Habroscelimorpha dorsalis dorsalis - (Say, 1817)
Eastern Beach Tiger Beetle
Other English Common Names: Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle, eastern beach tiger beetle
Synonym(s): Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Say, 1817
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Say, 1817 (TSN 697796)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.109729
Element Code: IICOL02011
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Beetles - Other Beetles
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Habroscelimorpha
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Freitag, R. P. 1999. Catalogue of the tiger beetles of Canada and the United States. National Research Council Research Press, Ottawa, Canada. 195 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B99FRE01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis
Taxonomic Comments: Bousquet (2012) transfers Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis to Habroscelimorpha dorsalis dorsalis. A much better subspecies than most, in fact, where they used to contact in New Jersey and still may in Maryland and Virginia, this and C.d. media remain distinct with very limited hybridization. Subspecies dorsalis may very well be a separate species from the others (see for example Knisley and Schultz, 1997). However subspecies treatment is generally accepted in the literature.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4T2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 12Nov2003
Global Status Last Changed: 01Sep1997
Rounded Global Status: T2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Around 20 or less demes, high degree of threat and severe (>>99%) recent decline of this once abundant species. Some demes on Chesapeake Bay probably still function as metapopulations, but habitats are scattered. Federally listed taxon.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2 (01Sep1997)

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 Connecticut (SX), Maryland (S1), Massachusetts (S1), New Jersey (S1), New York (SX), Rhode Island (SX), Virginia (S2)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LT: Listed threatened (07Aug1990)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R5 - Northeast
IUCN Red List Category: NE - Not evaluated

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Native populations apparently survive only on Martha's Vineyard (one C rank EO), and in about 40 scattered places on Chesapeake Bay functioning as two or more metapopulations. Chesapeake Bay was apparently a disjunct occurrence. The main historic range was from coastal Massachusetts to about northern Cape May Co. in New Jersey, replaced from extreme southern New Jersey to coastal Texas by other subspecies. Reintroduction efforts in 1994 to the Gateway National Recreation seem to be successful (End. Species Tech. Bull. Vol XX [6]).

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 20
Number of Occurrences Comments: See USFWS (1990). Number of occurrences depends mainly on what one calls an occurrence. Where possible EO should be an entire metapopulation and thus ranked to reflect this. Several metapopulations on Chesapeake Bay plus one small isolated colony on Martha Vineyard Island, MA. Few or no additional EOs will be discovered, certain islands off NY in Long Island Sound seem least unlikely to harbor undiscovered EOs. Inventory has been rather thorough in NJ and CT. Block Island EO of 1970s along with those in NJ are confirmed extirpated.

Population Size: 1000 - 2500 individuals
Population Size Comments: No adequate population studies? Was originally a very high D, i.e. certainly millions.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few to some (4-40)

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Main cause of decline was extensive vehicular use of nearly all beaches, in many places foot traffic was also a major factor, but species can tolerate some human use. Presently small fragmented EOs seem highly vulnerable to local extirpation, most likely from major storms such as winter nor'easters which occur every year or direct hits from hurricanes which hit occasionally. Populations can withstand some degree of inundation during storms, but under severe circumstances these storms can completely remove all surface sands from the entire beach and even eliminate the foredune--as at many NJ beaches on 31 Oct. 1991, 4 Jan. 1992. Such events would kill all larvae. In less severe situations, beach replenishment efforts could bury any survivors. Severity of storm damage varies locally with surf conditions, exact timing of high tides, etc. and originally recolonization was easy. In additon it is very difficult to control vehicles adequately in some places. Beach stabilization efforts can also destroy habitats. This species needs relatively dynamic beaches and enough sites that recolonizations can occur as necessary.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Decline has probably slowed since listing and one reintroduction probably succeeeded.

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Total decline since 1900 about 99.9%

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Mostly small remnant demes. Natural and unnatural threats.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Limited now, but survey of any unchecked private islands in Long Island sound is top need.

Protection Needs: No ORVs, no insecticides at any season, may need translocations after severe storms. Urgent need to establish other EOs on Martha's Vineyard or nearby, should be in a site with different aspect (i.e. different exposure to storm wave action). All A- C rank EOs are very high priorities, restoration of any D's also a high priority.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Native populations apparently survive only on Martha's Vineyard (one C rank EO), and in about 40 scattered places on Chesapeake Bay functioning as two or more metapopulations. Chesapeake Bay was apparently a disjunct occurrence. The main historic range was from coastal Massachusetts to about northern Cape May Co. in New Jersey, replaced from extreme southern New Jersey to coastal Texas by other subspecies. Reintroduction efforts in 1994 to the Gateway National Recreation seem to be successful (End. Species Tech. Bull. Vol XX [6]).

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: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CTextirpated, MA, MD, NJ, NYextirpated, RIextirpated, VA

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
MA Barnstable (25001), Bristol (25005)*, Dukes (25007), Nantucket (25019)*
MD Calvert (24009), Somerset (24039), St. Marys (24037)
NJ Atlantic (34001)*, Cape May (34009)*, Monmouth (34025)*, Ocean (34029)*
NY Kings (36047)*, Nassau (36059)*, Queens (36081)*, Suffolk (36103)*
RI Washington (44009)*
VA Accomack (51001), Hampton (City) (51650), Lancaster (51103), Mathews (51115), Middlesex (51119), Northampton (51131), Northumberland (51133)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Cape Cod (01090002)+, Narragansett (01090004)+*, Pawcatuck-Wood (01090005)+*
02 Sandy Hook-Staten Island (02030104)+*, Northern Long Island (02030201)+*, Southern Long Island (02030202)+*, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+*, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+*, Eastern Lower Delmarva (02040304)+, Upper Chesapeake Bay (02060001)+, Severn (02060004)+, Patuxent (02060006)+, Lower Potomac (02070011)+, Great Wicomico-Piankatank (02080102)+, Lower Rappahannock (02080104)+, Lynnhaven-Poquoson (02080108)+, Eastern Lower Delmarva (02080110)+, Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva (02080111)+
CA CAPE COD (CAPE COD)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A tiger beetle
General Description: A whitish tiger beetle with variable dark maculation found only along salt water beaches.
Diagnostic Characteristics: A whitish tiger beetle taken between ocean and foredune is likely to be this within its range, but must be verified from technical description and illustration; see Boyd (1982 or 1978). C. LEPIDA is somewhat similar.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Not migratory, but some dispersal and colonization potential. According to Knisley and Schultz, 1997 marked adults sometimes moved 10-15 miles.
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Sand/dune
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil
Habitat Comments: Occurs from about the foredune to the high tide line on ocean and bay beaches only. Larvae live in burrows in the sand.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Adults actively hunt, larvae sit and wait for passing prey.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: Adults most active in July. Immatures present all year. Tiger beetle larvae seal off their burrow and hibernate in early fall. Life cycle takes two or three years.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Information on dispersal and coloniziation potential seems needed.
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Excellent Viability: Nothing remotely resembling better or even slightly sub-average historic conditions exists now on the Atlantic seaboard.
Good Viability: None extant on the Atlantic coast but some probably do on Chesapeake Bay, B-rank should apply to something like a metapopulation of at least thousands of adults (and several times as many larvae) spread (not necessarily continuously) over an area of five miles of beach with some variation in aspect such that exposure to erosion in storms would be uneven, e.g. due to small inlets, spits, or artificial structures, and some dislodged larvae might be deposited elsewhere on shore where they might survive. In other words an occurrence likely to survive a direct hit from a severe winter storm or moderate hurricane at full high spring tide. There should also be at least one other substantial population within the documented dispersal range for adults such that immigration occasionally occurs.

Fair Viability: Any site where adults are likely to be seen on a good day, and where larvae occur, especially if more than 50 adults are sometimes seen or the population has survived some recent storms.
Poor Viability: Sites where only transient breeding occurs, or number of adults is usually below 20 per day, and especially sites where survival through routine winter storms would be unlikely or is known not to happen often.
Justification: A-rank is not appropriate considering original versus historic contexts, however tha B atttempts to depict a population (most likely on Chesapeake Bay) that should be capable of persistence. However it is understood that no current populations would be likely to survive a direct hit from a Category 5 hurricane.
Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
Date: 16Feb2007
Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 12Nov2003
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 28Dec1992
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): SCHWEITZER, D.F

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

References
Help
  • BARTGIS, R.L. 1990. SITE SURVEY SUMMARY PACKAGES FOR CICINDELA DORSALIS DORSALIS AND CICINDELA PURITANA BASED ON BARRY KNISELY'S REPORTS.

  • Bousquet, Y. 2012. Catalogue of Geadephaga (Coleoptera, Adephaga) of America, north of Mexico. ZooKeys 245:1-1722.

  • Bousquet, Y., P. Bouchard, A.E. Davies, and D.S. Sikes. 2013. Checklist of beetles (Coleoptera) of Canada and Alaska, second edition. Pensoft Series Faunistica No 109.

  • Boyd, H. P. 1978. The tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) of New Jersey with special reference to their ecological relationships. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 104:191-242.

  • Boyd, H.P. 1975. The overlapping ranges of Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis and C. d. media, with notes on the Calvert Cliff area, Maryland. Cicindela 7(3):45-59.

  • Boyd, H.P. 1982. Intraspecific and geographic variations in Cicindela dorsalis Say (COLEOPTERA: CICINDELIDAE). Coleop. Bull. 36(2):221-239.

  • Freitag, R. P. 1999. Catalogue of the tiger beetles of Canada and the United States. National Research Council Research Press, Ottawa, Canada. 195 pp.

  • GLASER, J.D. 1976. CICINDELIDS OF CHESAPEAKE BAY REVISTED. CICINDELA 8(1):17-20.

  • GLASER, J.D. 1982. HANDWRITTEN NOTES RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS ON MARY BROSNAN'S TYPED LETTER TO GLASER OF 6TH OF JANUARY ABOUT CICINDELA LOCALITIES IN MD AND VA.

  • HILL, J.M. AND C.B. KNISELY. 1990. CURRENT STATUS SURVEY AND BIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF CICINDELA DORSALIS AND C. PURITANA IN MARYLAND, 1990. REVISED 19 FEBRUARY 1991. PREPARED FOR MD DNR AND USFWS, 69PP.

  • KNISLEY, C.B. 1995. STUDIES OF TWO THREATENED TIGER BEETLES, CICINDELA D. DORSALIS AND C. PURITANA, OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION OF MARYLAND, 1995 -- FINAL REPORT.

  • KNISLEY, C.B. 1996. STUDIES OF RARE TIGER BEETLES (CICINDELA DORSALIS DORSALIS, C.D. MEDIA, AND C. PURITANA) IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION OF MARYLAND, 1996. FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO DNR, HERITAGE & BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON 15 JANUARY, 1997.

  • KNISLEY, C.B. 1998. DETERMINATION OF POPULATION SIZE AND OF RESIDENT ADULT NORTHEASETERN BEACH TIGER BEETLES, LARVAL RECRUITMENT AND IMMIGRATION AT COVE POINT, CALVERT COUNTY, MD, IN 1998. FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO COVE POINT NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST. 7 PP (INCLUDING FIGURES AND MAPS).

  • KNISLEY, C.B. 2000. POPULATION DECLINE OF THE NORTHEASTERN BEACH TIGER BEETLE IN CALVERT COUNTY, MD. FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO COVE POINT NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST. 15 PP + FIGURES AND MAPS.

  • KNISLEY, C.B. AND J.M. HILL. 1989. IMPACT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY ON CICINDELA DORSALIS AND C. PURITANA: PART 1 SUBFINAL REPORT - THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF VISITOR USE ON CICINDELA DORSALIS AT FLAG PONDS, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. 28 JUNE 1989.

  • KNISLEY, C.B. AND J.M. HILL. 1990. STUDIES OF TWO ENDANGERED TIGER BEETLES, CICINDELA DORSALIS DORSALIS AND CICINDELA PURITANA, IN MARYLAND, 1989. FINAL REPORT TO MARYLAND NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, 8 FEBRUARY 1990.

  • KNISLEY, C.B. AND J.M. HILL. 1993. STUDIES OF CICINDELA DORSALIS DORSALIS AND CICINDELA PURITANA IN CALVERT, CECIL, AND KENT COUNTIES, MARYLAND - SITE SURVEYS AND BIOLOGICAL STUDIES, 1992. FINAL REPORT, REVISED 10 MAY 1993.

  • KNISLEY, C.B. AND J.M. HILL. 1993. STUDIES OF CICINDELA DORSALIS DORSALIS AND CICINDELA PURITANA IN MARYLAND: SITE SURVEYS IN CALVERT, KENT, AND CECIL COUNTIES AND BIOLOGICAL STUDIES IN 1993. FINAL REPORT, 7 FEBRUARY 1994.

  • KNISLEY, C.B., AND J.M. HILL. 1990. STUDIES OF TWO ENDANGERED TIGER BEETLES, CICINDELA DORSALIS DORSLIS AND CICINDELA PURITANA, IN MARYLAND, 1989. FINAL REPORT. 28 PP.

  • Knisley, Barry. Unpublished Status Survey of two candidate species of tiger beetles, CICINDELA PURITANA, and C. DORSALIS. Submitted to U.S.F.W.S. February 10, 1987.

  • Knisley, C. Barry; Hill. James M. and Schultz, Cindy A., 1998 Disttibution and abundacne of CICINDELA DORSALIS DORSALIS, the northeastern beach tiger beetle, along the western shoreline of Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. Banisteria (Virginia Natural History Society), number 12: 23-29

  • Knisley, C.B. and T.D. Schultz. 1997. The Biology of Tiger Beetles and a Guide to the Species of the South Atlantic States. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publication Number 5. Virginia Museum of Natural History: Martinsville, Virginia. 210 pp.

  • LaRochelle, A. 1986. Cicindelidae from New England in the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Cicindela 18(4):59-63.

  • Leonard, M. D. ed. 1928. A list of the insects of New York, with a list of the spiders and certain other allied groups. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Mem. 101. Ithaca, New York. 1121 pp.

  • Pearson, D. L., C. B. Knisley and C. J. Kazilek. 2006. A field guide to the tiger beetles of the United States and Canada: identification, natural history, and distribution of the Cicindelidae. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 227 pp.

  • Pearson, D.L. 2004. A list of suggested common English names for species of tiger beetles occurring in Canada and the U.S. Cicindela 36(1-2):31-40.

  • Pearson, D.L., T. G. Barraclough, and A.P. Vogler. 1997. Distributional range maps for North American species of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Cicindela, 29(3-4): 33-84. Available online: http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/tigerb/rangepaper.htm.

  • Perkins, P. D. 1983. North American insect status review. Contract 14-16-0009-79-052. Final report to Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 354 pp.

  • Roble, Steve, 1998. Book review of "the biology of tiger beetles and a guide to the species of the south Atlantic states". Banisteria (virginia Museum of Natural History) 12: 46-48

  • Schweitzer, D.F. 1989. A review of Category 2 Insecta in USFWS regions 3, 4, 5. Prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal notice of review. Federal Register, Department of the Interior 54(4): 554-579.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990f. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Puritan and Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle. Federal Register 55 (152):32088-32094, 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AB31

  • Valenti, M.A. 1986. Cicindelidae in the museum of the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York. Cicindela 18(1):1-6.

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 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.