DOCSLIB.ORG

Species Status Assessment Report for the Mountain Doll’S Daisy (Boltonia Montana)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Species Status Assessment Report for the Mountain Doll’S Daisy (Boltonia Montana) Species Status Assessment Report for the Mountain Doll’s Daisy (Boltonia montana) (© DCR-DNH, Gary P. Fleming) February 2020 Version 1.0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Atlantic-Appalachian Region Hadley, MA Primary Contributors • Keith Hastie – North Atlantic-Appalachian Region, Hadley, Massachusetts; Lead Biologist • Ron Popowski – North Atlantic-Appalachian Region, New Jersey Field Office; Assist Biologist • Heidi Crowell – California-Great Basin Region, Sacramento Regional Office; Species Assessment Team Project Manager Contributors & Agency Reviewers (underlined) We greatly appreciate the assistance of our conservation partners, who provided helpful information and review of the draft report: • Tom Brumbelow – U.S. Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests • Mike Donahue – U.S. Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests • Gary Fleming – Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage • Rachel Goad – Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program • Troy Morris – U.S. Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests • John Townsend – Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage • Kathleen Walz – New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Heritage Program Peer Reviewers We also thank the following experts for reviewing the draft report and providing helpful comments: • Walter Bien, Ph.D. – Drexel University, Academy of Natural Sciences • Gerry Moore, Ph.D. – U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service • Nancy Van Alstine – Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage (Retired) SUGGESTED CITATION: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). February 2020. Species Status Assessment Report for the Mountain Doll’s Daisy (Boltonia montana), Version 1.0. Department of the Interior Region: North Atlantic-Appalachian. Hadley, Massachusetts. iii Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................9 1.1 Purpose of the SSA ..........................................................................................................9 1.2 Petition History ................................................................................................................9 1.3. State Listing Status .........................................................................................................9 1.4 Methodology and Data .................................................................................................. 10 1.4.1 Species (Resource) Needs ........................................................................................ 10 1.4.2 Current Species Condition ..................................................................................... 11 1.4.3. Future Species Condition ...................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2 - SPECIES INFORMATION ........................................................................... 12 2.1 Taxonomy ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Physical Description ...................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Habitat ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Life History .................................................................................................................... 20 2.4.1 Reproduction .......................................................................................................... 20 2.4.2 Seasonality............................................................................................................... 23 2.5 Population Structure ..................................................................................................... 23 2.6 Species (Resource) Needs .............................................................................................. 24 2.6.1 Appropriate Soil Conditions................................................................................... 24 2.6.2 Adequate Water ...................................................................................................... 25 2.6.3 Adequate Sunlight .................................................................................................. 26 2.6.4 Pollination Services ................................................................................................. 26 2.6.5 Seasonal Temperature Regime ............................................................................... 26 2.6.6 Habitat Connectivity ............................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER 3 – HISTORICAL AND CURRENT DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE .. 27 3.1 Historical Context .......................................................................................................... 27 3.2 Historical Distribution and Abundance ........................................................................ 28 3.2.1 New Jersey .............................................................................................................. 29 3.2.2 Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................... 30 3.2.3 Virginia ................................................................................................................... 30 3.3 Current Distribution and Abundance .......................................................................... 32 3.3.1 New Jersey .............................................................................................................. 33 3.3.2 Virginia ................................................................................................................... 36 iv CHAPTER 4 – FACTORS AFFECTING THE SPECIES .................................................... 39 4.1 Stressors Affecting Viability ......................................................................................... 39 4.2 Habitat Modification ..................................................................................................... 39 4.2.1 Development............................................................................................................ 40 4.2.2 Agriculture .............................................................................................................. 42 4.2.3 Off-road Vehicle Use............................................................................................... 43 4.2.4 Altered Surface Hydrology ..................................................................................... 45 4.2.5 Groundwater Withdrawals .................................................................................... 45 4.3. Effects of Climate Change ............................................................................................ 45 4.3.1 Altered Precipitation Patterns................................................................................ 46 4.3.2 Altered Temperature Patterns ............................................................................... 48 4.4 Potential Catastrophic Events ....................................................................................... 50 4.5 Conservation Measures ................................................................................................. 50 4.5.1 New Jersey .............................................................................................................. 50 4.5.2 Virginia ................................................................................................................... 50 CHAPTER 5 – CURRENT CONDITION ............................................................................. 51 5.1 Assessment Methodology............................................................................................... 51 5.2 Site Assessment Metrics ................................................................................................ 52 5.2.1 Pond Size ................................................................................................................. 52 5.2.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................ 52 5.2.3 Proximity ................................................................................................................. 53 5.2.4 Disturbance ............................................................................................................. 54 5.2.5 Landscape Setting ................................................................................................... 54 5.2.6 Conservation Measures .......................................................................................... 54 5.3 Metric Criteria and Current Site Scores ...................................................................... 54 5.4 Determination of Current Population Status ............................................................... 57 5.4.1 Unknowns and Assumptions .................................................................................. 59 5.5 Current Condition Summary .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
    Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Plants at the UHCC
    Flora Checklist Texas Institute for Coastal Prairie Research and Education University of Houston Donald Verser created this list by combining lists from studies by Grace and Siemann with the UHCC herbarium list Herbarium Collections Family Scientific Name Synonym Common Name Native Growth Accesion Dates Locality Comments Status Habit Numbers Acanthaceae Ruellia humilis fringeleaf wild petunia N forb 269 10/9/1973 Acanthaceae Ruellia nudiflora violet wild petunia N forb Agavaceae Manfreda virginica false aloe N forb Agavaceae Polianthes sp. polianthes ? forb 130 8/3/1971 2004 roadside Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans eastern poison ivy N woody/vine Apiaceae Centella erecta Centella asiatica erect centella N forb 36 4/11/2000 Area 2 Apiaceae Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace I forb 139-142 1971 / 72 No collections by Dr. Brown. Perhaps Apiaceae Eryngium leavenworthii Leavenworth's eryngo N forb 144 7/20/1971 wooded area in pipeline ROW E. hookeri instead? Apiaceae Eryngium yuccifolium button eryngo N forb 77,143,145 71, 72, 2000 Apiaceae Polytaenia texana Polytaenia nuttallii Texas prairie parsley N forb 32 6/6/2002 Apocynaceae Amsonia illustris Ozark bluestar N Forb 76 3/24/2000 Area 4 Apocynaceae Amsonia tabernaemontana eastern bluestar N Forb Aquifoliaceae Ilex vomitoria yaupon N woody Asclepiadaceae Asclepias lanceolata fewflower milkweed N Forb Not on Dr. Brown's list. Would be great record. Asclepiadaceae Asclepias longifolia longleaf milkweed N Forb 84 6/7/2000 Area 6 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias verticillata whorled milkweed N Forb 35 6/7/2002 Area 7 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias viridis green antelopehorn N Forb 63, 92 1974 & 2000 Asteraceae Acmella oppositifolia var.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • C6 Noncarice Sedge
    CYPERACEAE etal Got Sedge? Part Two revised 24 May 2015. Draft from Designs On Nature; Up Your C 25 SEDGES, FOINS COUPANTS, LAÎCHES, ROUCHES, ROUCHETTES, & some mostly wet things in the sedge family. Because Bill Gates has been shown to eat footnotes (burp!, & enjoy it), footnotes are (italicized in the body of the text) for their protection. Someone who can spell caespitose only won way has know imagination. Much of the following is taken verbatim from other works, & often not credited. There is often not a way to paraphrase or rewrite habitat or descriptive information without changing the meaning. I am responsible for any mistakes in quoting or otherwise. This is a learning tool, & a continuation of an idea of my friend & former employer, Jock Ingels, LaFayette Home Nursery, who hoped to present more available information about a plant in one easily accessible place, instead of scattered though numerous sources. This is a work in perpetual progress, a personal learning tool, full uv misstakes, & written as a personal means instead of a public end. Redundant, repetitive, superfluous, & contradictory information is present. It is being consolidated. CYPERACEAE Sauergrasgewächse SEDGES, aka BIESIES, SEGGEN Formally described in 1789 by De Jussieu. The family name is derived from the genus name Cyperus, from the Greek kupeiros, meaning sedge. Many species are grass-like, being tufted, with long, thin, narrow leaves, jointed stems, & branched inflorescence of small flowers, & are horticulturally lumped with grasses as graminoids. Archer (2005) suggests the term graminoid be used for true grasses, & cyperoid be used for sedges. (If physical anthropologists have hominoids & hominids, why don’t we have graminoids & graminids?) There are approximately 104 genera, 4 subfamilies, 14 tribes, & about 5000 species worldwide, with 27 genera & 843 species in North America (Ball et al 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant Species Not Listed Are Considered UPL for Wetland Delineation Purposes
    GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps region.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Phylogeny of Chinese Thuidiaceae with Emphasis on Thuidium and Pelekium
    Molecular Phylogeny of Chinese Thuidiaceae with emphasis on Thuidium and Pelekium QI-YING, CAI1, 2, BI-CAI, GUAN2, GANG, GE2, YAN-MING, FANG 1 1 College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China. 2 College of Life Science, Nanchang University, 330031 Nanchang, China. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract We present molecular phylogenetic investigation of Thuidiaceae, especially on Thudium and Pelekium. Three chloroplast sequences (trnL-F, rps4, and atpB-rbcL) and one nuclear sequence (ITS) were analyzed. Data partitions were analyzed separately and in combination by employing MP (maximum parsimony) and Bayesian methods. The influence of data conflict in combined analyses was further explored by two methods: the incongruence length difference (ILD) test and the partition addition bootstrap alteration approach (PABA). Based on the results, ITS 1& 2 had crucial effect in phylogenetic reconstruction in this study, and more chloroplast sequences should be combinated into the analyses since their stability for reconstructing within genus of pleurocarpous mosses. We supported that Helodiaceae including Actinothuidium, Bryochenea, and Helodium still attributed to Thuidiaceae, and the monophyletic Thuidiaceae s. lat. should also include several genera (or species) from Leskeaceae such as Haplocladium and Leskea. In the Thuidiaceae, Thuidium and Pelekium were resolved as two monophyletic groups separately. The results from molecular phylogeny were supported by the crucial morphological characters in Thuidiaceae s. lat., Thuidium and Pelekium. Key words: Thuidiaceae, Thuidium, Pelekium, molecular phylogeny, cpDNA, ITS, PABA approach Introduction Pleurocarpous mosses consist of around 5000 species that are defined by the presence of lateral perichaetia along the gametophyte stems. Monophyletic pleurocarpous mosses were resolved as three orders: Ptychomniales, Hypnales, and Hookeriales (Shaw et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Annales Botanici Fennici 34: 47-49
    Ann. Bot. Fennici 34: 47–49 ISSN 0003-3847 Helsinki 7 March 1997 © Finnish Zoological and Botanical Publishing Board 1997 Taxonomic position of Leptocladium and new synonymy in Chinese Amblystegiaceae (Bryopsida) Johannes Enroth Enroth, J., Department of Ecology and Systematics, Division of Systematic Biology, P.O. Box 47, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland Received 20 December 1996, accepted 20 December 1996 Leptocladium sinense Broth., the single species of its genus and known only from type material from Yunnan, South China, is redescribed and illustrated with line drawings. It is transferred from the Thuidiaceae (original placement) to the Amblystegiaceae and considered closely related to Platydictya Berk. Amblystegiella yunnanensis Broth. is synonymized with Amblystegium serpens (Hedw.) B. S. G. and Amblystegium sinensi- subtile C. Müll. with Platydictya subtilis (Hedw.) Crum. Key words: Amblystegiaceae, Leptocladium, mosses, nomenclature, Platydictya, taxonomy Leptocladium sinense Broth. was described by to the Amblystegiaceae and is closely related to Brotherus (1929). Subsequently, no further species Platydictya Berk. have been added to the genus, which has thus re- mained unispecific. The taxon is only known from the type specimen from Yunnan in South China Leptocladium sinense Broth. (Fig. 1) (cf. Redfearn et al. 1996). Since Brotherus, the type Symb. Sin. 4: 97. 3 f. 13. 1929. — Type: China. “Prov. has apparently not been examined by anyone. Yünnan bor.-occid.: Prope fines Tibeto-Birmanicas inter The original placement of Leptocladium fluvios Lu-djiang (Salween) et Djiou-djiang (Irrawadi or. sinense was the Thuidiaceae, which in Brotherus’s sup.), in jugi Tschiangschel, 27º52´, ad rupes”, 3 800–4 050 m, time was understood in a much wider sense than 4.VII.1916 Handel-Mazzetti 9324, “Diar.
    [Show full text]
  • Sempervirens February 2021
    i SempervirensFebruary 2021 The Quarterly of the Virginia Native Plant Society Tyler Urgo, left, stands on a spit of land jutting into a large sinkhole pond at the Lyndhurst Ponds Natural Area Preserve in eastern Augusta County. A Shortleaf Pine (Pinus echinata) stands tall in a stretch of forest near a sinkhole pond. (Photos by Nancy Sorrells) Rare Sinkhole Ponds Protected in Lyndhurst A t first glance, a sinkhole pond rare natural communities. The 350-acre four days after Dominion pulled the plug might not appear that impressive Lyndhurst Ponds site was acquired from on the ACP, meaning that the property to a passerby. After all, it is just another Waynesboro Nurseries and the Quillen went from “endangered” to “protected” in swampy spot in the woods, right? Well family with funds from the DuPont just a few days. think again. These naturally occurring Natural Resource Damage Assessment In December, I had the opportunity wetlands, called Shenandoah Valley and Restoration settlement. to tour these ponds with members of the Sinkhole Ponds, contain some of the rarest “By protecting and restoring this rare Quillen family and Tyler Urgo, who is the habitats in the world, found only at the species habitat, we further our mission Shenandoah Valley Region Steward for western foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains to protect Virginia’s biodiversity and 13 Virginia Division of Natural Heritage in Rockbridge, Augusta, Rockingham, and address the ongoing global extinction properties in the Shenandoah Valley. Page counties. crisis,” noted Virginia Secretary of Natural Urgo is a 2004 Fort Defiance High The unique geology of this Resources Matt Strickler.
    [Show full text]