Opheodrys aestivus - (Linnaeus, 1766)
Rough Greensnake
Other English Common Names: Rough Green Snake, rough greensnake
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Opheodrys aestivus (Linnaeus, 1766) (TSN 174172)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102569
Element Code: ARADB23010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Reptiles - Snakes
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Reptilia Squamata Colubridae Opheodrys
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B90COL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Opheodrys aestivus
Taxonomic Comments: Grobman (1984) recognized four subspecies, based on scutellation variation: aestivus, majalis, carinatus, and conanti (the last two newly described). See Grobman (1992) and Collins (1992) for conflicting opinions on the validity of O. aestivus subspecies. These subspecies "generally have not been recognized by the herpetological community...because the distinctions among them were based on one or two differences in variable [and environmentally labile] scale characters and on outmoded taxonomic practices" (Walley and Plummer 2000).

Oldham and Smith (1991) demonstrated several significant categorical differences between O. aestivus and O. vernalis, indicative of a long history of divergent evolution, and assigned the latter species to a new genus (Liochlorophis), leaving aestivus as the only member of the genus Opheodrys.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Dec2005
Global Status Last Changed: 14Dec2000
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range in southeastern United States and northeastern Mexico; common in many areas.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Oct1996)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (S5), Arkansas (S5), Delaware (S2), District of Columbia (S4), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S3), Kansas (S4), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (S5), Maryland (S5), Mississippi (S4), Missouri (S5), New Jersey (S5), North Carolina (S5), Ohio (S3), Oklahoma (S5), Pennsylvania (S1), South Carolina (SNR), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S2)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000 to >2,500,000 square km (about 80,000 to >1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The range extends from southern New Jersey to southern Florida, west to eastern Kansas, central Oklahoma, and central Texas, north to the southern portions of the southern Great Lakes states, south into northeastern Mexico (Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas) (Walley and Plummer 2000).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a very large number of occurrences or subpopulations (more than 100) (see map in Walley and Plummer 2000).

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but probably is greater than 100,000.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: No major threats are known. Locally, clearing of wooded wetlands and wooded borders of aquatic habitats is a potential threat, as is pesticide application in such habitats.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, number of subpopulations, and populations size probably are relatively stable overall, with local declines associated with habitat loss or climate variation (Plummer 1997).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Ascertain the current extent of occupied habitat throughout the range (as a baseline for indexing population trends).

Protection Needs: Protect several large tracts of optimal habitat well dispersed throughout the range. Discourage application of pesticides in or near wooded wetlands.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000 to >2,500,000 square km (about 80,000 to >1,000,000 square miles)) The range extends from southern New Jersey to southern Florida, west to eastern Kansas, central Oklahoma, and central Texas, north to the southern portions of the southern Great Lakes states, south into northeastern Mexico (Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas) (Walley and Plummer 2000).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MO, MS, NC, NJ, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2005


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
DE Kent (10001), New Castle (10003), Sussex (10005)
IN Brown (18013), Clark (18019), Dubois (18037), Floyd (18043), Gibson (18051), Harrison (18061), Jackson (18071), Lawrence (18093), Martin (18101), Monroe (18105), Morgan (18109), Orange (18117), Putnam (18133), Scott (18143), Spencer (18147), Warrick (18173), Washington (18175)
OH Adams (39001), Athens (39009)*, Clermont (39025), Clinton (39027)*, Hamilton (39061), Hocking (39073)*, Jackson (39079), Lawrence (39087), Montgomery (39113)*, Pike (39131), Ross (39141)*, Scioto (39145), Vinton (39163)*
PA Chester (42029), Greene (42059)*, Lancaster (42071), Union (42119)*
WV Fayette (54019)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Chincoteague (02040303)+, Lower West Branch Susquehanna (02050206)+*, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+, Chester-Sassafras (02060002)+, Choptank (02060005)+, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+, Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva (02080111)+
05 Lower Monongahela (05020005)+*, Hocking (05030204)+*, Lower New (05050004)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Paint (05060003)+*, Lower Great Miami (05080002)+*, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Little Miami (05090202)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Eel (05120203)+, Muscatatuck (05120207)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A colubrid snake; adults usually are about 56-81 cm long.
Reproduction Comments: Eggs are laid mainly in late June-July in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Clutch size averages 5-6 in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Eggs hatch in 5-12 weeks, July-October (August-early September in Arkansas). In Arkansas, males first breed at 21 months (spring of 3rd calendar year), females at 21 months or 33 months (Plummer 1985; Aldridge et al., 1990, Amphibia-Reptilia 11:165-172).
Ecology Comments: The best information derives from Plummer's studies in Arkansas. Average distance between recapture sites was about 28 m (Plummer 1997). Home range averaged 67 m of shoreline and differed in location between years by about 50 m (Plummer 1997). Population density was about 430/ha within 5 m of shoreline (Plummer 1985); maximum density was 800/ha at another site (Plummer 1997). First year survivorship was 21-22%; few individuals lived longer than six years (Plummer 1997). Snakes were active over a wide range of body temperatures (Plummer 1993).
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Grassland/herbaceous, Old field, Shrubland/chaparral, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Hardwood
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris, Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: This snake typically inhabits dense vegetation (vines, shrubs, trees) near water; often at forest edges or in fairly open forests; also overgrown pasture, tallgrass prairie, thickets, barrier islands; open marsh and spoil banks in Louisiana; pine-oak, mesic hardwood hammocks, and occasionally mangrove swamps in Florida (see Walley and Plummer 2000). It is mostly arboreal but less so in spring and fall. In Arkansas, it avoids basking (Plummer 1993). It occupies vegetation above ground at night in warmer months; underground in cold weather.

Eggs are laid under objects in damp areas (Ashton and Ashton 1981), in rotting logs (Goldsmith 1984), or in tree hollows. May nest communally. In Arkansas, gravid females moved 5-75 m (average 36 m) terrestrially away from lake shore and oviposited in small chambers within the hollowed interiors of small living trees, 25-300 cm above ground; individuals may return to specific tree each year (Plummer 1989, 1990).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats mostly insects (especially caterpillars, grasshoppers, crickets) and spiders.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal, Hibernates/aestivates
Immature Phenology: Diurnal, Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: Active from about April to November in north (Collins 1982, Minton 1972), April to December in Texas (Tennant 1984). Essenially diurnal but sometimes active just after dark in hottest summer weather (Tennant 1984).
Length: 116 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Medium And Large Colubrid Snakes

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) in or near appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: Busy highway or highway with obstructions such that snakes rarely if ever cross successfully; major river, lake, pond, or deep marsh (this barrier pertains only to upland species and does not apply to aquatic or wetland snakes); densely urbanized area dominated by buildings and pavement.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Available information on movements of colubrid snakes is limited to a small minority of species. These data indicate that nearly all species have home ranges smaller or much smaller than 25 ha (e.g., less than 3 ha, Pituophis catenifer in California, Rodriguez-Robles 2003), with some up to about 75 ha (Heterodon platirhinos, average 50 ha, Plummer and Mills 2000), and the largest up to 225 ha in the biggest colubrids (Drymarchon, summer mean 50-100 ha, USFWS 1998).

Radiotelemetry data for Pantherophis indicate that residents of hibernacula that are 1-2 km apart (with suitable intervening habitat) probably interbreed (Prior et al. 1997, Blouin-Demers and Weatherhead 2002). However, "evidence of genetic structure even over short distances (e.g., 2-20 km) implies that gene flow among rat snake populations can be easily disrupted" (Prior et al. 1997). Loughheed et al. (1999) found evidence of substantial genetic exchange among local hibernacula (< 6 km apart), but gene flow over distances of 10s of km appears to be substantially less. Based on extensive radio-tracking data, Blouin-Demers and Weatherhead (2002) found that home range size of Pantherophis averaged 18.5 ha and ranged up to 93 ha; based on the most mobile individuals, Pantherophis from hibernacula up to 8 km apart can come together for mating. Pantherophis and probably other colubrids exhibit high fidelity to hibernacula and shift even to nearby sites only rarely (Prior et al. 2001).

Many of the several studies that report small home ranges for colubrids did not employ methods (e.g., radio telemetry) suitable for detecting full annual or multi-annual home range size, dispersal, or other long-distance movements, so these may have yielded underestimates of home ranges or activity areas.

At least some colubrids, including medium-sized species such as garter snakes, not uncommonly move between areas up to a few kilometers apart, and several species make extensive movements of up to several kilometers, so separation distances of 1-2 km for suitable habitat are too small for medium-sized and large colubrids.

A separation distance of 10 km for suitable habitat was selected as most appropriate for snakes assigned to this Specs Group because it seems generally unlikely that two locations separated by less than 10 km of suitable habitat would represent distinct occurrences.

For the purposes of these occurrence specifications, upland habitat is regarded as unsuitable habitat for aquatic and wetland snakes. For upland snakes, shallow or patchy wetlands are treated as unsuitable habitat whereas large deepwater habitats (subjective determination) are barriers.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Date: 12Feb2013
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: Separation distance for suitable habitat was changed from 5 km to 10 km based on comments from Dale Jackson (12 Feb 2013).
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: 09Dec2005
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 09Dec2005
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
  • Ashton, R. E., Jr., and P. S. Ashton. 1981. Handbook of reptiles and amphibians of Florida. Part One: The Snakes. Windward Publishing Company, Miami, Florida. 176 pp.

  • Bartlett, R. D., and P. P. Bartlett. 1999b. A field guide to Florida reptiles and amphibians. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas. xvi + 278 pp.

  • Behler, J. L., and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 719 pp.

  • Collins, J. T. 1982. Amphibians and reptiles in Kansas. Second edition. Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist., Pub. Ed. Ser. 8. xiii + 356 pp.

  • Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.

  • Collins, J. T. 1992. Reply to Grobman on variation in OPHEODRYS AESTIVUS. Herpetol. Rev. 23:15-16.

  • Collins, J. T. 1993. Amphibians and reptiles in Kansas. Third edition, revised. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Public Education Series No. 13. xx + 397 pp.

  • Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 450 pp.

  • Conant, R., and J. T. Collins. 1998. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North America. Third edition, expanded. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 616 pp.

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84.

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84. Online with updates at: http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Index.php

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. 7th edition. SSAR Herpetological Circular 39:1-92.

  • Dundee, H. A., and D. A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

  • Fitch, H. S. 1970. Reproductive cycles of lizards and snakes. Univ. Kansas Museum Natural History Miscellaneous Publication 52:1-247.

  • Goldsmith, S. K. 1984. Aspects of the natural history of the rough green snake, OPHEODRYS AESTIVUS (Colubridae). Southwest. Nat. 29:445-452.

  • Grobman, A. 1992b. On races, clines, and common names in OPHEODRYS. Herpetol. Rev. 23:14-15.

  • Grobman, A. B. 1984. Scutellation variation in OPHEODRYS AESTIVUS. Bull. Florida State Mus., Biol. Sci. 29(3):153-170.

  • Johnson, T. R. 2000. The amphibians and reptiles of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. 400 pp.

  • Minton, S. A., Jr. 1972. Amphibians and reptiles of Indiana. Indiana Academy Science Monographs 3. v + 346 pp.

  • Minton, S. A., Jr. 2001. Amphibians & reptiles of Indiana. Revised second edition. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis. xiv + 404 pp.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

  • Mitchell, J. C. 1994. The reptiles of Virginia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xv + 352 pp.

  • Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pages.

  • Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pp.

  • Oldham, J. C., and H. M. Smith. 1991. The generic status of the smooth green snake, OPHEODRYS VERNALIS. Bull. Maryland Herp. Soc. 27(4):201-215.

  • Palmer, W. M., and A. L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

  • Phillips, C. A., R. A. Brandon, and E. O. Moll. 1999. Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 8. xv + 282 pp.

  • Plummer, M. V. 1985a. Demography of green snakes (OPHEODRYSAESTIVUS). Herpetologica 41:373-381.

  • Plummer, M. V. 1985b. Growth and maturity in green snakes (OPHEODRYS AESTIVUS). Herpetologica 41:28-33.

  • Plummer, M. V. 1989. Observations on the nesting ecology of green snakes (OPHEODRYS AESTIVUS). Herpetol. Rev. 20:87-89.

  • Plummer, M. V. 1990. Nesting movements, nesting behavior, and nest sites of green snakes (OPHEODRYS AESTIVUS) revealed by radiotelemetry. Herpetologica 46:190-195.

  • Plummer, M. V. 1993. Thermal ecology of arboreal green snakes (OPHEODRYS AESTIVUS). J. Herpetol. 27:254-260.

  • Plummer, M. V. 1997. Population ecology of green snakes (OPHEODRYS AESTIVUS) revisited. Herpetological Monographs 11:102-123.

  • Tennant, A. 1984. The Snakes of Texas. Texas Monthly Press, Austin, Texas. 561 pp.

  • Trauth, S. E., H. W. Robison, and M. V. Plummer. 2004. The amphibians and reptiles of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press.

  • Walley, H. D., and M. V. Plummer. 2000. Opheodrys aestivus. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 718:1-14.

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 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.