DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation November 2005 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Cover photo by J. Rasmussen— McCornac Point Marsh Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River—Phase I Natural inflow to, natural losses from, and natural outfall of Upper Klamath Lake to the Link River and the Klamath River at Keno prepared by Technical Service Center Water Resources Services Thomas Perry, Hydrologist Amy Lieb, Hydrologist Alan Harrison, Environmental Engineer Mark Spears, P.E., Hydraulic Engineer Ty Mull, Agricultural Engineer Concrete Dams and Waterways Elisabeth Cohen, P.E., Hydraulic Engineer Klamath Basin Area Office John Rasmussen, Hydrologist Jon Hicks, Water Conservation Specialist TSC Project Management Del Holz, Manager Joe Lyons, Assistant Manager prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Basin Area Office Klamath Falls, Oregon November 2005 Base map and study area. Preface This study was undertaken to estimate the effects of agricultural development on natural flows in the Upper Klamath River Basin. A large body of data was reviewed and analyzed to obtain the results included in this assessment of the natural hydrology of the Basin. Within this report, the term natural represents typical flows without agricultural development in the basin. The term predevelopment describes watershed conditions existing during the pre-settlement period which ended in the mid-19th century. The last vestige of predevelopment watershed conditions unaffected by agricultural development was probably gone by about 1960. Changes in forest conditions and land-use management activities were considered but not addressed in this study. Only within remote alpine and some sub-alpine watersheds are present-day environmental conditions similar to those that existed before settlement began. A draft of this report was released for review and comment in December 2003. The report was reorganized and additional explanations and elements were added in December 2004 based on the comments received from the reviewers of the December 2003 draft report. During early 2005, a workgroup representing an array of Klamath Basin interests was convened by Reclamation. In three workgroup meetings (March 2-3, 2005, and April 26-27, 2005, and September 1-2, 2005), several technical aspects of the natural flow study were discussed and review comments were offered by the workgroup on the December 2004 report. Comments on the December 2004 report were documented in a comment/response matrix prepared by Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office. This November 2005 report incorporates research of additional data recently collected. The Excel® model spreadsheet application, input and output files, and results are included in the CD which contains this report and all its attachments. Acknowledgments Acknowledgments Many valuable, insightful, and objective comments and suggestions have been provided by reviewers of this work, especially the following, in alphabetical order: Michael Belchik, Senior Biologist, Yurok Tribal Office, Weitchpec, California Richard M. Cooper, P.E., Oregon Water Resources Department, Salem, Oregon Larry Dunsmoor, Research Biologist, The Klamath Tribes, Chiloquin, Oregon Marshall Gannett, Hydrologist, USGS Oregon Water Science Center, Portland, Oregon Robert W. Hughes, P. E., California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California Jonathan La Marche, Hydrologist, Oregon Water Resources Department, Bend, Oregon Timothy Mayer, Hydrologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon Michael P. Ramey, P. E., Principal Engineer, R2 Resource Consultants, Redmond, Washington Contents Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................ ix Executive Summary.............................................................................................xi Chapter 1 — General Overview ......................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................ 1 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 1 Geologic and Physiographic Features......................................................... 1 Climate........................................................................................................ 2 Water Supplies............................................................................................ 2 Upper Klamath Lake............................................................................. 5 Lower Klamath Lake ............................................................................ 5 Groundwater ......................................................................................... 5 Study Approach ................................................................................................ 5 Water Budget Description........................................................................... 5 Evaluation of Predevelopment Conditions ................................................. 9 Evaluation of Current Conditions ............................................................. 10 Data Sources ....................................................................................... 10 Period of Record ................................................................................. 10 Crop and Marshland Evapotranspiration ............................................ 10 Methods to Estimate Natural Flows.......................................................... 12 Natural Streamflow Development ...................................................... 13 Adjustment of Gaged Streamflow to Natural Flow ............................ 13 Restoration of Missing Climate and Streamflow Data ....................... 13 Natural Streamflow Estimates in Ungaged Watersheds ..................... 19 Transit Losses ..................................................................................... 20 Natural Lake Simulations ......................................................................... 20 Groundwater Contributions ................................................................ 20 Open Water Surface Evaporation ....................................................... 21 Assumptions.............................................................................................. 21 Chapter 2 — Natural Streamflow Development............................................. 23 Upper Klamath Lake Basin............................................................................. 23 Williamson River Watershed.................................................................... 23 Gaging Records................................................................................... 24 Net Consumptive Use Determination ................................................. 24 Upper Williamson River Watershed................................................... 25 Changes from Predevelopment Conditions .................................. 25 Natural Streamflow of Upper Williamson River.......................... 25 Sprague River Watershed ................................................................... 29 Changes from Predevelopment Conditions .................................. 29 Natural Streamflow of Sprague River Watershed ........................ 29 Lower Williamson River Watershed .................................................. 32 Results in the Williamson River Watershed ....................................... 32 v Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River Wood River Valley and East Cascade Area ............................................. 34 Changes from Predevelopment Conditions ........................................ 34 Natural Streamflow of Wood River Valley ........................................ 36 Results in the Wood River Valley ...................................................... 38 Upper Klamath Lake................................................................................. 38 Changes from Predevelopment Conditions ........................................ 38 Inflow Assessment.............................................................................. 39 Simulation of Natural Upper Klamath Lake....................................... 39 Factors Affecting the Outflow Response of the Natural Upper Klamath Lake................................................................................ 42 Simulation of Upper Klamath Lake.................................................... 43 Losses from Upper Klamath Lake ................................................ 43 Resulting Water Balance for Upper Klamath Lake and Natural Outflow to the Link River............................................................. 44 Lower Klamath Lake History ......................................................................... 45 Lower Klamath Lake ................................................................................ 47 Changes from Predevelopment Conditions ........................................ 47 Inflow Assessment.............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Frequently Asked Questions
    Frequently Asked Questions Why are we doing this project? The City of Klamath Falls is working to upgrade the Spring Street Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) due to its aging infrastructure and the need to meet new, stricter treatment standards. The project is an important, long-term investment for the community. The City has operated the Spring Street STP since 1958, serving Klamath Falls for over 60 years. Many of the plant’s parts are original since their installation in the 1950s. As repairs are becoming necessary due to age, it is more cost-efficient to replace them entirely them than to repair them. A comprehensive upgrade is a smart investment in the plant, avoiding short-term, quick-fix solutions that add up in the long run. What benefits will this project provide to the City of Klamath Falls? The City’s Wastewater Division provides services to approximately 21,000 city residents and Klamath Basin area customers, cleaning an average 2.2 million gallons of wastewater per day from over 7,400 service connections. These upgrades will provide the following benefits to this process and to the community: • Improved health, safety, and welfare of the public. • Reliable, robust treatment with sufficient process and equipment redundancy (allowing the plant to stay operational while routine maintenance and repairs occur), and operator-friendly facilities. • Energy efficiency, which will result in additional funding from the Energy Trust of Oregon and reduced power bills. • Reduction in operation and maintenance costs due to the elimination of two existing processes: primary clarification and digestion. Along with being a smart long-term investment, the upgrades will help keep the City in compliance with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations and protect the area’s natural resources such as Lake Ewauna, the headwaters of the Klamath River where the treated wastewater is discharged.
    [Show full text]
  • Ochlockonee River & Bay SWIM Plan
    Draft Ochlockonee River and Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan July 2017 NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD George Roberts Jerry Pate John Alter Chair, Panama City Vice Chair, Pensacola Secretary-Treasurer, Malone Gus Andrews Jon Costello Marc Dunbar DeFuniak Springs Tallahassee Tallahassee Ted Everett Nick Patronis Bo Spring Chipley Panama City Beach Port St. Joe Brett J. Cyphers Executive Director Headquarters 81 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 (850) 539-5999 Crestview Econfina Milton Tallahassee 180 E. Redstone Avenue 6418 E. Highway 20 5453 Davisson Road Carr Building, Suite 225 Crestview, Florida 32539 Youngstown, FL 32466 Milton, FL 32583 3800 Commonwealth Blvd. (850) 683-5044 (850) 722-9919 Tel. (850) 626-3101 Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850) 921-2986 Ochlockonee River and Bay SWIM Plan Northwest Florida Water Management District July 7, 2017 DRAFT This document was developed in support of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program with funding assistance from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund. ii Ochlockonee River and Bay SWIM Plan Northwest Florida Water Management District July 7, 2017 DRAFT Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SWIM Program Background, Goals, and Objectives ............................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15: Final 2019 Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan Prepared: January 16, 2019 KHSA IM15 2019 STUDY PLAN Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................. 1 2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 3 3. Monitoring Components ................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 4 3.2 Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ....................................... 4 4. Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Dissemination ............................................ 5 4.1 KHSA Program Quality Assurance Strategy for 2019 ............................................. 5 5. Sampling Constituents and Frequency............................................................................ 7 5.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 7 5.2 Comprehensive Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ............. 9 6.0 References ................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Figure 1. 2019 KHSA IM 15 monitoring stations .............................................................. 2 List of Tables
    [Show full text]
  • Link River Algae Removal Demonstration Project: Phase 1 Final Report
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Project Interim Measures Implementation Committee: Interim Measure 11 Link River Algae Removal Demonstration Project: Phase 1 Final Report July 5, 2017 Prepared for: Portland, Oregon Prepared by: CH2M 2020 SW 4th Ave, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97201 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Conceptual Description of the Demonstration Project ....................................................................... 1 2.1 Location ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Proposed Demonstration Project Facilities and Operations ......................................................... 2 3 Assessment of Needed Permits and Regulatory Approvals................................................................. 4 3.1 Removal‐Fill Permit ....................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Fish‐Related Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................ 6 3.3 Other Regulatory Permits or Approvals ...................................................................................... 10 4 Assessment of Use and Disposal of Harvested Algae Material .......................................................... 10 5 Additional Considerations ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Country Welcome To
    Travel Guide To OREGON Indian Country Welcome to OREGON Indian Country he members of Oregon’s nine federally recognized Ttribes and Travel Oregon invite you to explore our diverse cultures in what is today the state of Oregon. Hundreds of centuries before Lewis & Clark laid eyes on the Pacific Ocean, native peoples lived here – they explored; hunted, gathered and fished; passed along the ancestral ways and observed the ancient rites. The many tribes that once called this land home developed distinct lifestyles and traditions that were passed down generation to generation. Today these traditions are still practiced by our people, and visitors have a special opportunity to experience our unique cultures and distinct histories – a rare glimpse of ancient civilizations that have survived since the beginning of time. You’ll also discover that our rich heritage is being honored alongside new enterprises and technologies that will carry our people forward for centuries to come. The following pages highlight a few of the many attractions available on and around our tribal centers. We encourage you to visit our award-winning native museums and heritage centers and to experience our powwows and cultural events. (You can learn more about scheduled powwows at www.traveloregon.com/powwow.) We hope you’ll also take time to appreciate the natural wonders that make Oregon such an enchanting place to visit – the same mountains, coastline, rivers and valleys that have always provided for our people. Few places in the world offer such a diversity of landscapes, wildlife and culture within such a short drive. Many visitors may choose to visit all nine of Oregon’s federally recognized tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project (Oregon State
    Oregon State University Extension Service Special Report 1037 December 2002 Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: An Assessment of Natural Resource, Economic, Social, and Institutional Issues with a Focus on the Upper Klamath Basin William S. Braunworth, Jr. Assistant Extension Agriculture Program Leader Oregon State University Teresa Welch Publications Editor Oregon State University Ron Hathaway Extension agriculture faculty, Klamath County Oregon State University Authors William Boggess, department head, Department of William K. Jaeger, associate professor of agricul- Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon tural and resource economics and Extension State University agricultural and resource policy specialist, Oregon State University William S. Braunworth, Jr., assistant Extension agricultural program leader, Oregon State Robert L. Jarvis, professor of fisheries and University wildlife, Oregon State University Susan Burke, researcher, Department of Agricul- Denise Lach, codirector, Center for Water and tural and Resource Economics, Oregon State Environmental Sustainability, Oregon State University University Harry L. Carlson, superintendent/farm advisor, Kerry Locke, Extension agriculture faculty, University of California Intermountain Research Klamath County, Oregon State University and Extension Center Jeff Manning, graduate student, Department of Patty Case, Extension family and community Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University development faculty, Klamath County, Oregon Reed Marbut, Oregon Water Resources
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Sucke
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Publications of the US Geological Survey US Geological Survey 2013 Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon Barbara A. Martin U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] David A. Hewitt U.S. Geological Survey Craig M. Ellsworth U.S. Geological Survey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgspubs Part of the Geochemistry Commons, Geology Commons, Geomorphology Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Other Earth Sciences Commons Martin, Barbara A.; Hewitt, David A.; and Ellsworth, Craig M., "Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon" (2013). Publications of the US Geological Survey. 117. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgspubs/117 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications of the US Geological Survey by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon Open-File Report 2013–1039 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Effects of Chiloquin Dam on Spawning Distribution and Larval Emigration of Lost River, Shortnose, and Klamath Largescale Suckers in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, Oregon By Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09
    Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09 Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Inset: Larval sucker from Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Allison Estergard, Student, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 2011.) Top: Photograph taken from the air of the flooded Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Charles Erdman, Fisheries Technician, Williamson River Delta Preserve, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2008.) Bottom left: Photograph of a pop net used by The Nature Conservancy to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photograph taken by Heather Hendrixson, Director, Williamson River Delta Preserve, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2006.) Bottom middle: Photograph of a larval trawl used by Oregon State University to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photograph taken by David Simon, Senior Faculty Research Assistant, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 2010.) Bottom right: Photograph of a plankton net used by the U.S. Geological Survey to collect larval suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River Delta, Oregon. (Photographer unknown, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 2009.) Dispersal of Larval Suckers at the Williamson River Delta, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2006–09 By Tamara M. Wood, U.S. Geological Survey, Heather A. Hendrixson, The Nature Conservancy, Douglas F. Markle, Oregon State University, Charles S. Erdman, The Nature Conservancy, Summer M. Burdick, U.S. Geological Survey, Craig M. Ellsworth, U.S. Geological Survey, and Norman L.
    [Show full text]
  • KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT [FERC No
    KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT [FERC No. 2082] REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY Copco No. 1, c1915 PacifiCorp Archives Photo for PacifiCorp, Portland, OR Prepared by George Kramer, M.S., HP Preservation Specialist Under contract to CH2M-Hill Corvallis, OR October 2003 App E-6E DOE 1_Cover.doc DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER Property Name: KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Date of Construction: 1903-1958 Address: N/A County: Klamath, Oregon Siskiyou, California Original Use: Hydroelectric Generation Current Use: Hydroelectric Generation Style: Utilitarian/Industrial Theme: Commerce/Industrial _____________________________________________________________________________________ PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE: The resources of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project were built between 1903 and 1958 by the California Oregon Power Company and its various pioneer predecessors and are now owned and operated by PacifiCorp under Federal Energy Regulatory License No. 2082. The resources of the project are strongly associated with the early development of electricity in the southern Oregon and northern California region and played a significant role in the area’s economy both directly, as a part of a regionally-significant, locally-owned and operated, private utility, and indirectly, through the role that increased electrical capacity played in the expansion of the timber, agriculture, and recreation industries during the first six decades of the 20th century. The Klamath Hydroelectric Project is considered regionally significant and eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion “A” for its association with the industrial and economic development of southern Oregon and northern California. [See Statement of Significance, Page 19] Copco No. 1, Dam and Gatehouse, 2002 In my opinion, the property ___ meets ___ does not meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Evidence
    Distribution of Anadromous Fishes in the Upper Klamath River Watershed Prior to Hydropower Dams— A Synthesis of the Historical Evidence fisheries history Knowledge of the historical distribution of anadromous fish is important to guide man- agement decisions regarding the Klamath River including ongoing restoration and regional recovery of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Using various sources, we determined the historical distribution of anadromous fish above Iron Gate Dam. feature Evidence for the largest, most utilized species, Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus ABSTRACT tshawytscha), was available from multiple sources and clearly showed that this species historically migrated upstream into tributaries of Upper Klamath Lake. Available infor- mation indicates that the distribution of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) extended to the Klamath Upper Basin as well. Coho salmon and anadromous lamprey (Lampetra tri- dentata) likely were distributed upstream at least to the vicinity of Spencer Creek. A population of anadromous sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) may have occurred historically above Iron Gate Dam. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) were restricted to the Klamath River well below Iron Gate Dam. This synthesis of available sources regard- ing the historical extent of these species’ upstream distribution provides key information necessary to guide management and habitat restoration efforts. Introduction John B. Hamilton Gary L. Curtis Gatschet’s statement is that salmon ascend the Klamath river twice a year, in June and again in autumn. This is in agreement with my information, that the run comes in the middlefinger Scott M. Snedaker month [sic], May–June, and that the large fish run in the fall...They ascend all the rivers David K.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment
    Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment Little Butte Creek Watershed Council August 2003 Abstract The Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment has been prepared for the Little Butte Creek Watershed Council with funding from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). The Assessment was prepared using the guidelines set forth in the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board’s 1999 Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. The purpose of this document is to assess the current conditions and trends of human caused and ecologic processes within the Little Butte Creek Watershed and compare them with historic conditions. Many important ecological processes within the watershed have been degraded over the last 150 years of human activity. This Assessment details those locations and processes that are in need of restoration as well as those that are operating as a healthy system. The Assessment was conducted primarily at the 5th field watershed level, that of the entire Little Butte Creek Watershed. List and describe field watershed levels below. Where possible, the analyses was refined to the smaller 6th field watershed level, thirteen of which exist within the Little Butte Creek Watershed. The assessment also notes gaps in data and lists recommendations for future research and data collection. It is intended that this document, and the Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan be used as guides for future research and watershed protection and enhancement over the next decade. The document was developed using existing data. No new data was collected for this project. Where data was lacking, it was detailed for future work and study. Acknowledgements This assessment was compiled and written by Steve Mason.
    [Show full text]
  • Crooked River Mitigation Bank
    Crooked River Mitigation Bank Section G of the Environmental Resource Permit Application Introduction The Crooked River Mitigation Bank (CRMB, Bank) consists of 323.10 acres of a mixture of degraded natural wetland and upland habitats, and agricultural areas where the historical natural habitats have been converted to citrus grove. In general, the site consists of variable hydroperiod herbaceous and forested wetlands intermixed with pine flatwoods in the south, along with herbaceous and forested wetlands surrounding a citrus grove in the north. Old Polk City Road bisects the CRMB near the northern boundary. The entire site is currently degraded by habitat conversion, intensive agriculture, exotic species invasion, trash deposition, fire suppression, and hydrological impacts. Hydrological impacts include the continuous deposition of soil runoff, herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer from the active citrus grove into all onsite and some offsite wetlands. The CRMB site exhibits both additional exempt agricultural development potential as well as residential development potential due to the proximity to County Road 557 and Interstate 4. Establishment of Crooked River Mitigation Bank will save this site from current aquatic impacts, further development and irreversible loss of aquatic function. The entire CRMB is owned fee-simple by the Hillbilly Holdings, LLC. There are old mineral reservations with no right of entry in some areas of the CRMB; these old mineral reservations will not interfere with Bank establishment. Part 1: Location of the Proposed Mitigation Bank (62-342.450(1), F.A.C.) The CRMB is located in Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, Township 27S, Range 26E with the approximate center of the site located at Latitude 28° 09’ 23.39” N, Longitude -81° 43’ 17.24” W.
    [Show full text]