DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Assessment Proposal of Critical Habitat For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Assessment Proposal of Critical Habitat For DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR IPOMOPSIS POLYANTHA (PAGOSA SKYROCKET), PENSTEMON DEBILIS (PARACHUTE BEARDTONGUE), AND PHACELIA SUBMUTICA (DEBEQUE PHACELIA) IN COLORADO Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office Grand Junction, Colorado March 26, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 Purpose for the Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Need for the Action ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Background – Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket) .............................................................................. 5 Species Description ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Geographic Range ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Ecology and Life History ................................................................................................................................... 5 Habitat ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Threats ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Background – Penstemon debilis ............................................................................................................... 10 Species Description ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Geographic Range ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Ecology and Life History ................................................................................................................................. 11 Habitat ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Threats ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 2.3 Background – Phacelia submutica ............................................................................................................. 17 Species Description ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Geographic Range ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Ecology and Life History ................................................................................................................................. 18 Habitat ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Threats ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 2.4 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................................................. 23 2.4.1 Critical Habitat ....................................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.2 Section 7 Consultation ........................................................................................................................... 24 2.4.3 Technical Assistance.............................................................................................................................. 25 2.4.4 Section 9 Prohibitions ............................................................................................................................ 26 2.4.5 Section 10 Permits ................................................................................................................................. 26 3.0 Description of Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 26 3.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Fully Evaluated ..................................................................................... 27 3.2 Alternative A. No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................... 27 3.3 Alternative B. Designation of Critical Habitat as Identified in the Proposed Rule - (Proposed Action) ... 27 3.4 Summary of Actions by Alternative ................................................................................................................. 30 4.0 Description of the Affected Environment ........................................................................................................ 31 4.1 Physical Environment ................................................................................................................................ 31 4.2 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants ........................................................................................................................... 31 4.3 Human Environment .................................................................................................................................. 35 4.4 Tribal Lands ............................................................................................................................................... 35 5.0 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................................................... 35 5.1 Physical Environment ................................................................................................................................ 36 5.2 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants ........................................................................................................................... 36 5.2.1 Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica ....................................................... 36 5.2.2 Other Fish, Wildlife and Plant Species .................................................................................................. 37 5.3 Human Environment .................................................................................................................................. 38 5.3.1 Energy Development ............................................................................................................................. 41 5.3.2 Transportation Projects .......................................................................................................................... 41 5.3.3 Agriculture and Grazing ........................................................................................................................ 42 5.3.4 Recreation .............................................................................................................................................. 42 5.3.5 Residential and Commercial Development ............................................................................................ 43 5.4 Technical Assistance Requests of the Service ............................................................................................ 43 5.5 Archeological and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 43 5.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................................ 44 5.7 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 44 6.0 Council on Environmental Quality Analysis of Significance .......................................................................... 47 ii 6.1 Context ....................................................................................................................................................... 47 6.2 Intensity ...................................................................................................................................................... 47 7.0 Contacts and Coordination With Others .......................................................................................................... 48 7.1 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of This Environmental Assessment Were Sent or Contacted..................................................................................................................................................... 48 8.0 List of Contributors.......................................................................................................................................... 50 9.0 Literature Cited ...............................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum
    Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum By Colorado Natural Heritage Program For The Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative June 2011 Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative Members David Anderson, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rob Billerbeck, Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) Leo P. Bruederle, University of Colorado Denver (UCD) Lynn Cleveland, Colorado Federation of Garden Clubs (CFGC) Carol Dawson, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Michelle DePrenger-Levin, Denver Botanic Gardens (DBG) Brian Elliott, Environmental Consulting Mo Ewing, Colorado Open Lands (COL) Tom Grant, Colorado State University (CSU) Jill Handwerk, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Tim Hogan, University of Colorado Herbarium (COLO) Steve Kettler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Andrew Kratz, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Sarada Krishnan, Colorado Native Plant Society (CoNPS), Denver Botanic Gardens Brian Kurzel, Colorado Natural Areas Program Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) Paige Lewis, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Ellen Mayo, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitchell McGlaughlin, University of Northern Colorado (UNC) Jennifer Neale, Denver Botanic Gardens Betsy Neely, The Nature Conservancy Ann Oliver, The Nature Conservancy Steve Olson, U.S. Forest Service Susan Spackman Panjabi, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Josh Pollock, Center for Native Ecosystems (CNE) Nicola Ripley,
    [Show full text]
  • © 2020 Theodore Payne Foundation for Wild Flowers & Native Plants. No
    May 8, 2020 Theodore Payne Foundation’s Wild Flower Hotline is made possible by donations, memberships and sponsors. You can support TPF by shopping the online gift store as well. A new, pay by phone, contactless plant pickup system is now available. Details here. Widespread closures remain in place. If you find an accessible trail, please practice social distancing. The purpose for the Wild Flower Hotline now is NOT to send you to localities for wild flower viewing, but to post photos that assure you—virtually—that California’s wild spaces are still open for business for flowers and their pollinators. LA County’s Wildlife Sanctuaries are starting to dry up from the heat. This may be the last week to see flowers at Jackrabbit Flats and Theodore Payne Wildlife Sanctuaries near Littlerock in the high desert. Yellow is the dominant color with some pink and white scattered about. Parry’s linanthus (Linanthus parryae) and Bigelow’s coreopsis (Leptosyne bigelovii), are widespread. Small patches of goldfields (Lasthenia californica), and Mojave sun cups (Camissonia campestris) are still around. If you are visiting around dusk, the evening snow (Linanthus dichotomus) open up and put on a display that lives up to its name. Strewn around are Pringle’s woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum pringlei), white tidy tips (Layia glandulosa), owl’s clover (Castilleja sp.) and desert dandelion (Malacothrix glabrata). Underneath the creosote bushes, lacy phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia) is seeking out some shade. Theodore Payne Sanctuary has all these flowers, and because it has more patches of sandy alluvial soils, has some cute little belly flowers like Wallace’s wooly daisy (Eriophyllum wallacei) and purple mat (Nama demissa) too.
    [Show full text]
  • Palouse Forbs for Landscaping
    More Palouse Forbs for Landscaping. by David M. Skinner, Paul Warnick, Bill French, and Mary Fauci November, 2005 The following is an additional list of native forbs which may be found in the Palouse region. These forbs may be less suitable for the landscape because of growth habit, aggressiveness, difficulty in propagating and growing, rarity, or it simply may be that we haven’t yet tried to do anything with them. For a list of Palouse forbs which may be more suitable for landscaping and about which we have more information to share, please see “Characteristics and Uses of Native Palouse Forbs in Landscaping.” Nomenclature used in this document also follows Hitchcock, C. Leo, and Arthur Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. In order to facilitate searching for a particular species, we have included some common names and alternate scientific names, but this is by no means intended to be a comprehensive source of common names or synonyms. Detailed information on propagation of many native species can be found at <http://nativeplants.for.uidaho.edu/network/search.asp?SearchType=Continental> Agastache urticifolia is probably too large a plant for a small garden. Requires a moist site. Easy to grow from seed. Plants have a minty smell and a very interesting flower. Common names include nettle-leafed giant hyssop, horsemint. Agoseris grandiflora is not a particularly attractive plant, it looks rather like a weed. Short-lived and attracts rodents, which eat the taproot and kill the plants. Easy to grow from seed, which is wind-borne and goes everywhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Chromosome Numbers in the Polemoniaceae Representatives Of
    1937 171 Chromosome Numbers in the Polemoniaceae By Walter S. Flory Division of Horticulture, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station This family is divided by systematists into two subfamilies. Cobaeoideae is composed of the genera Cantua, Huthia, and Cobaea which are tall shrubs, trees, or vines. The approximately fourteen other (herbaceous or low shrubby) genera comprise the subfamily Polemonioideae. From the standpoint of number of included species the most important of these latter genera are Gilia, Phlox, Polemo nium, and Collomia. The genera Phlox and Polemonium are each quite distinct and their species are seldom confused with those of other genera, but the remaining twelve genera of this subfamily apparently do not have taxonomic boundaries of equivalent distinctness. Certain species have been placed in one genus by one author, and in one or more different genera by others. The genus Gilia has been ex tended by some writers to include practically all species of the Polemonioideae outside of the genera Phlox and Polemonium. This was first pointed out to me by Professor Edgar T. Wherry who is making a taxonomic and geographic study of the Polemoniaceae, and was increasingly emphasized as literature sources and herbarium specimens were consulted and examined. It has been the purpose of the work herein presented to secure data on all obtainable polemoniaceous species with respect to chro mosome numbers, size, and general morphology. Especial attention has been given to securing information of significance from a taxono mic standpoint. Since several factors combine to make the immedi ate completion of the original program impossible it seems desirable, meanwhile, to present the accumulated data, together with suggested conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon Debilis (Parachute Beardtongue), and Phacelia Submutica (Debeque Phacelia); Proposed Rule
    Vol. 76 Wednesday, No. 144 July 27, 2011 Part IV Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque phacelia); Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:29 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27JYP3.SGM 27JYP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 45078 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife and their possible impacts on proposed Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS critical habitat. Fish and Wildlife Service 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. (4) Information on the projected and We will not accept e-mail or faxed reasonably likely impacts of climate 50 CFR Part 17 comments. We will post all comments change on Ipomopsis polyantha, [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0040; MO on http://www.regulations.gov. This Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 92210–0–0009] generally means that we will post any submutica and proposed critical habitat. personal information you provide us (5) Any probable economic, national RIN 1018–AX75 (see the Public Comments section below security, or other relevant impacts of for more information). designating any area that may be Endangered and Threatened Wildlife FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: included in the final designation; in and Plants; Designation of Critical Allan Pfister, Western Colorado particular, any impacts on small entities Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha Supervisor, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • TAXON:Gilia Tricolor SCORE:4.5 RATING:Low Risk
    TAXON: Gilia tricolor SCORE: 4.5 RATING: Low Risk Taxon: Gilia tricolor Family: Polemoniaceae Common Name(s): bird's eyes Synonym(s): Gilia tricolor f. nivalis Voss tri color gilia Gilia tricolor subsp. tricolor Gilia tricolor var. longipedicellata Greenm. Assessor: Assessor Status: Assessor Approved End Date: 29 Sep 2014 WRA Score: 4.5 Designation: L Rating: Low Risk Keywords: Annual, Wildflower, Naturalized, Self-Compatible, Bee-pollinated Qsn # Question Answer Option Answer 101 Is the species highly domesticated? y=-3, n=0 n 102 Has the species become naturalized where grown? 103 Does the species have weedy races? Species suited to tropical or subtropical climate(s) - If 201 island is primarily wet habitat, then substitute "wet (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high) (See Appendix 2) Low tropical" for "tropical or subtropical" 202 Quality of climate match data (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high) (See Appendix 2) High 203 Broad climate suitability (environmental versatility) y=1, n=0 y Native or naturalized in regions with tropical or 204 y=1, n=0 n subtropical climates Does the species have a history of repeated introductions 205 y=-2, ?=-1, n=0 y outside its natural range? 301 Naturalized beyond native range y = 1*multiplier (see Appendix 2), n= question 205 y 302 Garden/amenity/disturbance weed n=0, y = 1*multiplier (see Appendix 2) n 303 Agricultural/forestry/horticultural weed n=0, y = 2*multiplier (see Appendix 2) n 304 Environmental weed n=0, y = 2*multiplier (see Appendix 2) n 305 Congeneric weed 401 Produces spines, thorns or burrs y=1,
    [Show full text]
  • I. Gilia Capitata Verne Grant
    Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Volume 2 | Issue 3 Article 5 1950 Genetic and Taxonomic Studies in Gilia: I. Gilia Capitata Verne Grant Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Grant, Verne (1950) "Genetic and Taxonomic Studies in Gilia: I. Gilia Capitata," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany: Vol. 2: Iss. 3, Article 5. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol2/iss3/5 EL ALISO VoL. 2, No. 3, pp. 239-316 Nov. 15, 1950 GENETIC AND TAXONOMIC STUDIES IN GILIA I. GILIA CAPITATA VERNE GRANT* PAGE I. Introduction . 239 2. The Taxonomic Characters 240 3. Geographical Distribution 246 4. Variability . 257 5. Compatability and Fertility 271 6. Cytology . 279 7. Factorial Analysis 283 8. Evolution . 295 9. Taxonomy . 300 10. Conclusions and Summarv 3II II. Literature Cited ' 315 1. INTRODUCTION The capitate gilias of the family Polemoniaceae, a diverse group of herba­ ceous annuals ranging on the Pacific slope of North America from Baja Cali­ fornia oo British Columbia, present a pattern of variation and intergradation which has long confounded the taxonomist. In Jepson's Manual (Mason ex Jepson, 1925) the entire group was placed in Cilia capitat.a Doug!., whereas in Jepson's Flora (1943) four species were recognized, namely G. capitata Doug!., G. starninea Greene, G. Chamissonis Greene, and G. achilleaefolia Benth. Neither arrangement has proved very satisfactory. The group possesses far more geographical variation than was recognized in Jepson's Manual, but not the morphological discontinuity between allopatric types that might be implied by the treatment in Jepson's Flora.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Propagation Protocol for Gilia Capitata Sims ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production
    Plant Propagation Protocol for Gilia capitata Sims ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production Source: meemelink.com Source: beingplants.com Washington State Distribution Source: USDA Plants North America Distribution Source: USDA Plants TAXONOMY Family Names Family Scientific Name: Polemoniaceae Family Common Name: Phlox Scientific Names Genus: Gilia Species: capitata Species Authority: Variety: Sub-species: capitata abrontanifolia chamissonis mediomontana pacifica pedemontana staminea tomentosa Cultivar: Authority for Variety/Sub-species: Common Synonym(s) (include full Gilia capitata var. achilleifolia (H. Mason) scientific names (e.g., Elymus Gilia capitata var. alba Orcutt glaucus Buckley), including variety Gilia capitata var. glandulifera Brand or subspecies information) Gilia capitata var. regina Jeps. Gilia capitata var. trisperma Brans Gilia glandulifera A. Heller Gilia pallida A. Heller Navarretia capitata (Sims) Kuntze Common Name(s): Bluehead gilia, bluefield gilia, ball gilia, dune gilia, foothill gilia, hairy blue fiel gilia, Pacific gilia, Pacific blue field gilia, Queen’anne’s thimble, Blue thimble flower. Species Code (as per USDA Plants GICA5 database): GENERAL INFORMATION Geographical range (distribution Extends from as far west as Alaska running south into maps for North America and northern Texas. Its’ presence on the eastern side is a Washington state) result of introduced plants but is found natively as far as New Mexico. It then extends north into western British Columbia. See maps above for North America and Washington distributions. Ecological distribution (ecosystems it Found in open places below 7,000 ft. elevation. occurs in, etc): West-side forest, meadow, and east-side forest. Grows in open, sandy, or rocky soils, and grassy hillsides. Coastal. Likes well-drained soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Cathedral Bluff Meadow-Rue): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Thalictrum heliophilum Wilken & DeMott (Cathedral Bluff meadow-rue): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project January 4, 2007 Susan Spackman Panjabi and David G. Anderson Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Panjabi, S.S. and D.G. Anderson. (2007, January 4). Thalictrum heliophilum Wilken & DeMott (Cathedral Bluff meadow-rue): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/thalictrumheliophilum.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was facilitated by the helpfulness and generosity of many experts, particularly Carla Scheck, Peggy Lyon, Renee Rondeau, Barry Johnston, and Tamara Meagley. Their interest in the project and time spent answering questions were extremely valuable and their insights into the distribution, habitat, and ecology of Thalictrum heliophilum were crucial to this project. Thanks also to Greg Hayward, Gary Patton, Kathy Roche, and Joy Bartlett for assisting with questions and project management. Thanks to Kimberly Nguyen for the work on the layout and for bringing this assessment to Web publication. Mary Olivas provided crucial financial oversight. Annette Miller provided information for the report on seed storage status. Drs. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson provided access to specimens of T. heliophilum at the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, and Jennifer Ackerfield provided access to specimens from the Colorado State University Herbarium. Nan Lederer and Tim Hogan provided valuable assistance and insights at the Colorado University Herbarium. Jessica Andersen assisted with data and literature acquisition. Special thanks to Karin Decker and Arvind Panjabi who reviewed part or all of the first draft of this document and offered input.
    [Show full text]
  • COLORADO Rnati VE PLANT -SOCIETY NEWSLETTER Volume 10, Number 3
    COLORADO rNATI VE PLANT -SOCIETY NEWSLETTER Volume 10, Number 3 May 1986 "DEDICATED TO THE APPRECIATION AND CONSERVATION OF THE COLORADO FLORAl! •••••••--•••-----.--•••JIIL••••••••••••••••---­•••••••••• • iV_ ••••••1Ir6 • • ~ • • .rv••wwr....• It¥_ •••••••• _ ••~ -.r_ ••• *'*Ywrtr• .......·······--IIUI····················1r. -.rwr..__••••_TV••••••••• - • ­ ACTIONS FROM THE BOARD! \fuat's new from your Board of Directors? CONPS is to have a display at the Alpine 86 conference in Boulder, June 28 - July 2. Anna Thurston is coordinator, so if you would like to help, please call Anna at 433-3705. TALLGRASS PRAIRIE RESEARCH Planning goes forward on the Rare Plant Publication. Anyone A management plan for the ~,interested in joining the working Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Natural ~ group will be most welcome. Please Area is nearly complete. The Colo­ call Eleanor Von Bargen, 756-1400. rado Natural Areas Program, City of The first effort will be in assemb­ Boulder and other pertinant agen­ ling photographs and technical data cies and organizations, including on the species selected for inclu­ the Colorado Native Plant Society, sion. This is one of the larger have developed grazing and burning enterprises that CONPS has prescriptions for the 270 acre undertaken, and the board solicits natural area. Intensive monitoring your active involvement! will determine if the types of After a highly successful management are suitable for these first year of workshops, with relict tallgrass communities. Con­ excellent speakers and challenging tact Virginia Crosby, 666-5303, if topics, the board decided to insti­ you are interested in working on tute modest fees for workshops in the floristic survey. Permanent the future, to cover expenses. vegetation transects will be estab­ Registration procedures will be lished and sampled.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX A13 US FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM for the State Highway 9 Iron Springs Alignment Environmental Assessment
    APPENDIX A13 US FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE State Highway 9 Iron Springs Alignment Environmental Assessment Prepared for COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Prepared by JEFF PETERSON COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS BRANCH April 2014 USFS Sensitive Species for the State Highway 9 Iron Springs Alignment EA CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 1 No Action Alternative ..................................................................................................... 3 Applicable Statutes and Regulations ............................................................................. 5 Federal ............................................................................................................................ 5 White River National Forest – Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ..................... 5 Issues: Possibility of impacting the USFS Sensitive Species ........................................... 5 Method of Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 5 Historical Precedent from Other Activities Proposed for this Area ............................... 6 Other Uses: Recreation .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci
    Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR
    [Show full text]