Polygonum cuspidatum - Sieb. & Zucc.
Japanese Knotweed
Other Common Names: Japanese knotweed
Synonym(s): Fallopia japonica (Houtt.) Dcne. ;Fallopia japonica var. japonica ;Reynoutria japonica var. japonica ;Reynoutria japonica Houtt.
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. & Zucc. (TSN 20889)
French Common Names: renouée du Japon
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.135872
Element Code: PDPGN0L0U0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Buckwheat Family
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Polygonales Polygonaceae Polygonum
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Polygonum cuspidatum
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GNR
Global Status Last Changed: 22Mar1994
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (18Nov2017)

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 Arkansas (SNA), California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Georgia (SNR), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Utah (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA)
Canada Alberta (SNA), British Columbia (SNA), Manitoba (SNA), New Brunswick (SNA), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

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
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States ARexotic, CAexotic, COexotic, CTexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, GA, IAexotic, IDexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, KYexotic, LAexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MOexotic, MSexotic, MTexotic, NCexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, ORexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SCexotic, TNexotic, UTexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WAexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic
Canada ABexotic, BCexotic, MBexotic, NBexotic, NSexotic, ONexotic, PEexotic, QCexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
Disclaimer: While I-Rank information is available over NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe is not actively developing or maintaining these data. Species with I-RANKs do not represent a random sample of species exotic in the United States; available assessments may be biased toward those species with higher-than-average impact.

I-Rank: High/Medium
Rounded I-Rank: High
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Polygonum cuspidatum is an extremely competitive and aggressive invader of significant riparian and wetland habitats, as well as lower-quality sites. Infestations can replace native species and degrade aquatic habitat. Once established, control can be labor-intensive.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: High/Medium
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: High
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: High/Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium
I-Rank Review Date: 12Jan2006
Evaluator: K. Maybury
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: China, Japan, Korea (IPANE, no date).

Download "An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for their Impact on Biodiversity". (PDF, 1.03MB)
Provide feedback on the information presented in this assessment

Screening Questions

S-1. Established outside cultivation as a non-native? YES

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: High/Medium

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Over the winter, the standing dead stems of this plant may create a fire hazard (Czarapata 2005; Adirondack Park Invasive Program, no date; Alaska Natural Heritage Program, no date). This material decomposes very slowly, and can form a deep soil organic layer (Alaska Natural Heritage Program, no date). Thickets can clog waterways causing local flooding (Czarapata 2005) and altering fish habitat (Alaska Natural Heritage Program, no date). The mass of dead stems may make the area more vulnerable to erosion as well as to flooding (Child et al. 1992 as cited in Shaw and Seiger 2002; Alaska Natural Heritage Program, no date). Flooding in turn spreds the plant by distributing stem and root pieces that can establish new colonies (K. Johnson, pers. comm. to B. Meyers-Rice, 2000; Shaw and Seiger 2002; Tu and Soll 2004; Adirondack Park Invasive Program, no date; Alaska Natural Heritage Program, no date).

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Forms dense, tall thickets, up to 10 feet in height (IPANE, no date); can become even taller in the Pacific Northwest, reaching 15 feet by June (Soll 2004, Tu and Soll 2004). Thickets can be so dense that human access to waterways can be severely impeded (Czarapata 2005; K. Sewak, pers. comm. to M. Esch, 2004).

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:High significance
Comments: This plant's early emergence in the spring, combined with extremely vigorous growth, allows it to shade out other vegetation and prevent regineration (Sukopp and Sukopp 1988 as cited in Seiger 1991; Soll 2004; Adirondack Park Invasive Program, no date). Forms nearly pure (monospecific) stands (Seiger 1991) and has displaced native flora in many riparian areas, e.g., along streambanks in western Pennsylvania (K. Sewak, pers. comm. to M. Esch, 2004).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Moderate significance
Comments: In Alaska, reduces the food supply for juvenile salmon in the spring (Alaska Natural Heritage Program, no date). Hybridizes with other knotweeds. Zika and Jacobson (2003) pointed out that many formerly misidentified plants were actually hybrids of this species and another non-native, Polygonum sachalinense; the resulting hybrid is fertile (Bailey et al. 1996 as cited in FNA 2005 ).

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Often found in disturbed sites and waste places (FNA 2005) but also a serious concern in high quality riparian areas and wetlands, e.g. in the Adirondacks (Adirondack Park Invasive Plant Program, no date; in Great Smoky Mountains National Park (K. Johnson, pers. comm. to B. Meyers-Rice, 2000); in the Tongass National Forest (Alaska Natural Heritage Program, no date); and in Oregon's Sandy River (Tu and Soll 2004). Tu and Soll (2004) note that the Sandy River provides habitat for federally listed steelhead trout and chinook salmon.

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: High

6. Current Range Size in Nation:High significance
Comments: Found in most of the eastern half of the U.S. and the West Coast (Alaska to California); some areas in the interior West (Kartesz 1999, FNA 2005).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:High significance
Comments: Impacting the Northeast (IPANE, no date), Midwest (Czarapata 2005), Pacific Northwest (Soll 2004), and Alaska (Alaska Natural Heritage Program). A state noxious weed in California, Oregon, and Washington (Kartesz 1999). Apparently uncommon in parts of the Southeast (Weakley 2005) but still having negative impacts (a state noxious weed in North Carolina [Kartesz 1999]). Fewer serious impacts probable in the Great Plains and other parts of the interior West as escapes not reported common there and generally in roadside ditches, irrigation canals, etc. (Great Plains Flora Association 1986, Welsh et al. 2003).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:High significance
Comments: Based on widespread distribution.

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:High significance
Comments: Varied habitats; tolerant of high temperatures, dry soil and salt (IPANE, no date). Tolerates a wide variety of soils and moisture conditions; found in riparian areas, pond edges, woodland edges, as well as roadsides and yards (Czarapata 2005).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: High/Low

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Unknown but presumed not expanding extremely rapidly nor declining.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Inferred.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: In riparian areas, the plants fragment and are spread by flood waters to new areas (K. Johnson, pers. comm. to B. Meyers-Rice, 2000; Shaw and Seiger 2002; Tu and Soll 2004; Adirondack Park Invasive Program, no date; Alaska Natural Heritage Program, no date). Root fragments as small as 1/2 inch can establish new plants (Soll 2004). Dispersal across marine waters has been documented as well (Beerling et al. 1994). Although this speices lost favor as a landscaping plant by the early 1900s because of its invasive qualities (IPANE, no date), it is occassionally still planted for screening and erosion control (Czarapata 2005).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:High/Low significance
Comments: In 1991 noted as spreading, particularly in the eastern U.S. (Seiger 1991). Degree of current spread uncertain.

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Medium/Low significance
Comments: The degree of disturbance needed for establishment is somewhat unclear but most sources indicate that sunlight is critical. P. Dunwiddie (pers. comm. to B. Meyers-Rice, 1999) inidicated that it readily invades established vegetation of many sorts provided the area is reasonable sunny. Seiger (1991) says that it does not appear to be a threat in undisturbed forest and other low-light areas and notes that it requires high light conditions (effectively competing for light in these environments through early emergence in the spring and extremely rapid growth to great height). Alaska Natural Heritage Program (no date) indicates that this species can establish with little or no observable disturbance. However, Shaw and Seiger (2002) indicate that when the plants are found in interior forests, they represent colonies that established in sunlight and persisted as the forest canopy closed.

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: A major problem in the British Isles and Europe in riparian areas and wetlands (Beerling et al. 1994).

16. Reproductive Characteristics:High significance
Comments: Grows faster than most other plant species---both natives and other exotics (Soll 2004), with growth rates exceeding 8 cm per day (Locandro 1973 as cited in Seiger 1991). Rhizomes can grow at least to 23 feet long and penetrate at least 7 feet into the soil (Soll 2004). Fragments easily during storms and fragments become established as new infestations (K. Johnson, pers. comm. to B. Meyers-Rice, 2000; Shaw and Seiger 2002; Tu and Soll 2004; Adirondack Park Invasive Program, no date; Alaska Natural Heritage Program, no date). Hybrid plants, at least, are fertile, so reproduction by seed can also occur.

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium

17. General Management Difficulty:High significance
Comments: Difficult to eradicate or control once established. See Soll (2004) for a description of the extremely time-, labor-, and money-intensive processes needed for mechanical removal. Various herbicide and herbicide application techniques are also discussed by Soll (2004) but all involve trade-offs between time/money, degree of non-target damage, and efficacy. Some (stem injection of herbicides in particular) show promise but the author notes that this is time/labor intensive and that large patches will often require treatment with a combination of methods over several years.

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Low significance
Comments: Information based on Soll (2004): Large established patches will almost certainly require foliar herbicidal treatments over two or more years. Mechanical methods like cutting must be done assiduously over 3 consecutive field seasons. Injections of herbicide into the stems may control patches in only 1-2 treatments, although this is a labor-intensive process. A combination of treatments over several years may be needed.

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Low significance
Comments: Foliar herbicide application has a high risk of drift and is especially deliterious (and sometimes restricted) in riparian and wetland areas because of the risk to aquatic organisms. However, the stem-injection method and other direct-application methods will presumably be feasible in many of these situations and do not have this drawback.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Moderate significance
Comments: Infestations are on private property although many landowners may be willing to cooperate in removal as this species is generally not planted any longer or viewed as desirable.

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

  • Mandák, B., P. Py?ek, and K. Bímová. 2004. History of the invasion and distribution of Reynoutria taxa in the Czech Republic: a hybrid spreading faster than its parents. Preslia, Praha 76: 15?64.

  • Adirondack Park Invasive Program. No date. Invasive plant profile: Japanese knotweed, Polygonum cuspidatum. In: Priority non-native plants in the Adirondack Park. Online: http://www.adkinvasives.com/documents/FULLSET.pdf. Accessed 2006.

  • Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP). No date. Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. & Zucc. (Species profile) Online: http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/pdfs/species_bios_pdfs/Species_bios_POCU.pdf. Accessed 2006.

  • Bailey, J.P., and A.P. Conolly. 2000. Prize-winners to pariahs - a history of Japanese Knotweed s.l. (Polygonaceae) in the British Isles. Watsonia 23: 93-110.

  • Barney, J.N., N. Tharayil, A. DiTommaso, and P.C. Bhowmik. 2006. The biology of invasive plants in Canada. 5. Sieb. & Zucc. [=Fallopia japonica (Houtt.) Ronse Decr.]. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 86: 887-905.

  • Beerling, D. J., J. P. Bailey, A. P. Conolly. 1994. Fallopia japonica (Houtt.) Ronse Decraene, biological flora of the British Isles. J. Ecology 82:959-979

  • Catling, P.M., and G. Mitrow. 2013. Major invasive plants of natural habitats in Canada. 7. Knotweeds (Fallopia species). Canadian Botanical Association Bulletin 46(2): 53-60.

  • Czarapata, E. J. 2005. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI. 215 pp.

  • Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger, and J. Pojar, eds. 1999. Illustrated Flora of British Columbia, Vol. 4, Dicotyledons (Orobanchaceae through Rubiaceae). B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, and B.C. Minist. For., Victoria. 427pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2005. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 5. Magnoliophyta: Caryophyllidae: Caryophyllales, Polygonales, and Plumbaginales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. vii + 656 pp.

  • Galasso, G., E. Banfi, F. De Mattia, F. Grassi, S. Sgorbati, and M. Labra. 2009. Molecular phylogeny of Polygonum L. (Polygonoideae, Polygonaceae), focusing on European taxa: preliminary results and systematic considerations based on rbcL plastidial sequence data. Atti della Societŕ italiana di scienze naturali e del Museo civico di storia naturale di Milano 150(1): 113-148.

  • Great Plains Flora Association (R.L. McGregor, coordinator; T.M. Barkley, ed., R.E. Brooks and E.K. Schofield, associate eds.). 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 1392 pp.

  • IPANE [Invasive Plant Atlas of New England]. No date. Polygonum cuspidatum. Online: http://webapps.lib.uconn.edu/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=86. Accessed 2006.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

  • Scoggan, H.J. 1978. The Flora of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museum of Canada, Publ. in Botany 7(4).

  • Seiger, L. 1991. Element stewardship abstract for Polygonum cuspidatum. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA

  • Shaw, R. H. and L. A. Seiger. 2002. Japanese knotweed. In: Van Driesche, R. et. al. Biological control of invasive plants in the eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04.

  • Soll, J. 2004. Controlling knotweed in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy. Version current as of Jan. 16, 2004. Available online: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/moredocs/polspp01.pdf

  • Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Morton Arboretum. Lisle, Illinois.

  • The Plant Names Project. International Plant Names Index (IPNI). Online. Available: http://www.ipni.org. (Accessed 2005).

  • Tu, M. and J. Soll. 2004. Sandy River, northern Oregon: Knotweed eradication at a watershed in the Pacific Northwest - a success story. The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Chapter. Available online: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/success/or002/or002.pdf. Accessed 2006.

  • Weakley, A. S. 2005. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia. Draft as of June 10, 2005. UNC Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill. Available online: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm. Accessed 2006.

  • Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich and L.C. Higgins. (Eds.) 2003. A Utah Flora. 3rd edition. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A. 912 pp.

  • Zika, P.F. and A.L. Jacobson. 2003. An overlooked hybrid Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum × sachalinense; Polygonaceae) in North America. Rhodora 105(922): 143-152.

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:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

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.