DOCSLIB.ORG

Gonzales Project FERC Project No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gonzales Project FERC Project No ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Gonzales Project FERC Project No. 2960-006 Texas Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 October 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Application .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need For Power ........................................................ 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................ 1 1.2.2 Need for Power ................................................................................ 3 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ....................................................... 3 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ........................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Clean Water Act .............................................................................. 4 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act .................................................................. 4 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ....................................................... 4 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act .................................................. 5 1.4 Public Review and Comment ........................................................................ 6 1.4.1 Scoping ............................................................................................ 6 1.4.2 Interventions .................................................................................... 6 1.4.3 Comments on the License Application ........................................... 7 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 7 2.1 No-action Alternative .................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities and Project Boundary ............................ 7 2.1.2 Project Safety ................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Existing Project Operation .............................................................. 9 2.2 Applicant’s Proposal ................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................ 10 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation ........................................................... 10 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................... 11 2.3 Staff Alternative .......................................................................................... 11 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .................... 12 2.4.1 Project Decommissioning .............................................................. 12 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 13 3.1 General Description of the River Basin ...................................................... 14 3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ........................................................ 16 3.2.1 Geographic Scope .......................................................................... 16 3.2.2 Temporal Scope ............................................................................. 16 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives ................................................... 17 3.3.1 Geology and Soils.......................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................................................... 19 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ..................................................................... 78 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................. 96 3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use............................................................... 97 3.3.6 Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 102 i 3.4 No-action Alternative ................................................................................ 104 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 104 4.1 Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project.................................... 105 4.2 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................... 106 4.2.1 No-action Alternative .................................................................. 107 4.2.2 Applicants’ Proposal ................................................................... 107 4.2.3 Staff Alternative .......................................................................... 108 4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures .............................................................. 108 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 112 5.1 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative ................ 112 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by the Applicant .......................................... 112 5.1.2 Additional Staff-recommended Measures ................................... 113 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff ........................................ 119 5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .................................................................... 119 5.3 Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations ........................................... 120 5.4 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ................................................... 120 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...................................................... 121 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 121 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 131 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Gonzales Project location. ............................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1. Gonzales Project facilities ............................................................................... 8 Figure 3-1. Representative flow data collected at 15-minute intervals at USGS gauge number 08173900 located about 1 mile downstream from the Gonzales Project. ......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3-2. Water quality monitoring sites....................................................................... 24 Figure 3-3. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Gonzales Project impoundment and downstream ................................................................................................. 26 Figure 3-4. Water temperature in the Gonzales Project reservoir and downstream ........ 27 Figure 3-5. Photo of ramp traps used in the tailrace to target American eels .................. 35 Figure 3-6. The percent of time that flow is in the specified ranges at the project based on data from 1997 to 2018 at USGS gauge 08173900 ................................ 47 Figure 3-7. Downstream flows at the project under existing operation and simulated proposed operation when inflow is less than 555 cfs .................................. 49 Figure 3-8. Downstream flows at the project under existing operation and simulated proposed impoundment fluctuations when inflow is greater than 277 cfs.. 50 Figure 3-9. The relationship between DO measured by the City (2018) and flow (USGS gauge number 08173900) in the project tailrace from October 21, 2016 to October 21, 2017. ...................................................................................... 52 Figure 3-10. Downstream flows at the project under existing operation (i.e., USGS gauge number 08173900) and simulated proposed operation when inflow is in a range between 555 cfs and 830 cfs. ............................................................. 55 Figure 3-11. Downstream flows at the project under existing operation (i.e., USGS gauge number 08173900) and simulated proposed operation when inflow is in a range between 278 cfs and 554 cfs. ............................................................. 56 Figure 3-12. Downstream flows at the project under existing operation (i.e., USGS gauge number 08173900) and simulated proposed operation when inflow is less than 278 cfs ................................................................................................. 58 Figure 3-13. Location of project trash racks .................................................................... 65 iii Figure 3-14. Map showing extent of alligatorweed identified within the Gonzales Project area in the vicinity of the “Come and Take It” kayak dock ........................ 83 Figure 3-15. Locations of amphibian, reptile and avian fauna identified from the project area .............................................................................................................. 85 Figure 3-16 Project recreation facilities ........................................................................... 99 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. The number of turbine units operating and outflow released into the tailrace during the City’s proposed operations ........................................................ 11 Table 3-1. Monthly flow data (cfs) from 1997-2018 at USGS gauge number Guadalupe River near Gonzales, Texas ........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coordination of Statewide Aquatic Vegetation and Invasive Species
    Texas Statewide Aquatic Vegetation and Invasive Species Management Update (a.k.a., “The State of the State”) Monica McGarrity Aquatic Invasive Species Team Lead – Austin, TX AIS Management in Texas • Cost of effective AIS management: ~$45M / year • TPWD total annual AIS budget historically ~$1.4M • Legislature allocated $6.3 M / biennium to TPWD Inland Fisheries for 2016-2017 & 2018-2019 • Federal boater access funds and partner funds augment state-funded efforts Public Awareness Campaigns • Clean, Drain, Dry call to action – “poster child” species • Focus on preventing the spread of AIS by day-use boaters • 2019 - increased focus on targeted marina outreach to prevent movement of mussels on wet-slipped boats Public Awareness Campaigns Zebra Mussel Early Detection • More than 50 lakes monitored by partner collaboration • Plankton samples analyzed with microscopy (CPLM) & eDNA • Settlement samplers & shoreline substrate surveys Water Body Status Classifications • Infested – established; reproducing population. • Positive Lakes – detected more than once; no evidence of reproduction (yet…) • Suspect Lakes – single detection • Inconclusive Lakes – DNA or an unverified suspect organism found in the past year Zebra Mussels Status Update • Infested (15 lakes, 5 river basins) – Austin, Belton, Bridgeport, Canyon, Dean Gilbert†, Eagle Mountain, Georgetown, Lady Bird*, Lewisville, Livingston, Randell †, Ray Roberts, Stillhouse Hollow, Texoma, Travis • Positive – Fishing Hole †, Grapevine*, Lavon, Richland Chambers, Waco, Worth; also river reaches
    [Show full text]
  • River Run Fall 2017
    A Publication of the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Fall 2017 3 / Hydro Repairs Underway 8 / Zebra Mussels 16 / Grant Helps SOLC Constituent Communiqué Building Relationships In its 10-county statutory district, the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority works with a variety of customers for water sales and treatment, wastewater treatment, power sales, recreational undertakings and other services. In conducting those operations, GBRA staff also work closely with elected officials, developers and other constituents to determine their current and future needs and to see how GBRA can help address those needs. The purpose of our efforts is to provide exceptional service for their benefit. We are able to do this by ensuring that GBRA has highly skilled employees who receive relevant training year round. This also includes state licensed operators for the water and wastewater treatment facilities that we own and Ithose that we operate in partnership with customers in our basin. Today, GBRA continues to nurture long-standing relationships with its current customers while building new relationships with new partners. Furthering existing partnerships and addressing a need for a geographic area that lacks certain utilities, GBRA is securing a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) to provide wastewater services to an unincorporated area between New Braunfels and Seguin. GBRA will work in partnership with New Braunfels Utilities and the city of Seguin to provide wholesale wastewater treatment to wastewater that is collected from the new developments that are occurring in this high growth area. GBRA is stepping up to build these relationships because the area is growing and circumstances demand it.
    [Show full text]
  • Gooj~ 7 Guadalupe Appraisal District
    GOOJ~ 7 GUADALUPE APPRAISAL DISTRICT Main Ollice Schertz Substation 3000 N. Austin St 1101 Eibel Rd. Seguin, Texas 78155 Schertz, Texas 78154 (830) 303-3313 (210) 945-9708 Opt 8 (830) 372-2874 (Fax) (877) 254-0888 (Fax) [email protected] C) C z NOTICE OF MEETING {_;:_ >· -0 ... Notice is hereby given that the Guadalupe Appraisal Review Board will I vefuf"' at~00rltJm. on December 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, & 16, 2020 at the Guadalupe Appraisal D1sthct (~flic~300'0' N. Austin Street, Seguin, Texas 78155. j S c...~ Under the authority of Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, the Board, during the course of the meeting covered by this notice, may enter into closed or executive session for any of the fallowing reasons provided the subject to be discussed is on the agenda for the meeting. • For a private consultation with the Board's Attorney with respect to pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers, or on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas, clearly conflicts with this chapter. (Sec. 551-071) Notwithstanding Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, the Appraisal Review Board shall conduct a hearing that is closed to the public if the property owner or the chief appraiser intends to disclose proprietary or confidential information at the hearing that will assist the review board in determining the protest The review board may hold a closed hearing under this subsection only on a joint motion by the property owner and the chief appraiser.
    [Show full text]
  • Reptiles of Phil Hardberger Park
    ALAMO AREA MASTER NATURALISTS & PHIL HARDBERGER PARK CONSERVANCY REPTILES OF PHIL HARDBERGER PARK ROSEBELLY LIZARD→ REPTILE= Rosebelly Lizard (picture by author) TERRESTRIAL Fred Wills is the author of this piece. VERTEBRATE Animals with backbones (vertebrates) fall into several classes. We all recognize feathered birds and hairy mammals. But what is a reptile? An easy defini- tion of reptiles is that they are terrestrial, vertebrate animals with scales or plates covering the body. However, this definition simplifies their great diversity. WITH SCALES In Texas alone, there are four major groups of reptiles: lizards, snakes, turtles, and crocodilians (alligators). Hardberger Park is home to lizards, snakes, and turtles. OR PLATES Common lizards of the park include the Rosebelly Lizard, Texas Spiny Lizard, and Ground Skink. Common snakes of the park include the Texas Rat Snake, Rough Earth Snake, and Checkered Garter Snake. Can you name any other lizards and snakes found in the area? Hint: One lizard can change color, and PHP: one snake can produce sound. ROSEBELLY LIZARD Like many birds and mammals, reptiles are predators. Small ones like the Rosebelly Lizard and Rough Earth Snake eat invertebrate animals such as insects. TEXAS SPINY LIZARD Medium-sized snakes such as the Checkered Garter Snake often eat frogs. Larger snakes, including the Texas Rat Snake, typically eat small mammals and GROUND SKINK birds. TEXAS RAT SNAKE Where do reptiles live? The various species occupy almost all kinds of habitats, from dry prairie to moist woodland, and even wetlands and streams. Re- ROUGH EARTH SNAKE lated species often divide up the habitat through differing behaviors.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Notice of the Adoption of County Road Map
    PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE ADOPTION OF COUNTY ROAD MAP Pursuant to Article 258.005 of the Texas Transportation Code, the Commissioners Court of Walker County, Texas provides this notice to the public of the adoption of a County Road Map on December 22, 2008, including each road in which the County claims the continued existence of a public interest and right of access and egress for maintenance of an existing County Road. A County Road Map including each road or portions of each road in which the County claims a public interest is available for inspection at the County Clerk’s Office at the Walker County Courthouse. The Commissioners Court conducted numerous hearings prior to the adoption of the County Road Map on December 22, 2008. A list of the roads included in the adoption is included herein; however, the failure to include a road in which the county has previously acquired a public interest by purchase, condemnation, dedication, or a court's final judgment of adverse possession, or any other legal means does not affect the status of the omitted road. A person asserting a private right, title, or interest in a road in which the existence of a public interest is asserted may contest the inclusion of the road in the county road map by filing a suit in a district court in the county in which the road is located not later than January 1, 2018, said date exceeding the second anniversary of the date of this final notice. A.R. KIRK BOB HARDY RANCH RD. CEDAR RIDGE DELAWARE FARRIS CEMETERY RD.
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A
    Appendix A 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, this list identifies the water bodies in or bordering Texas for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. In addition, the TCEQ also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (January 2003, RG-194). Impairments are limited to the geographic area described by the Assessment Unit and identified with a six or seven-digit AU_ID. A TMDL for each impaired parameter will be developed to allocate pollutant loads from contributing sources that affect the parameter of concern in each Assessment Unit. The TMDL will be identified and counted using a six or seven-digit AU_ID. Water Quality permits that are issued before a TMDL is approved will not increase pollutant loading that would contribute to the impairment identified for the Assessment Unit. Explanation of Column Headings SegID and Name: The unique identifier (SegID), segment name, and location of the water body. The SegID may be one of two types of numbers. The first type is a classified segment number (4 digits, e.g., 0218), as defined in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS).
    [Show full text]
  • A RECREATIONAL USE SURVEY of the SAN MARCOS RIVER Thesis
    A RECREATIONAL USE SURVEY OF THE SAN MARCOS RIVER Thesis Presented to the Graduate Council of Southwest Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE By David D Bradsby San Marcos, Texas May 1994 - A RECREATIONAL USE SURVEY OF THE SAN MARCOS RIVER Approved: B. G. Whiteside, Chairman Approved: TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures . i v List of Tables . vi Acknowledgements . vi i Introduction . 1 Recreational Literature Review . 2 San Marcos River . 6 Threatened and Endangered Species . 2 4 Methods . 27 Results.................................... 35 Discussion . 5 4 Conclusions . 6 9 Literature Cited . 7 2 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 . Map of the upper San Marcos River from Spring Lake to the Blanco River confluence ................ 7 2. Detailed map of the upper San Marcos River showing study areas ...... .... ..... ..... .. ... .. ....... ... .. ..... ......... ...... ... 9 3. Pepper's study area on the San Marcos River looking upstream .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. 1 1 4. Sewell Park study area on the San Marcos River looking downstream............................................................... 1 3 5. City Park study area on the San Marcos River ............ 1 5 6. Rio Vista Annex study area on the San Marcos River ........... ......... .... .... .... ......... ........ .... ......... ....... 1 7 7. Rio Vista Park study area on the San Marcos River ................ ......... ....... ..... .... ........ .... ........
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Most Significant Weather Events of the 1900S for Austin, Del Rio and San Antonio and Vicinity
    10 MOST SIGNIFICANT WEATHER EVENTS OF THE 1900S FOR AUSTIN, DEL RIO AND SAN ANTONIO AND VICINITY PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE AUSTIN/SAN ANTONIO TX 239 PM CST TUE DEC 28 1999 ...10 MOST SIGNIFICANT WEATHER EVENTS OF THE 1900S FOR AUSTIN...DEL RIO AND SAN ANTONIO AND VICINITY... SINCE ONE OF THE MAIN FOCUSES OF WEATHER IN CENTRAL AND SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS INVOLVES PERIODS OF VERY HEAVY RAIN AND FLASH FLOODING...NOT ALL HEAVY RAIN AND FLASH FLOOD EVENTS ARE LISTED HERE. MANY OTHER WEATHER EVENTS OF SEASONAL SIGNIFICANCE ARE ALSO NOT LISTED HERE. FOR MORE DETAILS ON SIGNIFICANT WEATHER EVENTS ACROSS CENTRAL AND SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS IN THE PAST 100 YEARS...SEE THE DOCUMENT POSTED ON THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE AUSTIN/SAN ANTONIO WEBSITE AT http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/ewx/wxevent/100.pdf EVENTS LISTED BELOW ARE SHOWN IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER... FIRST STARTING WITH AUSTIN AND VICINITY...FOLLOWED BY DEL RIO AND VICINITY...AND ENDING WITH SAN ANTONIO AND VICINITY. AUSTIN AND VICINITY... 1. SEPTEMBER 8 - 10... 1921 - THE REMNANTS OF A HURRICANE MOVED NORTHWARD FROM BEXAR COUNTY TO WILLIAMSON COUNTY ON THE 9TH AND 10TH. THE CENTER OF THE STORM BECAME STATIONARY OVER THRALL...TEXAS THAT NIGHT DROPPING 38.2 INCHES OF RAIN IN 24 HOURS ENDING AT 7 AM SEPTEMBER 10TH. IN 6 HOURS...23.4 INCHES OF RAIN FELL AND 31.8 INCHES OF RAIN FELL IN 12 HOURS. STORM TOTAL RAIN AT THRALL WAS 39.7 INCHES IN 36 HOURS. THIS STORM CAUSED THE MOST DEADLY FLOODS IN TEXAS WITH A TOTAL OF 215 FATALITIES.
    [Show full text]
  • East Central Plains (Post Oak Savanna)
    TEXAS CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN East Central Texas Plains (Post Oak Savanna) ECOREGION HANDBOOK August 2012 Citing this document: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2012. Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012 – 2016: East Central Texas Plains Handbook. Editor, Wendy Connally, Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. Austin, Texas. Contents SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 HOW TO GET INVOLVED ............................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 RARE SPECIES and COMMUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 13 PRIORITY HABITATS ..................................................................................................................................... 13 ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 CONSERVATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 28 ECOREGION HANDBOOK FIGURES Figure 1. ECPL Ecoregion with County Boundaries ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Patterns and Perceptions of Water Use In
    CHANGING PATTERNS AND PERCEPTIONS OF WATER USE IN EAST CENTRAL TEXAS SINCE THE TIME OF ANGLO SETTLEMENT A Dissertation by WENDY WINBORN PATZEWITSCH Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2007 Major Subject: Geography CHANGING PATTERNS AND PERCEPTIONS OF WATER USE IN EAST CENTRAL TEXAS SINCE THE TIME OF ANGLO SETTLEMENT A Dissertation by WENDY WINBORN PATZEWITSCH Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Jonathan M. Smith Committee Members, Peter J. Hugill Christian Brannstrom Bradford P. Wilcox Head of Department, Douglas J. Sherman May 2007 Major Subject: Geography iii ABSTRACT Changing Patterns and Perceptions of Water Use in East Central Texas Since the Time of Anglo Settlement. (May 2007) Wendy Winborn Patzewitsch, B.A., Trinity University; M.S., Southern Methodist University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Jonathan M. Smith Patterns and perceptions of water use have changed since Anglo settlement in Texas in the early nineteenth century. Change has not been constant, gradual, or linear, but rather has occurred in fits and spurts. This pattern of punctuated equilibrium in water use regimes is the central finding of this dissertation. Water use is examined in terms of built, organizational, and institutional inertias that resist change in the cultural landscape. Change occurs only when forced by crisis and results in water management at an increasing scale. Perception is critical in forcing response to crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedernales Watershed Strategic Conservation Prioritization
    PEDERNALES WATERSHED STRATEGIC CONSERVATION PRIORITIZATION The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, Texas State University Hill Country Alliance June 2018 Produced by Siglo Group Pedernales Watershed Strategic Conservation Prioritization Project Team: Jonathan Ogren, Ben Prince, Doug Wierman, and Kaitlin Tasker www.meadowscenter.txstate.edu, [email protected], 512.245.9200 Inspiring research and leadership that ensure clean, abundant water for the environment and all humanity. www.hillcountryalliance.org, [email protected], 512.263.9147 Bringing together an ever-expanding alliance of groups throughout a multi-county region of Central Texas with the long- term objective of preserving open spaces, water supply, water quality and the unique character of the Texas Hill Country. www.siglogroup.com, [email protected], 512.699.5986 Integrating Land Use and Natural Systems: Siglo Group uses the power of geographic information to help clients integre- ate land use with natural systems. Siglo specializes in conservation planning, regional analysis, site assessment, cartogra- phy, and spatial analysis. Their work has contributed to land being set aside in perpetuity for conservation, policies, and projects that work towards more sustainable land use, good development, and a greater understanding of the attributes and value of land. Contributors: Blue Creek Consulting, [email protected], 512.826.2729 Cover Image. The Pedernales River. Courtesy of The Hill Country Alliance, www.hillcountryalliance.org 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 6 STUDY AREA 8 METHODS 12 FINDINGS 20 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS 22 SOURCES 26 1 Pedernales Watershed Strategic Conservation Prioritization PROJECT GOALS 1. Use the best data and analysis methods available to inform good decision making, for the efficientefficient useuse ofof hydrological,hydrological, cultural,cultural, andand ecologicalecological resourcesresources associatedassociated withwith conservationconservation inin thethe PedernalesPedernales Watershed.Watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Herpetofauna of Coahuila, Mexico: Composition, Distribution, and Conservation Status 1David Lazcano, 1Manuel Nevárez-De Los Reyes, 2Elí García-Padilla, 3Jerry D
    Offcial journal website: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation amphibian-reptile-conservation.org 13(2) [General Section]: 31–94 (e189). The herpetofauna of Coahuila, Mexico: composition, distribution, and conservation status 1David Lazcano, 1Manuel Nevárez-de los Reyes, 2Elí García-Padilla, 3Jerry D. Johnson, 3Vicente Mata-Silva, 3Dominic L. DeSantis, and 4,5,*Larry David Wilson 1Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Laboratorio de Herpetología, Apartado Postal 157, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, C.P. 66450, MEXICO 2Oaxaca de Juárez, Oaxaca 68023, MEXICO 3Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968-0500, USA 4Centro Zamorano de Biodiversidad, Escuela Agrícola Panamericana Zamorano, Departamento de Francisco Morazán, HONDURAS 51350 Pelican Court, Homestead, Florida 33035, USA Abstract.—The herpetofauna of Coahuila, Mexico, is comprised of 143 species, including 20 anurans, four caudates, 106 squamates, and 13 turtles. The number of species documented among the 10 physiographic regions recognized ranges from 38 in the Laguna de Mayrán to 91 in the Sierras y Llanuras Coahuilenses. The individual species occupy from one to 10 regions (x̄ = 3.5). The numbers of species that occupy individual regions range from 23 in the Sierras y Llanuras Coahuilenses to only one in each of three different regions. A Coeffcient of Biogeographic Resemblance (CBR) matrix indicates numbers of shared species among the 10 physiographic regions ranging from 20 between Llanuras de Coahuila y Nuevo León and Gran Sierra Plegada to 45 between Serranías del Burro and Sierras y Llanuras Coahuilenses. A similarity dendrogram based on the Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Averages (UPGMA) reveals that the Llanuras de Coahuila y Nuevo León region is most dissimilar when compared to the other nine regions in Coahuila (48.0 % similarity); all nine other regions cluster together at 57.0% and the highest similarity is 92.0% between Laguna de Mayrán and Sierra de la Paila.
    [Show full text]