DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Assessment (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Assessment (PDF) MONK & ASSOCIATES Environmental Consultants ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS NEWPORT POINTE BIXLER ROAD, DISCOVERY BAY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Revised August 30, 2010 Prepared for Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, N. Wing – 4th Floor Martinez, California 94553 On Behalf of Mr. William Schrader Disco Bay Partners LLC 164 Oak Road Alamo, California 94507 Prepared by Monk & Associates, Inc. 1136 Saranap Avenue, Suite Q Walnut Creek, California 94595 1136 Saranap Ave., Suite Q i Walnut Creek i California i 94595 (925) 947-4867 i FAX (925) 947-1165 Revised - Biological Resources Analysis MONK & ASSOCIATES Newport Pointe Bixler Road Project, Discovery Bay Contra Costa County TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 2. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Monk & Associates’ Background Research in 2010 .............................................................. 1 2.2 Monk & Associates’ Field Reconnaissance in 2005 .............................................................. 1 2.3 Wetland Delineation in 2006 ................................................................................................... 2 2.4 Rare Plant Surveys in 2006 ..................................................................................................... 2 3. LIMITATIONS OF MONK & ASSOCIATES’ STUDY ............................................................... 2 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Setting/Project site Description ............................................................................................... 3 4.2 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................... 3 5. PROJECT SITE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 3 5.1 Project Site Soils ...................................................................................................................... 3 5.2 Project Site Topography and Hydrology ................................................................................ 4 5.3 Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats ........................................................... 4 5.3.1 NON-NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND ........................................................................................ 4 5.3.2 SEASONAL WETLANDS ............................................................................................................ 5 5.3.3 OFF-SITE DRAINAGE ................................................................................................................ 5 6. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DEFINITION ................................................................................. 6 6.1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 6 7. POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ......... 8 7.1 Special Status Plant Species .................................................................................................... 8 7.1.1 DELTA BUTTON-CELERY .......................................................................................................... 9 7.1.2 BIG TARPLANT .......................................................................................................................... 9 7.1.3 DIABLO HELIANTHELLA ........................................................................................................... 9 7.1.4 CAPER-FRUITED TROPIDOCARPUM .......................................................................................... 9 7.1.5 HEARTSCALE .......................................................................................................................... 10 7.1.6 BRITTLESCALE ....................................................................................................................... 10 7.1.7 SAN JOAQUIN SPEARSCALE .................................................................................................... 10 7.1.8 ALKALI MILK-VETCH ............................................................................................................. 10 7.1.9 LARGE-LEAF STORKSBILL ...................................................................................................... 11 7.1.10 DIAMOND-PETALED CALIFORNIA POPPY ............................................................................ 11 7.1.11 RECURVED LARKSPUR ......................................................................................................... 11 7.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species ............................................................................................ 11 7.2.1 VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP ............................................................................................... 11 7.2.2 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER ........................................................................................ 13 7.2.3 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG ........................................................................................... 14 7.2.4 WESTERN POND TURTLE ........................................................................................................ 14 7.2.5 SWAINSON’S HAWK ................................................................................................................ 15 7.2.6 WESTERN BURROWING OWL .................................................................................................. 17 8. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NATIVE WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANTS .............. 18 8.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ........................................................................................... 18 8.1.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY .......................................................................................................... 20 8.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 20 8.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ....................................................................................... 21 i Revised - Biological Resources Analysis MONK & ASSOCIATES Newport Pointe Bixler Road Project, Discovery Bay Contra Costa County 8.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................ 21 8.3 State Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................... 22 8.3.1 SECTION 2081 OF THE STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT .................................................. 22 8.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................ 24 8.4 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 ....................................... 24 8.4.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 24 8.5 Protected Amphibians ........................................................................................................... 25 8.5.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 25 8.6 Applicable CEQA Regulations ............................................................................................. 25 8.6.1 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................ 25 8.7 County General Plan .............................................................................................................. 25 8.7.1 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE GOALS ...................................................................................... 26 8.7.2 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE POLICIES ................................................................................... 26 8.7.3 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 28 9. USE OF EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN .............. 28 9.1.1 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................ 30 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND STATE .................................................................................................................................. 30 9.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and General Permitting .................................. 31 9.2.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............................................................................ 31 9.2.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 34 9.3 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) / California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ............................................................................................................ 36 9.3.1 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............................................................................ 36 9.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 36 9.3.3 PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fig. Ap. 2.1. Denton Tending His Fairy Shrimp Collection
    Fig. Ap. 2.1. Denton tending his fairy shrimp collection. 176 Appendix 1 Hatching and Rearing Back in the bowels of this book we noted that However, salts may leach from soils to ultimately if one takes dry soil samples from a pool basin, make the water salty, a situation which commonly preferably at its deepest point, one can then "just turns off hatching. Tap water is usually unsatis- add water and stir". In a day or two nauplii ap- factory, either because it has high TDS, or because pear if their cysts are present. O.K., so they won't it contains chlorine or chloramine, disinfectants always appear, but you get the idea. which may inhibit hatching or kill emerging If your desire is to hatch and rear fairy nauplii. shrimps the hi-tech way, you should get some As you have read time and again in Chapter 5, guidance from Brendonck et al. (1990) and temperature is an important environmental cue for Maeda-Martinez et al. (1995c). If you merely coaxing larvae from their dormant state. You can want to see what an anostracan is like, buy some guess what temperatures might need to be ap- Artemia cysts at the local aquarium shop and fol- proximated given the sample's origin. Try incu- low directions on the container. Should you wish bation at about 3-5°C if it came from the moun- to find out what's in your favorite pool, or gather tains or high desert. If from California grass- together sufficient animals for a study of behavior lands, 10° is a good level at which to start.
    [Show full text]
  • Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta Lynchi)
    fairy shrimp populations are regularly monitored by Bureau of Land Management staff. In the San Joaquin Vernal Pool Region, vernal pool habitats occupied by the longhorn fairy shrimp are protected at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge. 4. VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP (BRANCHINECTA LYNCHI) a. Description and Taxonomy Taxonomy.—The vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) was first described by Eng, Belk and Eriksen (Eng et al. 1990). The species was named in honor of James B. Lynch, a systematist of North American fairy shrimp. The type specimen was collected in 1982 at Souza Ranch, Contra Costa County, California. Although not yet described, the vernal pool fairy shrimp had been collected as early as 1941, when it was identified as the Colorado fairy shrimp by Linder (1941). Description and Identification.—Although most species of fairy shrimp look generally similar (see Box 1- Appearance and Identification of Vernal Pool Crustaceans), vernal pool fairy shrimp are characterized by the presence and size of several mounds (see identification section below) on the male's second antennae, and by the female's short, pyriform brood pouch. Vernal pool fairy shrimp vary in size, ranging from 11 to 25 millimeters (0.4 to 1.0 inch) in length (Eng et al. 1990). Vernal pool fairy shrimp closely resemble Colorado fairy shrimp (Branchinecta coloradensis) (Eng et al. 1990). However, there are differences in the shape of a small mound-like feature located at the base of the male's antennae, called the pulvillus. The Colorado fairy shrimp has a round pulvillus, while the vernal pool fairy shrimp's pulvillus is elongate.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservancy Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta Conservatio)
    2. CONSERVANCY FAIRY SHRIMP (BRANCHINECTA CONSERVATIO) a. Description and Taxonomy Taxonomy.—The Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) was described by Eng, Belk, and Eriksen (Eng et al. 1990). The type specimens were collected in 1982 at Olcott Lake, Solano County, California. The species name was chosen to honor The Nature Conservancy, an organization responsible for protecting and managing a number of vernal pool ecosystems in California, including several that support populations of this species. Description and Identification.—Conservancy fairy shrimp look similar to other fairy shrimp species (Box 1- Appearance and Identification of Vernal Pool Crustaceans). Conservancy fairy shrimp are characterized by the distal segment of the male’s second antennae, which is about 30 percent shorter than the basal segment, and its tip is bent medially about 90 degrees (Eng et al. 1990). The female brood pouch is fusiform (tapered at each end), typically extends to abdominal segment eight, and has a terminal opening (Eng et al. 1990). Males may be from 14 to 27 millimeters (0.6 to 1.1 inch) in length, and females have been measured between 14.5 and 23 millimeters (0.6 and 0.9 inch) long. Conservancy fairy shrimp can be distinguished from the similar looking midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis) by the shape of two humps on the distal segment of the male's second antennae (Belk and Fugate 2000). The midvalley fairy shrimp's antennae is bent such that the larger of the two humps is anterior (towards the head), whereas this same hump in the Conservancy fairy shrimp is posterior (towards the tail).
    [Show full text]
  • Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (VPFS, Branchinecta Lynchi)  Conservancy Fairy Shrimp (COFS, B
    Monitoring and Managing California Endemic Large Branchiopods By Brent Helm, Ph.D. Tansley Team, Inc. (dba Helm Biological Consulting) (530) 633-0220 [email protected] Who are the Endemics? Vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS, Branchinecta lynchi) Conservancy fairy shrimp (COFS, B. conservatio) Longhorn fairy shrimp (LFS, B. longiantenna) Midvalley fairy shrimp (MFS, B. mesovallensis) California fairy shrimp (CFS, Linderiella occidentalis) Mono Lake brine shrimp (Artemia monica) San Francisco brine shrimp (A. franciscana) San Diego fairy shrimp (SDFS, B. sandiegonensis) San Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (SRPFS, L. santarosae) Riverside fairy shrimp (RFS, Streptocephalus woottoni) California clam shrimp (CCS, Cyzicus californicus) Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (VPFS, Lepidurus packardi) Goals and Objectives What is the To maintain or increase endemic large branchiopod occurrences and abundances? How do we reach the goal? Objectives The “who, what, when, where, and how” of reaching the goals Objectives First Monitor vernal pools large branchiopods Second The results of the monitoring will dictate what maintenance and management activities are needed. Right? Wait ! Need to know the life histories of targeted species The parameters that influencing their occurrences and abundances Life History Table 1. Endemic Large Branchiopod Habitat "Preferences" Ponding Depth (in inches) Duration (in days) Area (in acres) 1-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 >12 <14 14-30 30-60 60-90 90-120 > 120 <0.0005 0.0005 - 0.005 0.005 - 0.05 Large Branciopod Species
    [Show full text]
  • Gentry Suisun Draft EIR Vol II
    Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX A- EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS 162 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX B- EXISTING LOS RESULTS 163 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX C- EXISTING PLUS APPROVED LOS RESULTS 164 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX D- MODEL DOCUMENTATION 165 Gentry/Suisun Annexation Traffic Impact Study February 2006 APPENDIX E- CUMULATIVE LOS RESULTS 166 Administrative Draft EIR Suisun Gentry Project February 10, 2006 4.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates potential biological resource impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Suisun Gentry Project and includes a discussion of the mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level where possible. The information contained in this analysis is primarily based upon the Biological Assessment, Gentry-Suisun Project, City of Suisun City, Solano County, California prepared by The Huffman-Broadway Group (2006) and the Wetland Delineation and Special- Status Species Survey Report prepared by Vollmar Consulting (2003). Additional details on plant and wildlife species presence are based upon field surveys performed by Foothill Associates’ biologists. This report describes the habitat types, jurisdictional waters, and presence/absence of special-status plants and animals at the Proposed Project area and provides a review of existing literature, maps, and aerial photography pertaining to the biological resources of the area. It also evaluates potential impacts of the proposed Project in relation to CEQA and other environmental laws, and provides mitigation recommendations. Foothill Associates has prepared this Section of the EIR for the proposed Suisun Gentry Project (Project) in central Solano County, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for Rogue and Illinois Valley Vernal Pool and Wet Meadow Ecosystems
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Rogue and Illinois Valley Vernal Pool and Wet Meadow Ecosystems Vernal pool photograph used with permission. Sam Friedman/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Rogue and Illinois Valley Vernal Pool and Wet Meadow Ecosystems Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Recovery Plan for Rogue and Illinois Valley Vernal Pool and Wet Meadow Ecosystems Errata Sheet Page II-29, second full paragraph. Replace second sentence with “Critical habitat was designated for vernal pool fairy shrimp and several other vernal pool species in 2003, and modified in 2005 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003, 2005b).” Page II-36, 5th full paragraph extending to next page. Replace 5th sentence with “No surface disturbance or human occupancy is allowed in the ACEC; some BLM-administered land in the vicinity is open to mineral entry, but no claims are currently active.” Replace last sentence with “A cooperative management plan completed in 2013 recommends the following activities to further alleviate threats on BLM-administered land on the Table Rocks: designate acquired lands as ACEC; pursue withdrawal from mineral entry; classify the Table Rocks as unsuitable for mineral materials disposal; close to recreational rock hounding; and restrict foot traffic to existing or hard surfaced trails (P. Lindaman, pers. comm. 2013). Page II-37, first full paragraph. Replace first sentence with “Conservation efforts for the vernal pool fairy shrimp are divided into the following four broad categories: education and outreach, regulatory and legal protections, research, and conservation planning and habitat protection.” Page II-37, second full paragraph.
    [Show full text]
  • VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP Branchinecta Lynchi USFWS: Threatened CDFG: None
    LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC DRAFT SOLANO HCP JULY 2012 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY NATURAL COMMUNITY AND SPECIES ACCOUNTS VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP Branchinecta lynchi USFWS: Threatened CDFG: none Species Account Status and Description. The vernal pool fairy shrimp was listed as a federally Threatened Species on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 48153). Critical habitat was designated for the vernal pool fairy shrimp in 2005 (USFWS 2005). The vernal pool fairy shrimp is a small crustacean in the Branchinectidae family. The species has elongate bodies, large-stalked compound eyes, no carapaces (hard protective outer covers), and 11 pairs of swimming legs (Eng et al. 1990). Adult shrimp range between 0.4-1.0 inches in length (Eng et al. 1990). Vernal pool fairy shrimp are similar in appearance to Colorado fairy shrimp (Branchinecta coloradensis). However, the basal segment outgrowth below and posterior to the pulvillus of the antennae of male vernal pool fairy shrimp is ridge-like, while the basal segment outgrowth of the Colorado fairy shrimp is cylindrical and usually larger (Eng et al. 1990). The vernal pool fairy shrimp has a shorter, pyriform brood pouch, whereas the Colorado fairy shrimp has a longer, fusiform brood pouch (Eng et al. 1990). Range, Populations and Activity. The historic range of the vernal pool fairy shrimp likely coincided with the historical distribution of vernal pools in the Central Valley of California, southern California and southern Oregon (USFWS 2005). The vernal pool fairy shrimp is currently found in 28 counties across the Central Valley and coast ranges of California, and in Jackson County of southern Oregon.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 16/Monday, January 26, 2004/Notices
    3592 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2004 / Notices Dated: January 9, 2004. (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, Range and Distribution Susan MacMullin, for any petition to revise the List of Midvalley fairy shrimp have been Acting Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Threatened and Endangered Species found in the following California Services, Region 2, Albuquerque, New that contains substantial scientific and counties: Sacramento, Solano, Contra Mexico. commercial information that listing may Costa, San Joaquin, Madera, Merced, [FR Doc. 04–1557 Filed 1–23–04; 8:45 am] be warranted, we make a finding within Fresno and Yolo (Belk and Fugate 2000; BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 12 months of the date of the receipt of California Natural Diversity Database the petition on whether the petitioned (CNDDB) 2003a). The known action is (a) not warranted, or (b) occurrences of midvalley fairy shrimp DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR warranted, or (c) warranted but are distributed in five different Vernal precluded by other pending proposals. Fish and Wildlife Service Pool Regions as described by Keeler- Such 12-month findings are to be Wolf et al. (1998) (Southeastern published promptly in the Federal Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Sacramento Valley, Livermore, Southern Register. Sierra Foothills, San Joaquin Valley, and and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a On August 31, 2001, we received a the Solano-Colusa Region). Each of Petition To List the Midvalley Fairy petition dated August 14, 2001, from the Shrimp as Endangered Center for Biological Diversity and these regions is classified as having VernalPools.Org, requesting us to list different or unique vernal pool AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta Mesovallensis)
    Invertebrates Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis) Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis) Status State: Meets the requirements as a “rare, threatened or endangered species” under CEQA Federal: None; petitioned for endangered status (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003) but rejected for listing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004) Population Trend Global: Declining due to habitat loss and fragmentation (Center for Biological Diversity 2001, Eriksen and Belk 1999, Belk & Fugate 2000) State: As above Within Inventory Area: Unknown Data Characterization The location database for the midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis) within the study area includes a single data record from 1997 near the Byron Airport and can be accurately located within the inventory area. The single location is a shallow vernal pool within nonnative grassland. Additional natural and artificial habitats have a high probability of being occupied by the midvalley fairy shrimp throughout the grassland habitats within the inventory area. Except for the original description (Belk and Fugate 2000), a scanning electron micrograph of the cyst (resting egg) (Hill and Shepard 1997), and over- generalized natural history data (Helm 1997), no peer-reviewed technical literature has been published concerning the midvalley fairy shrimp. However, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study is currently in progress, and the data from that study is available. In addition, Eriksen and Belk (1999) have presented a brief discussion of the midvalley fairy
    [Show full text]
  • Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta Mesovallensis)
    Invertebrates Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis) Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis) Status State: Meets the requirements as a “rare, threatened or endangered species” under CEQA Federal: None; petitioned for endangered status (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003) but rejected for listing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004) Population Trend Global: Declining due to habitat loss and fragmentation (Center for Biological Diversity 2001, Eriksen and Belk 1999, Belk & Fugate 2000) State: As above Within Inventory Area: Unknown Data Characterization The location database for the midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis) within the study area includes a single data record from 1997 near the Byron Airport and can be accurately located within the inventory area. The single location is a shallow vernal pool within nonnative grassland. Additional natural and artificial habitats have a high probability of being occupied by the midvalley fairy shrimp throughout the grassland habitats within the inventory area. Except for the original description (Belk and Fugate 2000), a scanning electron micrograph of the cyst (resting egg) (Hill and Shepard 1997), and over- generalized natural history data (Helm 1997), no peer-reviewed technical literature has been published concerning the midvalley fairy shrimp. However, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study is currently in progress, and the data from that study is available. In addition, Eriksen and Belk (1999) have presented a brief discussion of the midvalley fairy
    [Show full text]
  • Ch. 4. Statewide Distribution of Fairy Shrimps Other Than Bovines and Birds on Their Lands
    Ch. 4. Statewide distribution of fairy shrimps other than bovines and birds on their lands. In an don't freeze or desiccate sufficiently given the aquatic survey of the Sacramento NWR west of cool but not cold near-coast locations and frequent the Sacramento River at the border of Glenn and rains. As one trends southward, rainfall and its Colusa counties, refuge biologist Joe Silveira frequency lessen, and wave-cut terraces, which turned up three species of fairy shrimps already over geological time have been lifted above the known from the region, Linderiella occidentalis, sea, provide an increasing number of pool basins, Branchinecta conservatio, and B. lindahli. Unex- most numerous in southern-most San Diego pectedly, B. coloradensis also debuted in one of County. their pools, a location that is only its third known Further evidence that fairy shrimps aren't ev- site of residency in the Central Valley. Further to erywhere is presented in a report by Sugnet and the south, and west of Merced, lies the San Luis Associates (1993). They demonstrated that only NWR Complex. Of 59 sites sampled in 1994, about 27% of possible habitats in the northern including both sides of the San Joaquin River, 15 two-thirds of the Central Valley contained anos- pools west of the river yielded anostracans. Here tracans (830 pools of 3,092 visited). Interestingly, too, most were Branchinecta lynchi, but the Kes- in Sacramento County where 20-30 pools were terson area also produced B. conservatio, B. sampled in each of several clusters of pools, about longiantenna, and B.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairy Shrimps
    Fairy Shrimps of California's Puddles, Pools, and Playas by Clyde Eriksen and Denton Belk The 25 fairy shrimps found in California Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 San Francisco brine shrimp Artemia monica Verrill, 1869 Mono Lake brine shrimp Branchinecta campestris Lynch, 1960 pocketed pouch fairy shrimp Branchinecta coloradensis Packard, 1874 Colorado fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio Eng, Belk, & Eriksen, 1990 Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta dissimilis Lynch, 1972 dissimilar fairy shrimp Branchinecta gigas Lynch, 1937 giant fairy shrimp Branchinecta lindahli Packard, 1883 versatile fairy shrimp Branchinecta longiantenna Eng, Belk, & Eriksen, 1990 longhorn fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Eng, Belk, & Eriksen, 1990 vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta mackini Dexter, 1956 alkali fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis Fugate, 1993 San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sp. - 1 midvalley fairy shrimp Branchinecta sp. - 2 winter fairy shrimp Branchinecta sp. - 3 mountain fairy shrimp Eubranchipus bundyi Forbes, 1876 knobbedlip fairy shrimp Eubranchipus oregonus Creaser, 1930 Oregon fairy shrimp Eubranchipus serratus Forbes, 1876 ethologist fairy shrimp Linderiella occidentalis (Dodds, 1923) California fairy shrimp Linderiella santarosae Thiery & Fugate, 1994 Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp Streptocephalus dorothae Mackin, 1942 New Mexico fairy shrimp Streptocephalus sealii Ryder, 1879 spinytail fairy shrimp Streptocephalus texanus Packard, 1871 Great Plains fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni Eng, Belk, & Eriksen, 1990 Riverside fairy shrimp Thamnocephalus platyurus Packard, 1879 beavertail fairy shrimp FAIRY SHRIMPS OF CALIFORNIA'S PUDDLES, POOLS, AND PLAYAS by Clyde H. Eriksen and Denton Belk art work by Ina Rae Lengyel cover and maps by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. ©1999 Clyde H. Eriksen and Denton Belk Published by Mad River Press, Inc. Printed by Eureka Printing Company, Inc.
    [Show full text]