Campostoma ornatum - Girard, 1856
Mexican Stoneroller
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Campostoma ornatum Girard, 1856 (TSN 163510)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101250
Element Code: AFCJB03030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Fishes - Bony Fishes - Minnows and Carps
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B91ROB01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Campostoma ornatum
Taxonomic Comments: This species is distinguished from other Campostoma by numerous morphological and biochemical characteristics (Buth and Burr 1978), but it is morphologically variable in confounding geographic patterns. Taxonomic status of the two allopatric (Arizona, Texas) U.S. populations warrants further study (Starnes 1995).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 24Oct2011
Global Status Last Changed: 22Jan2009
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Occurs in southern Texas, southeastern Arizona, and northern Mexico; common and widespread in Mexico, but trends in most populations are poorly known; reduced in Arizona primarily as a result of habitat loss and degradation due to overgrazing (late 1800s, early 1900s), erosion, water diversion, and aquifer pumping; current threats include aquifer pumping, reduction in stream flows, water diversion, drought, and interactions with non-native fishes.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1N2 (05Dec1996)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Arizona (S1), Texas (S1)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Vulnerable (01Aug2008)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Current range includes Rio Grande tributaries in the Big Bend region (Presidio and Brewster counties), southern Texas (Hubbs et al. 2008); Rucker Canyon in the Chiricahua Mountains and San Bernardino Creek, southeastern Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2003); and northern Mexico, where the species is widespread from the Big Bend region west to the rios Yaqui and Sonora in Sonora, and southward to the Nazas-Aguanaval basins in Zacatecas, including endorheic systems of Chihuahua (Miller 2005). All but a small portion of the global range is in northern Mexico.

Historically this species was known in Arizona from Whitewater Creek near Douglas, Black Draw on the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, and Leslie Creek; it occurred at Cajon Bonita just south of Douglas in 1978 (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2003).

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations). Miller (2005) mapped approximately 100 collection sites well distributed throughout the range in Mexico; these represent probably several dozen distinct occurrences. Texas Natural History Collections (1997) mapped 60 collection locations, including 6 in southwestern Texas, 3 in southeastern Arizona, and 52 in Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico.

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but presumably exceeds 10,000 and likely exceeds 100,000. This species is common and widespread in northern Mexico (Page and Burr 2011). Referring to Mexico, Miller (2005) stated that the species is often common in headwaters. The species persists in small numbers in Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1996).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Some to many (13-125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: The viability of most occurrences is unknown but probably some of those in Mexico have good viability.

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Decline in Arizona is primarily a result of habitat loss and degradation due to overgrazing (late 1800s, early 1900s), erosion, water diversion, and aquifer pumping; current threats include aquifer pumping, reduction in stream flows, water diversion, drought, and predation by non-native green sunfish (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1996).

Hubbs and Wauer (1973) suggested that Campostoma ornatum in Tornillo Creek, Texas, may be stressed by the presence of the plains killifish (Fundulus zebrinus), an introduced species. Prior to the introduction of F. zebrinus (first collected from Big Bend area in 1954), C. ornatum was the most abundant fish in Tornillo Creek (Hubbs and Wauer 1973). Subsequently, abundance declined, and the majority of samples taken during 1967-1970 did not includes this species.

Hubbs and Echelle (1973) listed C. ornatum as Potentially Endangered due to the drastic population reductions caused by F. zebrinus, with a potential for further problems caused by siltation, channelization, and water depletion.

Contreras-Balderas (1977) reported that this species is extirpated from the Río Chihuahua (= Chuviscar) and the Río Conchos at Camargo, due to lowered water tables; loss of well-oxygenated, clear, moving water; siltation; and sewage effluent. Edwards et al. (2002) sampled the Río Conchos at Julimes (downstream of Camargo) and did not obtain C. ornatum, but at Valle de Zaragosa (upstream of Camargo) they obtained 31 specimens.

Page and Burr (2011) described this species as fairly common in the United States and widespread and common in northern Mexico.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Current trend in most areas is unknown, but area of occupancy, number of subpopulations, population size, and habitat quality likely are slowly declining.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <50% to Relatively Stable
Long-term Trend Comments: Although local declines and extirpations have occurred (Contreras-Balderas 1977), this species remains widespread and common in most of its range in Mexico. Although it was listed as endangered in Mexico by SEDESOL (1994) and CONABIO (1997), this "presumably referr[ed] to local populations rather than to the widespread and regionally abundant species as a whole" (Miller 2005). Populations in Rio Yaqui in Mexico were in pretty good shape as of summer 1978 (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2003). Surveys conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in the summer of 1989 indicated the species was in good shape in the Rio Bavispe, a sub-basin of the Rio Yaqui, Mexico (Francisco J. Abarca, pers. comm., 1994, cited by Arizona Game and Fish Department 2003). In Arizona, this species has declined drastically over the long term, but it persists in small numbers in Rucker Canyon (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1996).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Better information is needed on current distribution, abundance, and trends.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Current range includes Rio Grande tributaries in the Big Bend region (Presidio and Brewster counties), southern Texas (Hubbs et al. 2008); Rucker Canyon in the Chiricahua Mountains and San Bernardino Creek, southeastern Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2003); and northern Mexico, where the species is widespread from the Big Bend region west to the rios Yaqui and Sonora in Sonora, and southward to the Nazas-Aguanaval basins in Zacatecas, including endorheic systems of Chihuahua (Miller 2005). All but a small portion of the global range is in northern Mexico.

Historically this species was known in Arizona from Whitewater Creek near Douglas, Black Draw on the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, and Leslie Creek; it occurred at Cajon Bonita just south of Douglas in 1978 (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2003).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AZ, TX

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Cochise (04003)
TX Brewster (48043), Presidio (48377)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
13 Cibolo-Red Light (13040201)+, Alamito (13040202)+, Black Hills-Fresno (13040203)+, Terlingua (13040204)+, Big Bend (13040205)+, Maravillas (13040206), Reagan-Sanderson (13040208)
15 Willcox Playa (15050201)+, Whitewater Draw (15080301)+, San Bernardino Valley (15080302)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small fish (stoneroller).
Reproduction Comments: Spawning appears to occur primarily in winter and early spring (Hubbs and Wauer 1973).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, High gradient, Moderate gradient, Pool, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes shallow riffles, runs, and pools of clear to slightly turbid, small to medium creeks and headwaters; large adults can be found in pools over sand or gravelly bottoms, or in flowing segments of pools or along undercut banks or other cover (Burr 1976, Lee et al. 1980, Arizona Game and Fish Department 2003, Page and Burr 2011). The largest collections have been taken from gravel runs or gravel-bottom pools (Burr 1976). McNatt (1974) found that this species was abundant in pools in Rucker Canyon, Arizona, especially the deepest pools.
Adult Food Habits: Detritivore, Herbivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Detritivore, Herbivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes detritus, algae, and some aquatic insects.
Length: 11 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Better information is needed on basic life history attributes.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Small Cyprinids

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including eggs and larvae) in appropriate habitat.
Separation Barriers: Dam lacking a suitable fishway; high waterfall; upland habitat. For some species (e.g., slender chub), an impoundment may constitute a barrier. For others (e.g., flame chub) a stream larger than 4th order may be a barrier.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Data on dispersal and other movements generally are not available. In some species, individuals may migrate variable distances between spawning areas and nonspawning habitats.

Separation distances (in aquatic kilometers) for cyprinids are arbitrary but reflect the presumption that movements and appropriate separation distances generally should increase with fish size. Hence small, medium, and large cyprinids, respectively, have increasingly large separation distances. Separation distance reflects the likely low probability that two occupied locations separated by less than several kilometers of aquatic habitat would represent truly independent populations over the long term.

Because of the difficulty in defining suitable versus unsuitable habitat, especially with respect to dispersal, and to simplify the delineation of occurrences, a single separation distance is used regardless of habitat quality.

Occupied locations that are separated by a gap of 10 km or more of any aquatic habitat that is not known to be occupied represent different occurrences. However, it is important to evaluate seasonal changes in habitat to ensure that an occupied habitat occurrence for a particular population does not artificially separate spawning areas and nonspawning areas as different occurrences simply because there have been no collections/observations in an intervening area that may exceed the separation distance.

Date: 21Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 24Oct2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 24Oct2011
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

References
Help
  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Anderson, Allison A., C. Hubbs, K. O. Winemiller, and R. J. Edwards. 1995. Texas freshwater fish assemblages following three decades of environmental change. The Southwest Naturalist 40(3):314-321.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1996. Wildlife of special concern in Arizona (public review draft). Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Phoenix, Arizona. 40 pp.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2003. Campostoma ornatum. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp.

  • BURR, B. M. 1976. A REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN STONEROLLER, CAMPOSTOMA ORNATUM GIRARD (PISCES: CYPRINIDAE). TRANS. SAN DIEGO SOC. NAT. HIST. 18(7): 127-144.

  • Buth, D. G., and B. M. Burr. 1978. Isozyme variability in the cyprinid genus CAMPOSTOMA. Copeia 1978:298-311.

  • Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO). 1997. Oficio No. DOO.750,- 1415/97), la revisión de la NOM-ECOL-059-1994, Norma Oficial Mexicana NOMECOL-059-1994, que determina las especies y subespecies del flora y fauna silvestres terrestres y acuaticas en peligro de extincion, amnazadas raras y las sujetas a proteccion especial y qu establece especificaciones para su proteccion, Publicada en el D.O.F. de fecha 16 de mayo de 1994.

  • Contreras-Balderas, S. 1977. Speciation aspects and man-made community composition changes in Chihuahuan Desert fishes. In: Wauer, R.H., and D.H. Riskind (editors). Transactions of the Symposium on the Biological Resources of the Chihuahuan Desert Rigion United States and Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series (3):405-431.

  • Edwards, R. J., G. P. Garrett, and E. Marsh-Matthews. 2002. Conservation and status of the fish communities inhabiting the Conchos basin and middle Rio Grande, Mexico and U.S.A. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 12:119-132

  • Hubbs, C. and A.A. Echelle. 1973. Endangered non-game fishes of the upper Rio Grande basin. Pages 147-167 in W.C. Huey (ed.) Endangered Vertebrates in the Southwest, New Mexico Game and Fish.

  • Hubbs, C., R. J. Edwards, and G. P. Garrett. 2008. An annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of Texas, with keys to identification of species. Texas Journal of Science, Supplement, 2nd edition 43(4):1-87.

  • Hubbs, C., and R. Wauer. 1973. Seasonal changes in the fish fauna of Tornillo Creek, Brewster County, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 17:375-379.

  • Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407.

  • Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.

  • McNatt, R.M. 1974. Re-evaluation of the native fishes of the Rio Yaqui in the United States. Proceedings of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commission 54:273-279.

  • Miller, R. R. (with the collaboration of W. L. Minckley and S. M. Norris). 2005 [actually published in 2006]. Freshwater fishes of Mexico. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 490 pp.

  • Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 293 pp.

  • Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

  • New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1996. October 1-last update. Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange-VA Tech. Online. Available: http//www.fw.vt.edu/fishex/nm.html. Accessed 1997, April 8.

  • Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

  • Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.

  • SEDESOL (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social). 1994. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-ECOL-1994, que determina las especies y subespecies de flora y fauna silvestres terrestres y acuáticas en peligro de extinción, amenazadas, raras y las sujetas a protección especial, y que establece especificaciones para su protección. Diario Oficial de la Federación 16/05/94: 2-60.

  • Scharpf, C. 2005. Annotated checklist of North American freshwater fishes, including subspecies and undescribed forms, Part 1: Petromyzontidae through Cyprinidae. American Currents, Special Publication 31(4):1-44.

  • Starnes, W. C. 1995. Taxonomic validation for fish species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Category 2 species list. 28 pp.

  • Texas Natural History Collections [University of Texas at Austin]. 1997. February 7-last update. Texas Freshwater Fishes Index (Images, Maps and Information). Online. Available: http://www.fw.vt.edu/fishex/nm.html. Accessed 1997, April 14.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996b. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia: Export of freshwater fish and mussel records west of the Mississippi River in 1997. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

Use Guidelines & Citation

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 March 2018.
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 © 2018 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. 2018. 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.