOSA Allegheny vine B-FORB 5 UPL 10 Adoxa moschatellina Moschatel P-FORB 0 FAC * AEGILOPS CYLINDRICA Goat grass A-GRASS 5 UPL 4 Aesculus glabra Ohio buckeye TREE -1 FAC+ * AESCULUS HIPPOCASTANUM Horse chestnut TREE 5 UPL 10 Agalinis aspera Rough false foxglove A-FORB 5 UPL 10 Agalinis gattingeri Round-stemmed false foxglove A-FORB 5 UPL 8 Agalinis paupercula False foxglove
  • Glossy Buckthorn Frangula Alnus

    Glossy Buckthorn Frangula Alnus

    Invasive Species—Best Control Practices Michigan Department of Natural Resources Michigan Natural Features Inventory 2/2012 Glossy buckthorn Frangula alnus Glossy buckthorn is native to Eurasia but has been com- monly planted in this country as a hedge and for wildlife food and cover. It was widely recommended for conserva- tion plantings in the Midwest until its invasive tendencies became apparent; it creates dense thickets and out-com- petes native vegetation. Its fruit is widely dispersed by birds and small mammals. Glossy buckthorn, like many invasive shrubs, leafs out early in the spring and retains its leaves late into fall, increasing its energy production and shading out native plants. It is a particular pest on wet sites and poses a significant threat to Michigan’s rich prairie fens, as well as other wetland com- munities. It is also successful on many upland sites including old fields, roadsides and open woods. Glossy buckthorn is an alternate host for alfalfa mosaic virus and crown fungus, which causes oat rust disease. It has also been implicated as a possible host for the soybean aphid. It is widely distributed in some parts of the state, but is just beginning to appear in others. If it is caught early in its initial invasion, it may be eradicated completely. Robert Vidéki, Doronicum Kft., Bugwood.org Identification Flowers: Habit: Glossy buckthorn flowers Glossy buckthorn is a small tree or shrub with a spreading are tiny with five greenish- crown growing up to 6 m (20 ft) tall. Typically, it has multiple white petals, arranged in stems when young, and develops into a tree with a trunk clusters at the bases of the that may reach 25 cm (10 in) in diameter at maturity.
  • Rhamnus Crocea Nutt

    Rhamnus Crocea Nutt

    I.SPECIES Rhamnus crocea Nutt. and Rhamnus ilicifolia Kellogg NRCS CODE: Family: Rhamnaceae 1. RHCR Order: Rhamnales 2. RHIL Subclass: Rosidae Class: Magnoliopsida Rhamnus crocea, San Bernardino Co., 5 June 2015, A. Montalvo Rhamnus ilicifolia, Riverside Co., Rhamnus ilicifolia, Riverside Co. Note the finely serrulate leaf 10 June 2015. A. Montalvo margins. 7 March 2008. A. Montalvo A. Subspecific taxa 1. None recognized by Sawyer (2012b) or in 2019 Jepson e-Flora whereas R. pilosa is recognized as R. c. 1. RHCR Nutt. subsp. pilosa (Trel.) C.B. Wolf in the PLANTS database (USDA PLANTS 2018). 2. RHIL 2. None B. Synonyms 1. RHCR 1 . Rhamnus croceus (spelling variant noted by FNA 2018) 2. RHIL 2. Rhamnus crocea Nutt. subsp. ilicifolia (Kellogg) C.B. Wolf; R. c. Nutt. var. ilicifolia (Kellogg) Greene (USDA PLANTS 2018) last modified: 3/4/2020 RHCR RHIL, page 1 printed: 3/10/2020 C. Common name The name red-berry, redberry, redberry buckthorn, California red-berry, evergreen buckthorn, spiny buckthorn, and hollyleaf buckthorn have been used for multiple taxa of Rhamnus (Painter 2016 a,b) 1. RHCR 1. Spiny redberry (Sawyer 2012a); also little-leaved redberry (Painter 2016a) 2. RHIL 2. Hollyleaf redberry (Sawyer 2012b); also holly-leaf buckthorn, holly-leaf coffeeberry (Painter 2016b) D. Taxonomic relationships There are about 150 species of Rhamnus worldwide and 14 in North America, 6 of which were introduced from other continents (Nesom & Sawyer 2018, FNA). This is after splitting the genus into Rhamnus (buckthorns and redberries) and Frangula (coffeeberries) based on a combination of fruit, leaf venation, and flower traits (Johnston 1975, FNA).
  • And Flora of the Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum

    And Flora of the Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum

    THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND FLORA OF THE MAttHAEI BOTANICAL GARDENS AND NICHOLS ARBORETUM BEVERLY WALTERS : MARY HEJNA : CONNIE CRANCER : JEFF PLAKKE 2011-2012 Caring for Nature, Enriching Life mbgna.umich.edu ACKNOWLEDgements This report is the product of a project entitled Assessing Globally-Ranked At-Risk Native Plant Communities: A General Conservation Survey of High Quality Natural Areas of the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum, which was funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Principal Investigator: Bob Grese, Director, Matthaei-Nichols. Lead Author: David Michener, Curator, Matthaei-Nichols. Editor and Project Manager: Jeff Plakke, Natural Areas Manager, Matthaei-Nichols. IMLS Sponsored Botanist: Beverly Walters, Research Museum Collection Manager (Vascular Plants), University of Michigan Herbarium. Assisting Botanist: Connie Crancer, Native Plant Specialist, Matthaei-Nichols. IMLS Sponsored GIS Technician: Mary Hejna Natural Areas Advisory Committee: Burt Barnes, Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan Dave Borneman, City of Ann Arbor Natural Areas Preservation Manager Aunita Erskine, Volunteer Steward Drew Lathin, Huron Arbor Cluster Coordinator for The Stewardship Network Kris Olson, Watershed Ecologist, Huron River Watershed Council Anton Reznicek, Assistant Director and Curator, University of Michigan Herbarium Shawn Severance, Washtenaw County Natural Areas Naturalist Sylvia Taylor, Faculty Emeritus, University of Michigan Scott Tyrell, Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy Volunteer Dana Wright, Land Stewardship Coordinator, Legacy Land Conservancy Many thanks also to Paul Berry for releasing Bev from duties at the University of Michigan Herbarium so that she could conduct the surveys, to Tony Reznicek for assistance with plant identification, and to Aunita Erskine for assistance in the field. Photographs on cover page and page 94 taken by MBGNA Staff.