NatureServe Explorer logo.An Online Encyclopedia of Life
Search
Ecological Association Comprehensive Report: Record 1 of 1 selected.
See All Search Results    View Glossary
<< Previous | Next >>

Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - Quercus rubra Forest
Translated Name: Eastern Hemlock - American Beech - Northern Red Oak Forest
Common Name: Hemlock - Beech - Red Oak Forest
Unique Identifier: CEGL006088
Classification Approach: International Vegetation Classification (IVC)
Summary: This association comprises dry-mesic hemlock-mixed hardwood forests of the northeastern United States. It occurs on dry to dry-mesic, nutrient-poor, well-drained, often stony sandy loams or loamy sands over acidic bedrock. The canopy is a mixture of Tsuga canadensis, with Fagus grandifolia and/or Quercus rubra in variable proportions depending on soil (site) and disturbance characteristics. The overstory can range from mostly coniferous to mostly deciduous; drier sites tend to have more abundant beech or oak, and cooler sites tend to have more abundant hemlock. Associated tree species include Betula lenta (sometimes replaced by Betula papyrifera at the northern end of this type's range), Pinus strobus, and Acer rubrum. Shrubs are often sparse but locally abundant and, in addition to saplings of canopy species, include Hamamelis virginiana, Acer pensylvanicum, Viburnum acerifolium, Kalmia latifolia, and in the south Ilex montana. Though heaths may be present, they are rarely prominent. The herb layer is generally sparse but usually includes several of the following: Mitchella repens, Lycopodium digitatum (= Diphasiastrum digitatum), Lycopodium obscurum, Lycopodium annotinum, Epifagus virginiana, Gaultheria procumbens, Maianthemum canadense, Trientalis borealis, Medeola virginiana, Aralia nudicaulis, Uvularia sessilifolia, Pteridium aquilinum, Dryopteris intermedia, Monotropa uniflora, and occasionally Lycopodium dendroideum, Coptis trifolia, and Dennstaedtia punctilobula.



Classification

Classification Confidence: Moderate
Classification Comments: At least in the southern portion of this type's range, the Tsuga canadensis component of this community type appears to have been heavily reduced by past disturbances because of this species' commercial timber value and its vulnerability to fire.

Vegetation Hierarchy
Class 1 - Forest & Woodland
Subclass 1.B - Temperate & Boreal Forest & Woodland
Formation 1.B.2 - Cool Temperate Forest & Woodland
Division 1.B.2.Na - Eastern North American Forest & Woodland
Macrogroup Appalachian-Interior-Northeastern Mesic Forest
Group Appalachian-Allegheny Northern Hardwood - Conifer Forest
Alliance Central & Southern Appalachian Hemlock - Northern Hardwood Forest

This is the revised vegetation hierarchy. For more information see Classification Sources and usnvc.org.

Similar Associations
Unique Identifier Name
CEGL005042 Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - (Acer saccharum) Great Lakes Forest
CEGL005043 Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - Acer saccharum / (Hamamelis virginiana, Kalmia latifolia) Forest
CEGL006129 Tsuga canadensis - (Betula alleghaniensis) - Picea rubens / Cornus canadensis Forest
CEGL006293 Pinus strobus - Quercus (rubra, velutina) - Fagus grandifolia Forest
CEGL006474 Tsuga canadensis - Fagus grandifolia - Quercus (prinus, alba) Forest
CEGL006633 Quercus rubra - Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia / Viburnum acerifolium Forest
CEGL006635 Quercus rubra - Acer saccharum / Viburnum acerifolium - Lindera benzoin Forest
CEGL006638 Tsuga canadensis - Betula alleghaniensis - Acer saccharum / Dryopteris intermedia Forest
CEGL006639 Tsuga canadensis - Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia / Dryopteris intermedia Forest



Related Concepts from Other Classifications

Related Subnational Community Units
These data are subject to substantial ongoing revision and may be out of date for some states.
In the U.S., contact the state Heritage Program for the most complete and up-to-date information at: http://www.natureserve.org/natureserve-network.
Information from programs in other jurisdictions will be posted when they are made available.
Subnation Concept Name Relationship to Standard Confidence Reference
Connecticut Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) forests Broader   Metzler and Barrett 2006
Connecticut Sugar maple - American beech - Hobblebush (Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia / Viburnum lantanoides) community Broader   Metzler and Barrett 2001
Maine Hemlock Forest Intersects   Gawler 2002
Massachusetts Northern Hardwoods - Hemlock - White Pine Forest Broader   Swain and Kearsley 2001
Massachusetts Oak - Hemlock - White Pine Forest Intersects   Swain and Kearsley 2001
New Hampshire Hemlock - Beech - Oak - Pine Forest Equivalent   Sperduto 2000
New York Hemlock-northern hardwood forest Broader Certain Edinger et al. 2002
Pennsylvania Hemlock (White Pine) - Red Oak - Mixed Hardwood Forest Intersects   Zimmerman et al. 2012
Vermont Hemlock-Northern Hardwood Forest Broader   Thompson and Sorenson 2000


Other Related Concepts
Related Concept Name: Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia / Viburnum lantanoides community
Relationship: I - Intersecting
Reference: Metzler, K. J., and J. P. Barrett. 2001. Vegetation classification for Connecticut. Draft 5/21/2001. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, Natural Diversity Database, Hartford.
Related Concept Name: Tsuga canadensis forests
Relationship: I - Intersecting
Reference: Metzler, K. J., and J. P. Barrett. 2001. Vegetation classification for Connecticut. Draft 5/21/2001. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, Natural Diversity Database, Hartford.
Related Concept Name: CNE dry transitional forest on sandy / gravelly soils
Relationship: ? - Undetermined
Reference: Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.
Related Concept Name: CNE mesic conifer [transition] forest on acidic bedrock/till
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.
Related Concept Name: CNE mesic hardwood forest on acidic bedrock/till
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.
Related Concept Name: Central New England mesic conifer forest on acidic bedrock / till
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.
Related Concept Name: Eastern Hemlock: 23
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.
Related Concept Name: Hemlock (white pine) - red oak - mixed hardwood forest
Relationship: I - Intersecting
Reference: Fike, J. 1999. Terrestrial and palustrine plant communities of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Recreation, Bureau of Forestry, Harrisburg, PA. 86 pp.
Related Concept Name: Hemlock Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Thompson, E. 1996. Natural communities of Vermont uplands and wetland. Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Department of Fish and Wildlife in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, Vermont chapter. 34 pp.
Related Concept Name: Mixed Hardwood-Conifer Forest
Relationship: B - Broader
Reference: Gawler, S. C. 2002. Natural landscapes of Maine: A guide to vegetated natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation, Augusta, ME.

Ecological Systems Placement

Ecological Systems Placement
Ecological System Unique ID Ecological System Name
CES201.563 Laurentian-Acadian Pine-Hemlock-Hardwood Forest
CES202.593 Appalachian (Hemlock)-Northern Hardwood Forest


NatureServe Conservation Status
Global Status: G4G5 (26Jun1998)
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This community type is widely distributed in the northern part of its range. Its long-term viability is threatened by pathogens associated with its two dominant canopy trees.

Distribution
Color legend for Distribution Map
United States Distribution: CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, PA, VT
Global Distribution: United States
Global Range: This association is widespread in southern New England and ranges south locally in the northern Piedmont and High Allegheny Mountains to Pennsylvania.

U.S. Forest Service Ecoregions
Domain Name: Humid Temperate Domain
Division Name: Warm Continental Division
Province Name: Laurentian Mixed Forest Province
Province Code: 212 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Northern Glaciated Allegheny Plateau Section
Section Code: 212F Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Hot Continental Division
Province Name: Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) Province
Province Code: 221 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Lower New England Section
Section Code: 221A Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Hudson Valley Section
Section Code: 221B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Northern Appalachian Piedmont Section
Section Code: 221D Occurrence Status: Possible
Division Name: Warm Continental Regime Mountains
Province Name: Adirondack-New England Mixed Forest - Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow Province
Province Code: M212 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Vermont-New Hampshire Upland Section
Section Code: M212B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Green, Taconic, Berkshire Mountain Section
Section Code: M212C Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Division Name: Hot Continental Regime Mountains
Province Name: Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest - Coniferous Forest - Meadow Province
Province Code: M221 Occurrence Status: Confident or certain
Section Name: Allegheny Mountains Section
Section Code: M221B Occurrence Status: Confident or certain


Vegetation

Vegetation Summary: The canopy is a mixture of Tsuga canadensis with Fagus grandifolia and/or Quercus rubra in variable proportions depending on soil (site) and disturbance characteristics; drier sites tend to have more abundant beech or oak and cooler sites tend to have more abundant hemlock. Associated tree species include Betula lenta (sometimes replaced by Betula papyrifera at the northern end of this type's range), Pinus strobus, and Acer rubrum. Shrubs are often sparse but locally abundant and, in addition to saplings of canopy species, include Hamamelis virginiana, Acer pensylvanicum, Viburnum acerifolium, Kalmia latifolia, and in the south Ilex montana. Though heaths may be present, they are rarely prominent. The herb layer is generally sparse but usually includes several of the following: Mitchella repens, Lycopodium digitatum (= Diphasiastrum digitatum), Lycopodium obscurum, Lycopodium annotinum, Epifagus virginiana, Gaultheria procumbens, Maianthemum canadense, Trientalis borealis, Medeola virginiana, Aralia nudicaulis, Uvularia sessilifolia, Dryopteris intermedia, Monotropa uniflora, and occasionally Lycopodium dendroideum, Coptis trifolia, and Dennstaedtia punctilobula.

Vegetation Composition (incomplete)
Species Name Rounded Global Status Growth Form Stratum Charact-
eristic
Dominant Constant
Cover Class %
Con-
stancy
%
Tsuga canadensis G4 Needle-leaved tree Tree (canopy & subcanopy)  
 
 
Fagus grandifolia G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Quercus rubra G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree canopy  
 
 
Acer rubrum G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy    
 
 
Betula lenta G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tree subcanopy  
 
 
Acer pensylvanicum G4 Broad-leaved deciduous tree Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Hamamelis virginiana G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Viburnum acerifolium G4 Broad-leaved deciduous shrub Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Kalmia latifolia G4 Broad-leaved evergreen shrub Tall shrub/sapling    
 
 
Aralia nudicaulis G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Trientalis borealis G4 Flowering forb Herb (field)    
 
 
Dryopteris intermedia G4 Fern (Spore-bearing forb) Herb (field)    
 
 


Environmental Setting

Wetland Indicator: N
Environmental Summary: This forest occurs on dry to dry-mesic, nutrient-poor, well-drained, often stony sandy loams or loamy sands. Underlying bedrock is acidic. In Virginia, it occupies extremely acidic (mean pH = 3.8), infertile silt loams on mesic to submesic valley sideslopes and broad, convex ridges at elevations from 1000-1200 m. In New England, it is a common forest type found on dry-mesic acidic soils on various landscape settings.


Dynamic Processes

Dynamics: Composition of stands of this forest association vary with soil (site) and disturbance characteristics. At the drier end, Fagus grandifolia and/or Quercus rubra tend to be more prevalent. Cooler sites, where soils may freeze for longer durations, have especially abundant Tsuga canadensis. Disturbance affects composition as Fagus grandifolia can regenerate profusely through root-suckering. Stands of this vegetation on Allegheny Mountain in Virginia have low species richness (mean = 15 taxa per 400-square-meter plot samples) and were heavily impacted by logging and subsequent fires during the late 1920s and early 1930s. Fagus grandifolia is the most abundant tree in contemporary stands, sometimes forming nearly pure, even-aged forests that originated from root-suckers. Tsuga canadensis is present in the understories of most stands, and large Tsuga codominates the canopies of a few older stands that escaped fire damage. Small pieces of charred wood and thin charcoal horizons deposited in historical fires were present in the duff layers at most sites examined (Fleming and Moorhead 1996). Insect pests and pathogens, such as the hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) and beech bark disease (also called beech scale / Nectria complex) are serious threats to the dominant canopy trees in this association. Betula lenta is the most common successional invader of stands decimated by hemlock woolly adelgid.


Plot Sampling & Classification Analysis

Plots stored in VegBank


Authors/Contributors
Concept Author(s): Eastern Ecology Group, mod. S.L. Neid
Element Description Edition Date: 11May2016
Element Description Author(s): G. Fleming, P. Coulling, S.L. Neid and S.C. Gawler
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 30Jan2004
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author(s): G. Fleming, mod. S.L. Neid

Ecological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).


References
  • Eastern Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Boston, MA.

  • Edinger, G. J., A. L. Feldmann, T. G. Howard, J. J. Schmid, F. C. Sechler, E. Eastman, E. Largay, and L. A. Sneddon. 2007. Vegetation classification and mapping of vegetation at Saratoga National Historical Park. Draft Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--XXXX/XXX. National Park Service, Northeast Region, Coastal Institute in Kingston, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

  • Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero, editors. 2002. Ecological communities of New York state. Second edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's ecological communities of New York state. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

  • Enser, R. W., and J. A. Lundgren. 2006. Natural communities of Rhode Island. A joint project of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy of Rhode Island. Rhode Island Natural History Survey, Kingston. 40 pp. [www.rinhs.org]

  • Eyre, F. H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp.

  • Fike, J. 1999. Terrestrial and palustrine plant communities of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Recreation, Bureau of Forestry, Harrisburg, PA. 86 pp.

  • Gawler, S. C. 2002. Natural landscapes of Maine: A guide to vegetated natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation, Augusta, ME.

  • Gawler, S. C., and A. Cutko. 2010. Natural landscapes of Maine: A classification of vegetated natural communities and ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Department of Conservation, Augusta.

  • Gawler, S. C., and P. S. Bowman. 2012. Vegetation classification and mapping at Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site, New Hampshire. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2012/584.1. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

  • Metzler, K. J., and J. P. Barrett. 2001. Vegetation classification for Connecticut. Draft 5/21/2001. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, Natural Diversity Database, Hartford.

  • Metzler, K., and J. Barrett. 2006. The vegetation of Connecticut: A preliminary classification. State Geological and Natural History Survey, Report of Investigations No. 12. Connecticut Natural Diversity Database, Hartford.

  • NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service]. 2004a. Soil survey of Saratoga County, New York. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 590 pp.

  • Perles, S. J., G. S. Podniesinski, M. Furedi, B. A. Eichelberger, A. Feldmann, G. Edinger, E. Eastman, and L. A. Sneddon. 2008. Vegetation classification and mapping at Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2008/133. National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. 370 pp.

  • Rawinski, T. 1984a. Natural community description abstract - southern New England calcareous seepage swamp. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6 pp.

  • Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Latham, NY. 96 pp.

  • Sperduto, D. D., and W. F. Nichols. 2004. Natural communities of New Hampshire: A guide and classification. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau, DRED Division of Forests and Lands, Concord. 242 pp.

  • Swain, P. C., and J. B. Kearsley. 2001. Classification of natural communities of Massachusetts. September 2001 draft. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA.

  • Thompson, E. 1996. Natural communities of Vermont uplands and wetland. Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Department of Fish and Wildlife in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, Vermont chapter. 34 pp.

  • Thompson, E. H., and E. R. Sorenson. 2000. Wetland, woodland, wildland: A guide to the natural communities of Vermont. The Nature Conservancy and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 456 pp.

  • Zimmerman, E. A., T. Davis, M. A. Furedi, B. Eichelberger, J. McPherson, S. Seymour, G. Podniesinski, N. Dewar, and J. Wagner, editors. 2012. Terrestrial and palustrine plant communities of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Harrisburg. [http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/Communities.aspx]


Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.

Copyright 2017
NatureServe
Version 7.1 (2 February 2009)
Data last updated: November 2016