Hylotelephium telephium - (L.) H. Ohba.
Garden Stonecrop
Other English Common Names: Witch's Moneybags
Other Common Names: witch's moneybags
Synonym(s): Sedum telephium L.
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Hylotelephium telephium (L.) H. Ohba. (TSN 565233)
French Common Names: orpin pourpre
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.153618
Element Code: PDCRA0A1K0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Stonecrop Family
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Rosales Crassulaceae Hylotelephium
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: Sedum telephium
Taxonomic Comments: FNA (vol. 8, 2009) treats Sedum telephium as Hylotelephium telephium and does not recognize any infraspecific taxa.
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 (03Nov2017)

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 (SNA), Delaware (SNA), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Missouri (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA)
Canada 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 CTexotic, DEexotic, IAexotic, IDexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, KYexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MOexotic, NCexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, TNexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WAexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic
Canada MBexotic, NBexotic, NSexotic, ONexotic, PEexotic, QCexotic

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
PA Bedford (42009)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Raystown (02050303)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
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: Low
Rounded I-Rank: Low
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Sedum telephium is a widely available horticultural species that frequently escapes from cultivation. It predominantly establishes in disturbed habitats, but has also been found in woodlands and riparian areas and, rarely, in prairies, rock outcrops, and swamps. This species has been assessed for invasiveness by a number of agencies and field personnel, and concern about its impact on native communities appears low. However, better information is needed where it is most abundant and/or established in less disturbed areas, as greater impacts than those documented thus far could potentially be occurring. This species is well-established in the Northeast and Lake states and appears to be spreading into the southeast, Midwest, and northwest. Control by hand-pulling appears relatively straightforward.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Low/Insignificant
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Low/Insignificant
I-Rank Review Date: 18Nov2005
Evaluator: Gravuer, K.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Native to Europe and temperate Asia.
Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russian Federation [Ciscaucasia, Dagestan, Eastern Siberia, Western Siberia, Far East], Mongolia, China [Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, Xinjiang], Japan [Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku], Korea.
Europe: Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation [European part], Ukraine [incl. Krym], Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy [incl. Sardinia], Romania, Yugoslavia, France [incl. Corsica], Portugal, Spain. (GRIN 2001)

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
Comments: This species is a non-native that is established outside of cultivation (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: This species predominantly occurs in grass/forb-dominated open habitats (including disturbed areas and roadsides as well as natural prairie communities), various woodland communities, and riparian areas (including stream banks, lakeshores, and their anthropogenic analogue, ditches). Habitats invaded to a minor extent include outcrop/ledge/bluff areas and swamps (Fernald 1950, Voss 1985, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Low/Insignificant

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: This is a succulent species that invades habitats where few or no other succulents are found. Therefore, minor changes in water or nutrient cycling may occur where it forms substantial stands.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Low significance
Comments: May cause moderate changes in the density or cover of the herbaceous layer in the open habitats or woodland understories that it invades. However, as it is similar in stature to many native species and no mention was found of formation of dense stands, major changes were assumed to be unlikely.

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Low significance
Comments: Little information is available on the impact of this species once it has invaded a native community (MIPAG 2005). However, a number of agencies have considered the species' invasiveness, and the majority have classified it at the lowest invasiveness level (Petrella et al. 1999, USGS 2003, USFS-ER 2005, MIPAG 2005; although the US Army Corps of Engineers has prohibited its use in wetland mitigation plantings in New England (USACE 2002)). Fernald (1950) notes it to be abundantly (often aggressively) naturalized in the northeast. Therefore, the impact of this species on community composition was inferred to be detectable in some areas, but not substantial. This evaluation may need to be modified as more information becomes available.

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Insignificant
Comments: Although the species has been naturalized since at least the early 1930s (Rydberg 1932), no mention was found of disproportionate impacts on particular native species. However, note that a similar native species exists with a partially overlapping range (S. telephioides: G4, but S2 in KY and IN, S3 in PA, SH in NY, and SX.1 in NJ). As horticulturalists have managed to hybridize S. telephium with at least one other Sedum species (Whitinger 2005), the potential for hybridization between the native and the exotic should be investigated.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Low significance
Comments: The majority of sources indicated that this species is found in habitats of low conservation significance, such as disturbed open areas, roadsides and railroad rights-of-way. However, some invasion does appear to occur into relatively intact woodlands, lakeshores, outcrop/ledge/bluff areas and swamps (Voss 1985, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Appears to be most abundantly established in the Northeast and Lake states. Scattered occurrences have also been reported from some southeastern states (VA, KY, NC, SC, TN, MS), some Midwestern states (KS, IA, MO), and WA and ID in the Pacific northwest (Gleason and Cronquist 1991, Kartesz 1999, NRCS 2005). Generalized range estimated to cover about 20% of the contiguous U.S.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Most abundantly established and noted to be troublesome as a weed in the northeastern states (Muenscher 1955, Gleason and Cronquist 1991). Mentioned from the most natural habitats in Wisconsin and Michigan (e.g. prairies, rock outcrops, swamps) (Voss 1985, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005). In the southeast, Midwest, and northwest, it appears to exhibit only scattered establishment in disturbed habitats and is therefore unlikely to be having negative impacts on biodiversity.

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Moderate significance
Comments: Approximately 25 ecoregions are invaded, based on visual comparison of the generalized range and ecoregions map (The Nature Conservancy 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: This species can grow under diverse light conditions (full sun to shade), and although it flourishes with regular watering, it is also reasonably drought-tolerant (Plants for a Future 2001, Faucon 2005, MIPAG 2005, Whitinger 2005). The majority of sources indicated that it is found in disturbed open areas, including roadsides and railroad rights-of-way (e.g. Fernald 1950, Voss 1985). Because it has escaped from cultivation as an ornamental, its immediate habitat was often noted as the old home sites or cemeteries where it had presumably been planted in the past (Steyermark 1963, Voss 1985). This species also invades analogous grass/forb-dominated natural habitats, such as prairie communities (Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005). In addition, a number of sources noted invasion into woodland habitats and riparian areas (including stream banks, lakeshores, and their anthropogenic analogue, ditches) (Voss 1985, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005). Habitats invaded to a minor extent by this species include outcrop/ledge/bluff areas (Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005) and swamps (Voss 1985).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: Medium

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: The establishment (or at least detection) of this species in the Pacific northwest is quite recent - Kartesz (1999) cites a source from 1975 and there are few (possibly no) herbarium specimens from before 2000 (Rice 2005). The species also appears to be spreading southward, as Fernald (1950) does not list it anywhere in the southeast, but it has now been reported from several southeastern states (VA, KY, NC, SC, TN, MS) (Kartesz 1999).

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: This species is believed to be hardy south to zone 9a, and north to at least zone 4, possibly zone 2b (Plants for a Future 2001, Faucon 2005, Whitinger 2005). Therefore, nearly all of the U.S. appears to be suitable in terms of temperature. Precipitation is also unlikely to present a major constraint, as several sources (e.g. Plants for a Future 2001) noted the species to be drought-tolerant.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High significance
Comments: This species is widely sold as an ornamental throughout the United States (GRIN 2001). Many cultivars are available (e.g. Whitinger 2005).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Moderate significance
Comments: Appears to be increasing at the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Maine (USGS 2003). Planting of the species as an ornamental does not appear to be decreasing, as new cultivars are still being developed and it has not been flagged as invasive by conservation groups (e.g. USGS 2003, MIPAG 2005).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Moderate significance
Comments: Although the majority of sources indicated that it is found in disturbed open areas (e.g. Fernald 1950, Voss 1985), it is clear that at least some genotypes possess substantial shade tolerance (Plants for a Future 2001, Faucon 2005, MIPAG 2005, Whitinger 2005). Woodlands that are somewhat open but not majorly disturbed appear to be invaded with some frequency (Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: Also naturalized in Canada (Kartesz 1999), where it appears to invade similar habitats (Scoggan 1978).

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Low significance
Comments: Weakly exhibits the following characteristics: reproduces readily both vegetatively and by seed, has quickly spreading rhizomes or stolons that may root at nodes, and fragments easily, with fragments capable of dispersing and subsequently becoming established (Muenscher 1955, Plants for a Future 2001).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Low/Insignificant

17. General Management Difficulty:Low significance
Comments: Can be controlled relatively easily by hand-pulling, cultivation, or close grazing (Muenscher 1955). It is known to be resistant to at least one herbicide (Dacthal or DCPA) (Norcini 1992).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Insignificant
Comments: A collector of the species in Washington state noted that the plant does not re-appear where it has been pulled out (Rice 2005).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Medium/Low significance
Comments: A single round of hand-pulling would presumably have minor effects on native species. However, for larger infestations where this approach is not feasible, cultivation or grazing control could have more substantial impacts.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Low significance
Comments: Because this is an escaped ornamental species, some invasion foci will likely be located on private property. In addition, the rock outcrop habitats where it has been found in Wisconsin (Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005) may present accessibility problems. However, accessibility overall should be fairly good, given that most populations appear to be on roadsides or in disturbed open areas.

Other Considerations: Resembles the native Sedum telephioides, though the native occupies a more restricted habitat (Cliffs and knobs, w. N.Y. to s. Ill., s., especially on the mts. (Fernald 1950)). This may have lead to some inaccuracies in the distribution information.

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).

  • Brunton, D.F. 1985. Recent significant plant records from the Ottawa District. Part II: Pickerel-weed Family to Bean Family. Trail and Landscape. 19(2): 96-112.

  • Cody, W.J. 1967. Sedum in the Ottawa District. Canadian Field-Naturalist 81: 273-274.

  • Drobot, P. 2005. Plants to Grow web horticultural database: Sedum telephium. Online. Available: http://www.plantstogrow.com/zPlantsDisplay.asp?plantID=858 (Accessed 2005)

  • Faucon, P. 2005. Desert tropicals: Witch's moneybags (Hylotelephium telephium (L.) H. Ohba). Online. Available: http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/Crassulaceae/Hylotelephium_telephium.html (Accessed 2005)

  • Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2009. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 8. Magnoliophyta: Paeoniaceae to Ericaceae. Oxford University Press, New York. xxiv + 585 pp.

  • Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

  • 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.

  • Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group (MIPAG). 2005, April 1 last update. The evaluation of non-native plant species for invasiveness in Massachusetts. Online. Available: http://www.mnla.com/pdf/invasive/MIPAG_final_050325_rev.pdf (Accessed 2005)

  • Muenscher, W. C. 1955. Weeds. The MacMillan Co., New York.

  • Norcini, J. G. 1992. Ornamentals Tolerant of Pre- and Postemergence Herbicides. Fact Sheet OH-97, a series of the Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Online. Available: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/WG062 (Accessed 2005)

  • Petrella, S., N. Shutt, and D. McNeill. 1999. Seney National Wildlife Refuge Invasive Exotic Plant Inventory. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Online. Available: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/seney/ExotSpec.htm (Accessed 2005)

  • Plants for a Future. 2001, February 2002 last update. Plants for a future database. Available: http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/D_search.html (Accessed 2005).

  • Rice, P.M. 2005. Invaders Database System. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula. Online. Available: http://invader.dbs.umt.edu (Accessed 2005).

  • Rydberg, P. A. 1932. Flora of the Prairies and Plains of Central North America. The New York Botanical Garden, New York, New York. 969 pp.

  • Scoggan, H.J. 1957. Flora of Manitoba. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin number 140.

  • Scoggan, H.J. 1978-1979. The flora of Canada: Parts 1-4. National Museums Canada, Ottawa. 1711 pp.

  • Steyermark, J.A. 1963. Flora of Missouri. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 1728 pp.

  • The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Map: TNC Ecoregions of the United States. Modification of Bailey Ecoregions. Online . Accessed May 2003.

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New England District, Regulatory Division. 2002. Introduction: Performance guidelines and supplemental information on the checklist for review of mitigation plan. Online. Available: http://www.landtechconsult.com/USACE%20Mitigation%20Plan%20Performance%20Guidlines.pdf (Accessed 2005)

  • U.S. Forest Service Eastern Region. 2005. Section 3b: Eastern Region invasive plants, ranked by degree of invasiveness as based on information from States. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/range/weed/Sec3B.htm. (Accessed 2005).

  • USDA NRCS. 2005. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center (http://npdc.usda.gov/npdc/index.html), Baton Rouge, LA.

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2001. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN). [Online Database]. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland.URL: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl. (Accessed 2005)

  • United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System: Invasive Species Survey Information. Online. Available: http://www.nwrinvasives.com/ (Accessed 2005)

  • Voss, E.G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicotyledons. Cranbrook Institute of Science and University of Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1212 pp.

  • Whitinger, D. 2005. Dave's Garden: PlantFiles. Online. Available: http://davesgarden.com/pf/ (Accessed 2005)

  • Wisconsin State Herbarium. 2005. Wisconsin state herbarium vascular plant species database. Available: http://www.botany.wisc.edu/wisflora/. (Accessed 2005).

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.