LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS u '^^r /-•' STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING BULLETIN NO. 59 UNIVERSnY OF C«L!FORN)A DAVIS CO FY 2 INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER RASIN DEVELOPMENT INTERIM REPORT ON ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INITIAL UNITS Greenville DIXIE REFUGE RESERVOIR V GOODWIN J. KNIGHT Governor February, 1957 HARVEY 0. BANKS Director of Water Resources LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Indian Creek Recreafion Area STATE OK CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING BULLETIN NO. 59 INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER RASIN DEVELOPMENT INTERIM REPORT ON ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INITIAL UNITS February, 1957 GOODWIN J. KNIGHT HARVEY RANKS Governor Director of Water Resources TABLE OP CONTENTS Page LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL , »„,„,,,,.,. o .«,, » ix ACKNOWLEDGMENT ., .,.„«„.,,,.... o,., , x ORGANIZATION, DEPARTMENT OP WATER RESOURCES ,„..=,. xi ORGANIZATION, STATE WATER BOARD „„,.„,,„„„.„„ xiil CHAPTER I, INTRODUCTION ooo«>oooaeoooo0oo Objectives of Present Investigation ,,00.0.00.. 2 CHAPTER II, PLANKING CONS IDEBJ^T IONS , 0«09A0»0a INVESTIGATIONS AND DESIGN PROCEDURES . . . , . . o , , , 5 Water Requirements o o .o, o o .. ... ...... . 9 Irrigation Requirements . . . . . . o . , , o . . , 9 Recreation Requirements , . . „ o » <> . . . o . „ , 10 Surveys and Maps o,,,. <,...... o., o ... . 11 Geological Exploration o ..<.,. o. ..o .o. ,o. » 11 Foundation Exploration . . „ , , , . . . . . . . . „ 12 Exploration for Construction Materials . „ . . . . « 13 Design and Cost of Structures „ » . o . . . , . . , , <, . 13 L/" oX^Ilo c oooo o o t 9 Q a -3 r » » i a oo eo <» "*-0 O OS U il«S C XlTia 06 3o9oo«ooo*a«soooeoo« JL^^ WATER PROJECT EVALUATION . .,..,... ... ,.0 . l4 U* 0116X^3 xOr^lU^X^jLS. 9e o o o o o o o 00 o o oo • o o o « -^!? Economic Justification o.. .... o . o o , ... o . 17 Irrigation Benefits » , . o o . . . o o , , » . . . I8 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Flood Control Benefits . , 21 Recreation Benefits . c , . 22 Stream Recreation Benefits . , o 24 Reservoir Recreation Benefits ......... 26 Financial Feasibility .....,....<,. o.«,.. 27 Cost Allocation ...<,....,., 2? Ability to Pay Reimbursable Costs . « 29 Repayment ..,.«<. » 30 EFFECTS OF UPSTREAM RESERVOIRS ON OPERATION OF OROVILLE RESERVOIR o „ . , , c „ o . . . 30 STATE WATER RIGHTS AND FEDERAL POWER PERMITS o . . , , . 31 Water Right Applications <. <> . « » . o , = o . » . . . , 33 Richvale Irrigation District o . o » » <. o « . ., . o 33 Department of Finance Applications , „ . . o . » . o 40 Applications Pending Before Federal Power Commission „ . 42 CHAPTER Ille FRENCHMAN AND GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECTS ... 4? O X XTT1& U Q ••o*oo»«ooo«o«oo»eoeo9 ^f « « o • ■> ooooo*oo*oo Land Use . Population Natural and Economic Resources Transportation o , . o . . . c Need for Project Development „ „ . ii 49 50 50 51 51 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Local Cooperation 32 Present and Future Water Use 53 FRENCHMAN PROJECT 54 Plan of Development 54 Service Area 55 General Features of Project 55 Project Water Yield .... 58 Economic Justification 59 Primary Benefits 60 OOt^XrO •oooooooeoee*«o«eo«o««« W^ Benefit-Cost Ratio 6l Cost Allocation . . . . 62 Proposed Method of Financing 63 Conclusions 64 Recommendations * 64 GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECT 65 Plan of Development 65 Service Area • 66 General Features of Project 66 Project Water Yield , 70 Economic Justification 70 Primary Benefits 70 Costs 71 Benefit-Cost Ratio 73 Cost Allocation 73 Proposed Method of Financing 7^ 111 TABLE OP CONTENTS (continued) Page Conclusions .o..<....«o«.oo. ..<....». 7^ Reconunendations . ♦ . » 75 CHAPTER IV. ALTERNATIVE GRIZZLY VAIiLEY RECREATION PROJECT ..»,.,.... 77 Climate . . o . . . « o o 78 Land Use «..„«, o.e.... .«.. 78 Population ,„c..o • 78 i. rsixispor wS wiori oooo*9o**o«tt««-««c*c rO Need for Project Development . e . o .»,....». . 79 Plan of Development .». o ......,.<,. o .». ♦ 79 General Features of Project „,.,»»«o<.o.. 80 Project Water Yield »o„c«c«oeo..<..«. 82 Economic Justification .,,6.e<.T,.o<.«.».oe.. 82 Primary Benefits ,oo.«oo.o<,oo...,o» 83 Benefit-Cost Ratio . , » . . o' . , <. . « . . « o . 85 00 Sv AJL J.OC a vILOrl Qoo*oDeooooooe*oo«tf(»« O^ Public Policy Considerations ..,.»« ...» ... . 85 Recommendations .,,«..»., o ..»»<-•-.... = 87 CHAPTER V. INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PROJECT . , 89 Project Area .»...» ...... 89 Jr OpiAXa U ion o«ooooao--ooo9«eooo«oa* J?^ TransDortation o ,, .0. o . .00 ....... » 91 Iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Need for Project Development „, ,,o ..<,<, o ,,, o , 91 Plan of Development ,, oo ..c <,,.,,.,.„ = ,, o 91 General Features of Project , o . . . » , « . , . . , 92 Antelope Valley Dam and Reservoir , o . , . , , . 92 Abbey Bridge Dam and Reservoir . , , , , o » . , 97 Dixie Refuge Dam and Reservoir „ „ „ . , . , « . 99 Project Water Yield ,„,„,,,,,,., o o ..o . 101 Economic Justification „„,.,,...,,,'.„,.,, 101 Primary Benefits „,,,,„,., ,,.o, o <. <,o , 102 Benefit-Cost Ratio „ » , , , . » » o . . . , . , . » . 104 wOSo 3xJ.0C3.wl0n ooj0O9O*oooe*O0O9«ea99 JLUt" Proposed Method of Financing o. o,, o .=,.,, o » . 104 '"'UXi^J.UiOJ.OIlOo © o • » O O • O O O « O O * • • « » O O O O Xv^ Recommendations o.o...oa».«o».o,o.,o., 106 CHAPTER VI, SUMMARY OF POLICY ASSUMPTIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS „ , . o . , 107 Policy Assumptions ,, o .<,<,,,,,<, o ,.»,,., , 108 V-'UXiOXUoXOIlOo O 9 O O O 9 O O O O O » O O O O • • 9 O O O Xv^ Recommendations „»»ooooo.,oooo«o.o,,o, 113 APPENDIXES A Evaluation of Recreation Benefit From Five Proposed Res- ervoirs in Upper Feather River Basin, Prepared by: Harold F, Wise & Associates, Consultants » » » , . <. 115 C Opinion of Legislative Counsel, Authorization of Upper Feather River Service Area Features o <. , « , , . . , 129 TABLES Table No, Page 1 Design Flood Inflows fco and Dlsi;harges From Reservoirs of Lnitlal Units of Upper Feather -' River Basin Developraent r..o<.o..c.. 7 2 Water Supply Available to Initial Units of Upper Feather River Basin Development . « . ., . . . 8 3 Average Annual Recreation Visitor-Days and Bene- fits of Initial Units of Upper Feather River Basin Development . . » o - o . o . . . . . , 28 4 Effects of Upstream Reservoirs on Operation of Oroville Reservoir .« o.e o»o <,.... . 32 5 Major Applications to Appropriate Watper on North and Mddle Forks of Feather River and Tributaries Above Oroville Dam Site > Excluding West Branch of North Pork > . » „ o o o c o . 3^ 6 General Features of Freachraan Pro jest , « , . , 57 7 Estimated Beneficial Use of Irrigation Water, Frencliman Project Service Area , „ „ o o » o . 59 8 Estimated Average Annxial Net Benefits, Frenchman 9 Estimated Costs of Frenchman Project . . „ o , , 62 10 Allocation of Arjiual Costs of Frenchman Project. 63 11 General Features of Grizzly Valley Project o . . 68 12 Proposed Seasonal DJ.strib'Jition of Irrigation Water^ Griszly Valley Project o . . 70 13 Estima.ted Average Annual Net Benefits, Grizzly 14 Estimated Costs of Grizzly Valley Project , . . 72 15 Allocation of .Annual Costs of Grizzly Valley 16 General Fea.tures of A.lternatlve Grizzly Valley Recreation Project ,oo....eoooooo 8l 17 Con^arlson of Flows in Middle Pork Feather Rlvei) With and Without Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project, for Critical Dry Year OX -Ly^J- •n«oKo«oo*o« .•••••« Oj vi TABLES (continued) Table No. Page 18 Estimated Average Annu.al Net Benefits, Alterna- tive Grizzly Valley Recreation Project ... 83 19 Estimated Costs of Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project 85 20 General Features of Indian Greek Recreation Project 93 21 Comparison of Plows in Indian, Last Chance, and Red Clover Creeks During Minimum Dry Season of 1930-31 With Average Pre-project and Proj- ect Flow Conditions, Indian Creek Recreation Project 102 22 Estimated Average Annual Net Benefits, Indian Creek Recreation Project IO3 23 Estimated Costs of Indian Creek Recreation Project 105 24 Summary of General Features of Initial Units of Upper Feather River Basin Development . , 110 25 Summary of Benefits and Costs of Initial Units of Upper Feather River Basin Development . . Ill PHOTOGRAPHS Indian Creek Recreation Area Frontispiece Frenchman Reservoir Area Facing 54 Little Last Chance Creek Canyon Below Frenchman Reservoir Facing 54 Grizzly Valley Reservoir Area Facing 66 Sierra Valley - Service Area of Grizzly Valley and Frenchman Projects Pacing 66 Antelope Valley Reservoir Area Pacing 78 Middle Pork Feather River Below Grizzly Valley Reservoir Pacing 78 Dixie Refuge Reservoir Area Pacing 96 Abbey Bridge Reservoir Area Facing 96 vii PLATES Plate No. Page 1 Place of Residence of Anglers Pishing Feather River Basin Streams, 1956 Pacing 24 2 Proposed Projects ... Following 113 3 Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects . . . Following 113 4 Indian Creek Recreation Project Following 113 viii VEY O. BANKS DiNKCTOn GOODWIN J. KNIGHT GOVIRNON ADDRESS REPLY TO P. o. BOX io7a Sacramento S II20N STREET SI LSCRT 2-471 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bp]jartm^nt of Wain ^A^BmrttB SACRAMENTO February 1, 1957 Honorable Goodvjln J. lOilght, Governor, and Members of the Legislature of the State of California Gentlemen: There Is transmitted herev/lth Bulletin No. 59 of the Department of VJater Resources, entitled "Investi- gation of Upper Feather River Basin Development, Interim Report on Engineering, Economic, and Financial Feasibility of Initial Units". This is a report of the investigation conducted as authorized by the Legislature in Item 223.1 of the Budget Act of I956. Bulletin No. 59 contains results of studies show- ing that the Frenchman Project, the Grizzly Valley Project, and the Indian Creek Recreation Project are engineerlngly feasible and economically justified. Based upon the assump- tions made in the report as to financing, policy for which has not been established by the Legislature, the projects would be financially feasible. Recommendations are included, with certain quali- fications, for the appropriation of funds to be expended on these projects to complete the acquisition of lands, ease- ments, and rights of way, prepare construction plans and specifications, and relocate public utilities. Very truly yours. HARVEY '0. BANKS Director ix ACKT^IOWLEDGMENT Valuable assistance and data used in this investigation were contributed by agencies of the State andi Federal Governments^ Plumas County^ public districts J and by private companies and individuals. This cooperation is gratefully acknowledged. Special mention is also made of the help- ful cooperation of the State Department of .Fish and Gam.e., State Division of Beaches and Parks, Plumas County Water Resources Board, Plumas County Board of Supervisors, Plumas County Chamber of Commerce, Last Chance Creek Water District^ and E, B, Bond, Agricul- tural Commissioner, and Alton Young, Farm Advisor, both of Plumas and Sierra Counties. ORGANIZATION DEPARTMENT OF WATER IffiSOURCES Harvey 0. Banks , . Director, Department of 'Water Resources William L. Berry . , . . c « . . Chief , Division of Resources Planning John M» Haley ., . . . Chief, Project Development Branch This report xvas prepared under the supervision of William L, Horn Chief, Local Project Section M, Guy Pairchild William B. Shaw , , David M. Hill , . , Roderlc L. Hill « , Ed V. Dwyer . , , . Jean H, Jaquith , . John W. Masier , o . Richard E. Slyfield by and Senior Hydraulic Engineer , o Senior Hydraulic Engineer Senior Engineering Geologist , , o , o o Senior Economist Associate Fisheries Biologist Associate Hydraulic Engineer Associate Hydraulic Engineer Associate Hydraulic Engineer Assistance was furnished by Sam Lo S Beverly Thais U. Donald A James C, John E, Theodore Philip H Bernard Roger W, Frank C, Richard Prank D, Dale R, David L. John L, tringfield H. Hoffmaster Johnson , , Ralph . o o Scheler . . Stellwagen P, Vande Sande Shedd, Jr, L, Aarons , , Hail „ . . . Kresse „ o » L. Summers , Hennagin , , Hulbert o » « Tucker , , . James ^ , . . Associate Hydraulic Engineer Assistant Hydraulic Engineer Assistant Hydraulic Engineer Assistant Hydraulic Engineer Assistant Hydraulic Engineer Assistant Hydraulic Engineer , . . Assistant Civil Engineer , , o . o Junior Civil Engineer Junior Engineering Geologist Junior Engineering Geologist Junior Engineering Geologist ,00000 Engineering Aid II , , , o c , . Engineering Aid I . „ , . . o o Engineering Aid I ,000,00 Engineering Aid I Supervisor, of Drafting Services Consultants Frederick L. Hotes . , . . Elmer C„ Marliave . , . . . Harold F. V/ise & Associates . , . Consulting Hydraulic Engineer Consulting Engineering Geologist Economic and Recreational Planners xl The following pers'onnel of the Department have given ''' special assistance to Dhases of the investigation i To Pi. Merryvjeather , . . « . o . <> =. Chief, Division of Administration Walter A. Brown . . Principal Engineer, Design and Construction of Dams William Ro Gianelli , . c o , . . » c o o . Chief, Water Rights Section Laurence Bo James « , o » « . o . . o , » o « o <. o » o Chief Geologist Tracy L. Atherton ooooo „.oooo. Topographic Engineer Norman D. Sturm o<>oooooo.o.oo.o<,oo<, Economic Analyst Isabel Co Nessler .oo.ooo.oooooo. Coordinator of Reports Leno:?e N. Case a.ooe«o<.oo,oo.o Senior Stenographer-Clerk H. Arlene Stevens o . » . . o . « o . = Intermediate Stenographer-Clerk Elinor Ao Kneppel .<,o.,»o.o»ooo. Inteamediate Typist-Clerk xii ORGANIZATION STATE WATER BOARD Clair A. Hill, Chairman, Redding A, Frew, Vice Chairman, King City John P. Bunker, Gustlne W„ P. Rich, Marysvllle Everett L. Grubb, Elslnore Phil D. Swing, San Diego Kenneth Q. Volk, -Los Angeles •--0- Sam R. Leedom, Administrative Assistant xili CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION In April, 1955^ the Division of Water Resources Issued a report entitled "Report on Upper Feather River Service Area". As a result of the findings of this report and subsequent legislative hearings on the subject, the 1956 Session of the California Legis- lature included as Item 223.1 the following appropriation. For completion of engineering and geological inves- tigations, studies, and reports with recommendations for a construction program for multipurpose water development and flood control projects in the Upper Feather River Service Area, Division of Water Resources, Department of Public V/orks ... $385,000." The Department of Water Resources, as successor to the Division of Water Resources, has had the responsibility of carrying out the intent of this legislation. The Upper Feather River Service Area, as defined in the April, 1955j. report, encompassed the drainage area of the Feather River above Oroville Reservoir, together with those adjacent lands v;hose most apparent source of supplemental vrater supply is from the Feather River system above Oroville Reservoir. The service area boundary is shovm on Plate 2, entitled 'Proposed Projects". Hov;ever, since development plans for the waters of the South Fork of the Feather River are presently the subject of negotiations among several parties, including the State of California, the South Fork area was excluded from the present investigations. Accordingly, the studies covered the drainage areas of the North and Middle Forks of the Feather River above Oroville Reservoir. This area embraces some 2,160,000 acres, most of which is in Plumas County, but also in- cludes substantial acreages in Sierra, Lassen, and Butte Counties. Principal present uses of v;ater viithin the Upper Feather River Service Area are for irrigation, urban, and recreational -1- purposes, and for the production of hydroelectric energy. Some in- dustrial uses exist. The 1955 report presented the results of ex- tensive studies of present and possible ultimate land and water uses, which indicated that potential development within the area might require four times as much water as is presently being used. The same report also set forth several possible methods of devel- oping the water resources of the region, together with preliminary cost estimates of these projects. Objectives of Present Investigations The present studies are the next logical step in the de- velopment of plans for optimum use of the water resources of the Upper Feather River Basin. The basic objectives of these investi- gations are to: 1. Obtain additional engineering and geological data required for the preparation of detailed cost estimates of projects. These estimates must be of a reliability such that they can be used as a basis for project financing. This in turn requires that the design of structures and facilities be in greater detail than in the April, 1955> report, but not in as much detail as required for construc- tion drawings. 2. Develop the most economical plan for each project. 3. Determine the types and extent of the benefits to be obtained from each project. 4. Make an economic analysis of the benefits and costs of each project to determine economic justification. 5. Allocate the costs of each project equitably among the purposes served to determine financial feasibility. 6. Recommend a program of construction for those projects that are found feasible. Scope of Report In July, 1956, geologic investigations and mapping opera- tions were initiated at dam sites in the uppermost portion of the basin. Because of time limitations, efforts were primarily concen- trated on those projects previously recommended for Inclusion in the Feather River Project, as set forth in the Division of Water Resources report, "Program for Financing and Constructing the Feather River Project as the Initial Unit of The California Water Plan'', dated February, 1955- These dams and reservoirs have been designated as the initial units of the Upper Feather River Basin Development. They include the Antelope Valley, Dixie Refuge, and Abbey Bridge Dams and Reservoirs, which have been designated col- lectively the "Indian Creek Recreation Project". The initial units also include Frenchman Reservoir, which would provide supplemental irrigation water to the Last Chance Creek service area, and which has been designated the "Frenchman Project". The remaining initial unit is the Grizzly Valley Project, which could be operated primar- ily to provide an irrigation water supply to Sierra Valley, or could, as an alternative, be operated to provide water to enhance the recreational potential of the Middle Fork of the Feather River, All of the initial projects would provide at-site settings for rec- reational development. A limited amount of incidental flood control would result from construction of the dams, and all of the reser- voirs would, to a limited degree, regulate the flows entering the authorized Oroville Reservoir. This report presents the results of studies to determine the engineering feasibility, economic justification, and financial feasibility of the initial projects mentioned. It also includes recommendations concerning the additional funds necessary to initi- ate a program of design and construction for the projects found feasible and justified in the Upper Feather River Service Area. -3- CHAPTER II. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The "Report on Upper Feather River Service Area", submitted in April, 1955^ provided a basis for developing plans for optimum use of water in the basin„ However, considerable additional engi- neering, geologic, and economic work was required before complete engineering and economic analyses could be made. Likewise, proper planning required that consideration be given to the effects of the initial projects on existing and proposed future works on the North and Middle Porks of the Feather River, These subjects are consid- ered and evaluated under the general headings, "Investigations and Design Procedures", "Water Project Evaluation", "Effects of Upstream Reservoirs on Operation of Oroville Reservoir", and "State Water Rights and Federal Power Permits" <, INVESTIGATIONS AND DESIGN PROCEDURES Following is a brief statement of the work that was done, and the general criteria that were applied to all projects for each of the major aspects of the planning program. Greater detail is contained in office reports retained in the files of the Department of Water Resources, Water Supply Runoff from the upper drainage basins of the Feather River is derived largely from melting snow, with the major portion of the seasonal runoff occurring during the late spring and early summer months. By late summer and early fall, these streams have reached their seasonal minimum and are sustained only by springs and areas of effluent seepage. The resulting seasonal runoff pattern is one -5- of concentrated winter and spring floods and meager sununer flows. In addition to these intraseasonal cyclic fluctuations, runoff var- ies from season to season, dependent upon the amount of seasonal precipitation. The water supply available for development by each proj- ect was estimated by natural flow correlations between records of stream flow at the dam sites, when available, and records of com- parable nearby streams having records for the desired period. Separate correlations were made for each month of the year in order to establish the strongest estimate possible for the intraseasonal variation, and to make maximum use of the limited data. Impaired flows under project conditions were computed by correcting the estimated natural flows by the consumptive requirements of upstream lands having present water rights. The reservoirs proposed in this report would provide the necessary storage capacity to equalize ir- regularities in natural flow so that xvater would be available for use at the times and in the quantities which would allow its most effective utilization. Operation studies were made to determine this dependable quantity of flow. The period of operation chosen was October, 191I through September, 1956. Operation studies for storage reservoirs providing sup- plemental water for irrigation were made on a monthly basis, allow- ing a maximum deficiency of 50 per cent of the firm yield in one year of the 45-year operation period. Recent experiences in this area as well as other irrigated areas producing similar crops have indicated that a substantial water supply deficiency on rare occa- sions can be withstood without serious damage to either the crops or the economy of tne area. Recreation reservoirs were also -6- operated on a monthly basis but without a deficiency allowance. Storage -development curves were derived using a graphical mass curve technique, for which water supply and demand were expressed as ac- cumulated departure from mean seasonal water supply. Yields from reservoirs were corrected for evaporation. It was estimated that sedimentation in the reservoirs would cause no appreciable loss in yield during the 50-year life of the projects, because of the low annual sedimentation rate and the relatively large amount of dead storage space recommended. Losses to hydrophytes in and adjacent to the reservoirs is expected to be small because of the water sur- face fluctuations. Spillway design flood hydrographs were developed from a regional study of flood frequencies and unit hydrographs. The once- in-a-thousand-year flood was selected as the design flood. The in- flow hydrograph was then routed through the reservoir of study to determine the resultant surcharge storage and spillway discharge during critical conditions. Table 1 presents the resultant criti- cal flood discharges for each reservoir, and Table 2 the pertinent water supply data for the projects. TABLE 1 DESIGN FLOOD INFLOWS TO AND DISCHARGES PROM RESERVOIRS OF INITIAL UnitS OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT (in second -feet) : Estimated : Computed spill- Reservoir : peak Inflow : way discharge Frenchman 9,S00 5,700 Grizzly Valley 10^300 3,100 Abbey Bridge 10,500 7,800 Antelope Valley 9,100 3,430 Dixie Refuge 4,900 2,300 fc o E-" CO S E-i H M S 5 o i-i ^^ M W E- « M s s M M CO CM O < E-i PQ r-^3 1—1 la Ci PQ l-H M < 5p; ►^ « M -a; K > (x3 •a; E E-< t>H < ^g a. t= « CO w cu gfe H . «a; -p T-l (0 <^ I ^ C! o o rH O -P 0) 0) tH C I M dJ U o So o (t) rH .a H -H 0) M P CO Jh Tl •H C O cd ^ c fll rf CO W Q) e 0) p M o o <^ 9 o C3\ CO C\J iH P Q) o rH -P -p •H O o c 0) -p o Q) E o C (D o o CA rH 5 CN r-H ; en CM r-i o o o o o o ff A t- lA CM CM 0) ?-. CJ> •H in c: bo •H CQ (U rH l-\ CO > -P o 0) •ri O 0) rH rH CO > f-{ N C4 •H C^ o o O Q o \D CK i» H c N o N •H •H HJ t^ CO C5 0) {» t> > 0) •H « -P -P CC t>» o C 0) a> tl H ••-3 0) rH o •P rH CO > A << 0) bo ■o •H U CQ a> M3 O O O O \A lA ■LA CM CM cn CJ\ U CJ § O ^ H CJ s O •H -P ■a T) CO Q) C CO te M H^ 03 rH rH to > Q) a o rH Q) P I CO (D J-. O « -P a: o ^H o •H O C -P 0) bo Q) •H Q -8- Water Requirements Demands for water from the projects studied herein are for the irrigation of agricultural lands, and for the maintenance of stream flow for fishing and recreational purposes. Another type of demand involves limitation on reservoir fluctuations in order to enhance at-site recreational values. Reservoir operation for this purpose reduces the amount of water available for other uses, and hence must be considered as a water demand. Irrigation requirements were based on results of previous studies by the Division of Water Resources in Sierra and Indian Valleys. Earlier determinations of stream flow maintenance requirements were re-evaluated in light of additional data and surveys by personnel of the Department of Fish and Game . Irrigation Requirements Water requirements for agricultural lands in Sierra and Indian Valleys were estimated by multiplying the acreage of each type of projected land use by its respective unit value of con- sumptive use of applied water. Although present irrigation prac- tices Indicate that the individual farm application is about twice the consumptive use, systematic re-use of the water as it passes through the service area makes possible an efficiency of about 75 per cent in Sierra Valley and about 60 per cent in Indian Valley. Based on these data, the seasonal irrigation requirement was esti- mated to be 2.4 acre-feet per acre in Sierra Valley and 3-0 acre- feet in Indian Valley. The estimated average monthly distribution of demand for irrigation water, measured in terms of per cent of seasonal total, was as follows: May, 3 per cent; June, 21 per cent; -9- July, 34 per cant; August, 30 per cent; and September, 12 per cent. Recreation Reculrements Construction of reservoirs in the Upper Feather River Ba- sin would increase the opportunities for stream fishing, camping, picnicking, and watersports such as swimming, boating, and water skiing. In addition to increasing the opportunities for these activities, the construction of reservoirs would markedly improve the scenic value of the area. Criteria for stream flow maintenance were based upon con- siderations of streamside recreation as well as the improvement of angling conditions. Optimum stream flow would cover riffles and bars sufficiently to provide food and shelter for fish, maintain a suitable velocity, and provide an attractive setting for streamside recr-eationists . The allowable depletion of recreation reservoir storage for stream flow maintenance purposes v;as also influenced by the effect of fluctuation on the recreational potential of the reservoir and its peripheral area. Consideration vras given to such factors as water surface fluctuation and area, minimum depth of water, and shore line location. The estimated average monthly demands for stream flow maintenance were computed on a continuous flow basis. The year was divided into tv/o parts: the recreation use season. May through October; and the nonuse season, November thr'ough April. Flov/s for the nonuse season were taken as one-half those for the recreation use season. -10- Surveys and Maps Topographic maps of the reservoir areas and dam sites of Abbey Bridge, Dixie Refuge, and Antelope Valley, as well as the dam sites of Frenchman and Grizzly Valley, were obtained by aerial photo- grammetric methods. This work was done in the fall of 1956 by a commercial firm under contract to the Department of Water Resources, Reservoir maps were produced at a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, with a contour interval of 10 feet. Dam site maps were made at a scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet, with a contour interval of 5 feet. Topographic maps of Frenchman and Grizzly Valley reservoir areas were furnished by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. These maps were produced by photogrammetric methods in 19^6, at a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, with a contour interval of 10 feet, A route survey of a major portion of a preliminary canal location for the Grizzly Valley Project, from the pond at Walton's Grizzly Lodge to the service area in Sierra Valley, was conducted by plane table methods during the course of this investigation. Other maps utilized were United States Geological Survey quadrangles, at a scale of 1:62,500, with a contour interval of 40 feet, and Plumas County Assessor's property ownership maps. Geological Exploration Geological exploration for each of the proposed dams v;as divided into tv;o phases — foundation exploration of the dam site, and exploration for suitable construction materials. -11- Foundation Exploration The surface geologic features at each dam site v/ei'e studied and mapped. The types of bedrock, degl»ee of weathering, patterns of jointing, shear zones, and their effects on dam design and sta- bility were studied. The subsurface geologic conditions v;ere in- vestigated by exploratory drilling using diamond bits with an Nx core barrel. The cores obtained from the bedrock were logged, not- ing rock types, vieathering, jointing, etc. The possibility of leakage through the bedrock under each proposed dam vras tested by injecting water under pressure into sealed portions of the drill holes and measuring the amount of vrater lost into the joints and shear zones. Some additional subsurface geologic information was made available at two of the sites by using a bulldozer to strip off some of the overburden. At the Frenchman dam site, five diamond drill core holes, totaling 410.9 feet, were completed by a contractor. By using a bulldozer, the form.ation underlying a saddle in the left abutment was exposed for study. At the Grizzly Valley dam site, 12 explor- atory holes, totaling 743-7 feet, were completed. Four of the holes ivere drilled by a contractor, and the remainder by Department equipm.ent . Eight holes with s total footage of 19^.8 feet were completed at the Dixie Refuge dam site. A bulldozer was utilized in exploring the abutment slopes at that site. Six holes, total- ing 174.6 feet, were drilled at the Antelope Valley dam. site, and four holes, totaling 108.4 feet, vjere completed at the Abbey Bridge dam site before heavy snov; necessitated the withdrawal of Department drilling equipment. -12- Exploration for Construction Materials This phase of the Investigation was begun with a recon- naissance of the area around each dam site to prospect for suitable borrow materials. A preliminary field classification of the mater- ials was made^ and the potential borrow areas were outlined on topographic maps. Depths of the deposits were measured In erosion cuts and by drilling test holes. Samples of the various materials were obtained by pick and shovel^ hand auger, or power-driven flight auger; the method used being determined by terrain and accessibility. The samples were tested by the Hydraulic Engineer- ing Laboratory of the Department to determine suitability of the various materials for use in dam construction. Tests of various types were conducted on 52 of the soil samples collected in the field. During exploration for borrow, 50 holes vjere drilled vilth a total footage of approximately 900 feet. Design and Cost of Structures Extensive field investigations and detailed office analy- ses were the bases for the design and estimates of cost of struc- tures proposed as features of the various projects. The designs and estimates are believed to be of a reliability such that project financing can be based upon the costs derived, although they are not of a detail suitable for construction plans and specifications. Designs All structures were designed In accordance with standard engineering principles, with the objective of obtaining the most economical combination of dam embankment, spillway, and outlet works. The dams were designed to be constructed of available -13- natural material, with adaqviate consideration being given to founda- tion conditions. Stability characteristics of the embankments were based on laboratory tests of sampled material. Spillways were sized to pass the design flood when routed through the reservoir, using surcharge storage above the spillway crest to reduce the peak inflow, The service canal from Big Grizzly Creek to Sierra Valley was designed so that the hydraulic grade line vjould be in natural ground. Various types of lining were considered, and the most economical was chosen. Cost Estimates Capital costs of dams, diversion works, conduits, and appurtenances were based on quantities estimated from design data. Unit prices of items were determined from recent bid data on simi- lar projects and from manufacturers' cost items, and are considered representative of prices prevailing in the fall of 1956. The esti- mates of capital cost include: interest during the construction period at 3 per cent per annum; costs of geologic investigation, administration, engineering, and supervision during construction, which would amount to 15 per cent of the field cost of dams and appurtenances and 10 per cent of the field costs of canals; and an fii'^w-^rce of 15 per cent of all field costs to cover contingencies. WAT ER PROJECT EVALUATION Great competition exists for the investment of both pub- lic and private funds in the development of the many facets of our national economy. The public interest demands that the available funds be applied in such a manner as to bring maximum returns for -14- the moneys, resources, and energies expended. This requirement can be met only by a critical evaluation of each proposed project. A proper evaluation of any project requires balanced consideration of (l) an economic appraisal of those benefits and costs which are rea- sonably measurable in monetary terms, and (2) all values not mea- surable in monetary terms. A detailed discussion of the principles and procedures of water project evaluation is beyond the scope of this report. A more extensive explanation is contained in the report dated Novem- ber 9, 1956, entitled 'Views of the California Department of Water Resources on United States Senate Resolution 28l, 84th Congress, 2nd Session". Where applicable, the principles set forth in that report have been followed in these studies. General Criteria A proposed water project should satisfy at least the re- quirements of (1) engineering feasibility, (2) economic justifica- tion, and (3) financial feasibility. A project meets the test of engineering feasibility if: 1. It can be built with available materials and tech- niques, and at a reasonable cost. 2. Sites for the dam, reservoir, and other facilities are geologically suitable. 3- The proposed structures are sound and functionally sufficient . 4. The water supply is adequate in quantity and quality. 5. The soil and climate are suitable for irrigated agri- culture, when this is a project function. 6. It makes the best use of the natural environment. 7. It Is the best of the known possible alternatives. -15- 8. It permits maximum use of the available water and other natural resources. 9. Future opportunities for development have been con- sidered. Some of these cr'iteria must be initially considered in a rather broad sense, further refinement being made during the final design stages. A project may be considered economically justified if the benefits to ensue therefrom can be demonstrated to be in excess of the costs to be incurred in its design, construction, and operation. A comparison of these benefits and costs, commonly knovm as a benefit- cost analysis, and expressed in terms of a benefit-cost ratio, is usually the best single criterion for the comparison of two or more projects. It is not the sole criterion,, however, for such a ratio cannot adequately reflect many intangible benefits and/or detriments which may be of substantial significance in some cases. For a project to be financially feasible, it must be dem- onstrated that there is reasonable assurance that the necessary funds to finance the project can be obtained. This means that tax- payers must be able to pay those costs that are considered to be legitimately in the province of the public interest, and that the water users must be able to repay costs considered to be contribu- tor^- to their direct personal economic gain. In addition to these criteria there is another important requirement that must ultimately be met. The people must be will- ing to pay the costs. Unless there is adequate support for the project, it may fail before, during, or after construction. The determination of this item rests with the water users and with the responsible governmental bodies involved. However, some thought -16- must be given to willingness to pay in the determination of finan- cial feasibility. All projects described in this report have been evaluated from a broad public viewpoint, and in accordance vjith the first three criteria just discussed. All projects have been found to be physically feasible. Only those .that have been demonstrated to be economically justified and financially feasible are recommended for construction. Economic Justification Economic justification was based on the requirements that project benefits exceed project costs, and that each separable seg- ment or purpose of a multipurpose project provide benefits at least equal to its costs. In making the justification analyses only tangible primary benefits were used. A tangible benefit is one that can be adequately expressed in monetary terms, whereas an in- tangible benefit, although real, cannot be so measured. A primary benefit is the net gain or value realized directly from the proj- ect. A secondary benefit is the net gain or value added, over and above the values of the primary benefit, due to processing or other activities that enhance the value of the original product or bene- fits. In the final selection of projects, consideration was also given to secondary and intangible benefits. Benefits of the proposed projects accrue primarily from new irrigation supplies, flood control, and new recreation oppor- tunities. These will be independently discussed in the following sections. -17- Each project was selected and sized to provide the most economical means of accomplishing its purpose^ and to return the maximum net benefit. The optimum size of the irrigation projects vjas considered to be that at which the incremental benefit just equaled the, incremental cost, as determined by consideration of primary costs and primary flood control and irrigation benefits. Recreation benefits from multipurpose projects, although considered to be primary in nature, were not used in sizing studies, due to the difficulty in determining the relatively small change in recre- ational values for different reservoir sizes. The nature of recreation benefits is such that a detailed economic sizing study could not be made for reservoirs whose prin- cipal use would be for recreation purposes. The size,, therefore, vras based on consideration of reservoir depths to m.aintain optimum water temperatures for fish life and plants for fish food^ water jrlelds to maintain adequate flows at proper temperatures for fish in dovmstream channels, minimum cost per acre of reservoir water surface, length of shore line and preservation of natural shore line features, and location of natural features affecting placement of structures. Conflicting considerations were balanced against each other within established limits to estimate project size and oporf. cion which would provide the maximum total benefit. Irrigation Benefits Irrigation water is essential for successful crop produc- tion in agricultural areas of the Upper Feather River Basin, The agricultural lands are for the most part located in Sierra Valley along the upper Middle Fork of the Feather River, and in Indian -18- Valley on the upper tributary system of the North Fork. Present ir- rigation development in these areas reflects maximum use of the available surface water, supplemented by limited ground water pump- ing. Water made available from project facilities would comprise both reregulated present flows and a partial new supply, compared with present use. In either case, project water released for down- stream use in Sierra and Indian Valleys during the irrigation sea- son would provide a basis for increased agricultural income to local ranchers. The portion of such incremental income which would be net over associated costs would represent the measure of benefit to the irrigation water users from the project, and provide the basis for repayment of project costs allocated to the irrigation function. There is ample reason to believe that the purposes served by project water would represent a continuation of established prac- tices under an expanded program of operation which would permit fuller utilization of the productive potential of irrigable land. This in turn vrould result in an increase in the number of beef ani- mals which could be supported by locally produced forage. While it is infeasible to attempt to identify a given quantity of project water with a specific forage crop as a method of value measurement, there are at least tv;o suitable approaches to the problem of deter- mining its benefit to the area of use. The most simplified procedure which is appropriate for use in measuring the income-producing potential of project water involves assignment of an increment of yield of a given forage crop per unit of new water. Baled meadow hay is an agricultural com- modity commonly produced under irrigation in the Upper Feather River Basin, and is considered suitable for use in this analysis. Data -19- compiled through local intervlevjs indicate an approximate ptKiduction of one ton oi" meadow hay per irrigated acre^ based on an average present seasonal consumptive use of about 0.9 acre-foot per acre of irrigation water. With project water available in an amount which would permit full consumptive use (l.8 acrg-feet per acre per sea- son) under an irrigation scl-^dule appropriate to the area, there appears little doubt but that an additional yield of from 1.5 to 2 tons of hay per acre would be obtained. Prom this comparison it was concluded that each acre-foot of project water applied to meadow hay land would show an average incremental yield of 1.5 tons of hay. Based on the 10-year period 15^-6''1955j the gross value of locally produced baled meadovc hay was taken to be $20 per tcn^ its cost of production was estimated at $13. 25^ and the resultant net value component at $6.75 per ton. The benefit derived by the water users would therefore be $10 per acre-foot of project water if it were used for hay production. The ether approach to irrigation benefit measurement V7hlch is appropriate for this analysis involves assignment of an increment of yield in beef^, the commodity which embodies the com- bined effect of all the factors of production, including irrigation i'c, in agricultural enterprises typical of the basin. The appli- cation of this approach rects on the assumption that sufficient project water would be available to achieve maximum use of estimated soil productivity within livestock enterprises reflecting a balanced relationship among different categories of forage. Based on average prices and costs prevailing during the period 19^6-1955^ this approach results in an incremental beef yield which, when expressed in monetary terms, establishes $8 per acre-foot as the net value of Irrigation water to project beneficiaries. -20- The two methods employed in measuring the inconte-producing potential of each unit of irrigation water to be made available by the project show a range within which its actual future net value to Irrigators most likely may be expected to fall. Therefore, the midpoint of this range, or $9 per acre-foot, was taken to be a rea- sonable measure of the average annual primary irrigation benefit which may be expected to accrue to project development. Project water would in a sense supplement existing supplies, and the serv- ice areas are capable of making Immediate use of it without a pro- longed development period. Therefore, this annual benefit v;as considered to represent an annual value for purposes of benefit- cost comparison in the determination of economic justification. Flood Control Benefits Although some degree of flood control in downstream reaches would probably accmae from each of the projects proposed in this report, the annual benefits are relatively insignificant in most cases, due to the small proportion of the total runoff which can be controlled, and the relatively small amount of damage under present conditions. Frenchman Reservoir, however, would provide a significant degree of flood control along Little Last Chance Creek where it flows through Sierra Valley. Flood con- trol benefits in this area were evaluated as described below. The value of incidental flood control benefits achieved from reservoir storage was assumed to be the difference between the monetary loss from damages under present conditions and the losses from damages under project conditions. Damage accounts for the majority of losses and occurs mainly to agricultural lands in the form of stream bank and sheet erosion; from deposition of debris -21- in channels^, ditches, and fields; loss of irrigation structures and fences; and inundation of meadow lands. A survey was made of dam- ages from recent floods by Inter-.:! swing farm owners and local offi- cials in the flood area. The 1935 ficcdj the largest in recent time, provided most of the flood damage data. These damages, together with their respective flood flows, were utilised to establish a flow-damage relationship for the area subject to flooding. Probable flood flows ui-der project conditions were esti- mated from flood routing studies, with surcharge storage above the spillway crest utilized for flood control. Inflow hydrographs of various frequencies were derived from unit hydrographs and flow- frequency curves estimated from stream flow records. After being routed through the reservoir, these estimates of flood flows were applied ro the previously established flow-damage relationship to estimate damages under project conditions. Plow-frequency relationships under both present and proj- ect conditions were combined with flov.r-damage data to estimate aver- age annual damages. The difference between the average annual damage under present and project conditions was taken as the measure of the average annual flood control benefit from the project. Becreati on Bene fits No really satisfactory method of converting recreation values to monetary terms had ever been derived when work commenced on this investigation. Among those agencies having occasion to evaluate recreation benefits, the usual practice in the past has been either to use some arbitral^ method of conversion, or to leave these benefits expressed in other than monetary terms. In the case -22- of the Upper Feather River Project ^ however., some of the projects are almost entirely recreational in nature. Without some monetary- value for recreation benefits^ it vrould be impossible to compare projects among themselves ;, or with other similar projects outside the Upper Feather River Basin that might be built with state funds. The evaluation of recreation benefits was resolved into three main categories: (l) recreation potential of streams below the dam sites, (2) recreation potential of lands surrounding the reservoirs, and (3) conversion of these potentials into economic terms . Personnel of the California Department of Fish and Game conducted the investigations under the first category. They also furnished much of the basic information required for evaluation of the other two categories. The results of their studies are dis- cussed subsequently. The consulting planning firm of Harold F. Wise and Associ- ates was employed to assist in the determination of the second and third categories. In addition, this firm was requested to determine the economic Importance of the future public and private recreation developments in the area, and to give specific attention to the following: 1. The potential economic value in terms of net bene- fits that would result from probable full development of the recreational resources of the Upper Feather River Basin. 2. Estimation of the rate of recreational use and need for public development over the period of economic analysis for each project studied. 3. Development of an acceptable methodology for express- ing recreation benefits in economic terms. A summary report by this firm is included as an appendix to this report. Material contained therein is the basis for eco- nomic justification of at-site recreational features. -23- stream Recreation Benefits . The recreational potential of the stream affected by the projects was evaluated In terms of present and possible future angler-days by personnel of the Depart- ment of Fish and Game. Present use was determined by a sampling survey, by means of interviews, and by counts of angling intensity and distribution. Personal interviews were conducted with 315 people during the 1956 fishing season. These included 245 anglers, and 70 hunters, some of whom did some fishing. This sample repre- sented a party total of 1,279 people. The anglers spent an average of $9.09 per angler-day. The sample was not totally random, nor was the entire season covered, but the estimate was corrected by use of data from previous angling surveys and from the United States Forest Service. Angler-days of use along the three streams affected by the possible projects in the North Fork drainage totaled approxi- mately 9,600. Along the streams belovj the proposed Grizzly Valley and Frenchman Dams, and along the Middle Fork as far as Sloat, angler-days totaled approximately 20,000. The numbers of anglers from different areas of California was roughly proportional to the population and inversely proportional to the distance of those areas from the Upper Feather River Basin. Percentages of the anglers sampled v;ho came from those areas were approximately as follows : Percentage Area 47 San Francisco Bay Area 19 Southern California l4 Central counties 11 Plumas County 5 Other northern counties 4 Other states The results of the survey are likewise presented on Plate 1, entitled "Place of Residence of Anglers Fishing Feather River Basin Streams, 1956 -24- STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING '.'investigation of upper feather river basin development INTERIM REPORT ON ENGINEE RING, ECONOMIC, AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INITIAL UNITS PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF ANGLERS FISHING FEATHER RIVER BASIN STREAMS 1956 SCALE OF MILES 40 OTIitR STATES ® M ^ Future use of the streams enhanced by project development for fishing and recreational pursuits was projected to an estimated saturation at the year 2050. The development curve assumed was sufficiently depressed to allow reasonable time Intervals for growth of facilities^ transportation, and access, and for Increased lei- sure time. Separate curves were projected for conditions with and without the project, the difference being the use of visitor-days creditable to the water project. In every case where a latitude of choice existed, the most conservative number was chosen, in order to improve reliability and reasonableness of results. The lower reaches of Little Last Chance Creek below the Frenchman Project were deemed to be relatively useless for angling and associated recreation under project conditions. The loss of recreational potential here would be absorbed by the increased rec- reational potential of the streams of the Indian Creek Project, a few miles to the northwest. The Grizzly Valley Project, If operated for irrigation, would produce little, if any, benefit to recreational uses of the stream below the project. If operated for recreational purposes the project would have substantial benefits in terms of increased visitor-days. The ultimate total maximum visitor-days on project streams in the year 2050 was estimated to be 1,600,000 in the Indian Creek Project area, and 2,980,000 below the alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project. These numbers, at the ultimate end of the de- velopment curve, were used as a basis for computing the average annual recreational use in visitor-days during the economic study period of 50 years after construction. The results of these compu- tations are shown in Table 3- -25- The net benefit per visitor-day was derived by the firm of Harold F. Wise and Associates and was estimated to be $2. This ^ figure was used to determine the net benefit due to the projects for each year- of . a 50-year period of analysis. These annual fig- ures were then converted to a single present-worth f^-gure^ and con- verted into an average annual equivalent benefit for the period. Resei'voir Recreation Benefits . As previously stated^ the site planning and derivation of recreation benefits for each reser7 voir were conducted by the consulting firm of Harold P. Wise and Associates, by contract with the Department of Water Resources. A discussion of criteria and the results of this planning are con- tained in a suRunary statement prepared by this firm and appended to this report. Most of the planning assumptions are contained therein, but a few principles are repeated in the following paragraph for emphasis . Although it is believed that at some future date both pub- lic and private facilities will surround the proposed reservoirs, the justification for public investment should be restricted to those benefits derived from the use of only public facilities. It has been further assumed that to encourage and aid full recreational df.. -.oijnient, minimum, basic facilities, such as access roads, sani- tary facilities, drinking water, and public campgrounds should be provided by public funds. Likewise, to control development for the greatest public use, all lands of recreational potential surround- ing the reservoirs, or immediately downstream from the dam sites, have been assumed to be controlled in the public interest. This would be accomplished either by purchase of the land or by use-permit -26- if the land is in federal ownership. Later operational policies would dictate the allocation of land for private and public use and administrative procedures to be followed. Presented in Table 3 are average annual estimated visitor- day use and recreational benefits for both at-site and downstream use of the projects contemplated. Financial Feasibility Determination of financial feasibility of the projects studied involved: (l) allocation of the costs among the various purposes, (2) consideration as to v>rhat organizations or groups should bear the allocated costs, and (3) consideration of the abil- ity of these organizations or groups to bear such costs. Cost Allocation The objective of cost allocation is to provide for equi- table distribution of the total multiple-purpose cost among the several purposes served. Or, expressing it another way, the objec- tive is to provide that the savings derived through the use of multiple-purpose structures or facilities are shared by all pur- poses. This simple objective is very difficult to attain. There is no known method of cost allocation that gives equitable results for all cases. The best single method yet developed is the Separ- able Costs-Remaining Benefits Method. This method has been recom- mended by the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee for general use in allocating costs on federal multiple-purpose river basin projects . -27- oo E-i M (in O PQ Q CO PQ K H O K H > a fc o H E^ cr; w p-l o < o &^ H O r-i CO ■4J -P O* O CD •H < Sh W 1 1 -P < -: C O •H ;3 fn Ti Q P GQ o ^ !^ ?: -P x: •H •H -p CO UD •H i •H ^ -p > < -p -p :3 o O d) x: -^ P o •H iL, S G P O (D •1-2 O ^ Ph o o o o o o (y\ -^ o •V •V •\ ON (y\ 00 ^ in ■*B- 0) ■iB- O O 00 CM CTO O O VD CO o o 00 cy\ o o P O (U O u (X, o c 0) iH r-\ o ^ Xi o •H •H vo bO faO •\ •H •H CO rH rH rH faO bO t- (1) (U ^ in in o o oo o o en o o OO o o CO 00 -P o Q> •r-2 o !:^ P-. ?^ (1) rH rH CO > rH N N •H S-< O O oo o o oo OO O O oo o o oo 00 rH rH CO > >:.-P rH O N 0) N -^ •H O O Ph CD C > O •H .H -P -P CO CO O U o C -p rHtn -p O •"-3 o c o •H p CO fn O p:; Jx; o CO •H o o o o o o 00 t-- 0.1 •^ •* •! CO ooo oooo o> r-\ OJ I ooo ooo inrH o> co^ oo (M . ooo ooo CM rHMO OOCM O m^ in OOO ooo CO OOrH «A »% ** O l>--:t cr\oo ai ooo ooo ooo •\ •\ »1 CTvOMn t~-uAon Cvi I o o oi ooo VDVO.:=H 00 CMCi ^ oo^ ooo ooo 00 oor<" ooo in o > M C» •rl O > CO p::; p:: rH rH CO hO bO > :i'a Cp -H ?^ iXK P3 O rH >i -rl ■P X X3 <: Q < o o ^- •\ CM rH vo o O CO o o o^ in rH -ee- o o CM Cvl o o o o oo o o CJ o o in o •H P" CO o p:: Jsi u o CO o E-I P' o CO "^ •H O TJ U M C O •H P> rH a o o t>0 C tH o o Cm 'Ci O •H a 5h CO >5 I O in x; p> o CO >i CO Ti I ?^ O P> •H CO •H > O S^ CO • :=ip> c o c CO •r-J O !^ bO a CO Jh Cm O > c o •H -P CO O f-i -P o •■-3 o a • -p X3 O +J -^ CO o •H a -p CO c^ o Cm C o o •H x: p> -p S^ rH o a is S o P o c bO CO C -H !^ <: a o G rH O O Cm •■d 13 to o CO -H - a 13 U i-i CO CO > >5 I P o c in r-i CO x: >-p ^, ^ a' o Cm rH CO CO -P :3 C C CO bO CO Ph > * (m c -p c ■28- In the current studies it was assumed that funds to meet the costs of acquiring lands, easements, and rights of way, and for relocating public utilities would be provided by the State. As a result, although included in the total project costs, these items were not allocated among the several purposes. Also, no alloca- tions of costs were made for flood control. This position was justified on the basis that all flood control benefits were inci- dental to the other reservoir purposes; no features of the projects being designed specifically for flood control. All other project costs were allocated by the Separable Costs-Remaining Benefits Method. Ability to Pay Reimbursable Costs In the current studies the reimbursable costs of the proj- ect represent that portion of the total costs which could be repaid from sales of project water to project beneficiaries. The amount which irrigators can afford to pay for project water is necessarily dependent upon the net income which they may derive from its use. As previously stated, it was estimated that the net monetary value of project water to the service area of use was $9 pe^ acre-foot. This amount reflects incremental income after all production and overhead costs have been met, with the exception of payment for water and managerial services required for the successful operation of such enterprises. The requirement for managerial skill would vary somewhat among various enterprises in the service areas in accordance with available physical and financial resources, but in general it would be relatively high. With recognition of this fact, plus allowance -29- for variation in requirements for managerial skill among units, it appeared reasonable that an appropriate return to management would fall within the range of one-third to one-half of the computed net value of project water. This would establish a range of maximum amounts which irrigation water users could be expected to pay for project water service. Repayment Following the cost allocation, methods by which the vari- ous costs would be repaid must be considered. In this report the following premises were assumed. 1. An appropriate governmental agency, possibly the State of California, would provide funds necessary for con- struction, operation, and maintenance of the projects, and assiim.e the role of creditor insofar as reimbursable costs are concerned. 2. The State of California would adopt a policy of assum- ing the obligation for the costs of acquiring lands, easements, and rights of way, and of relocating public utilities. 3. The State of California would adopt a policy of assuming the obligation for recreation costs of a state-wide interest. 4. The repayment period xvould be 50 years, and the interest rate 3 P^^ cent per annum. 5. The marginal profit for irrigators, as expressed by the results of the ability-to-pay analysis and the benefit- cost ratio, would be sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the irrigators would be willing to assume the obligation of repaying costs allocated to the purpose of developing a firm irrigation water supply. EFFECTS OF UPSTREAM RESERVOIRS ON OPERATION OF OROVILLE RESERVOIR The combined effect of Frenchjnan, Grizzly Valley, Abbey Bridge, Antelope Valley, and Dixie Refuge Reservoirs, if operated as proposed in this report, would be to reduce by less than 1 per -30- cent the water available to Oroville Reservoir during the critical dry period. This reduction in water supply would cause a loss at Oroville of about 2^900 kilowatts in primary power generation capac- ity, and an annual reduction of about 8,600,000 kilowatt-hours in the amount of electrical energy that could be generated. The effect on secondary power generation would be negligible. Also, since flood waters from the drainage areas of these reservoirs normally arrive at Oroville Reservoir considerably after the flood crest at Oroville has occurred, the beneficial effects of these reservoirs for flood control below Oroville would be negligible. While detailed operation studies for Oroville Reservoir are still in progress to determine these effects more precisely, the above estimates were made by primary power operation studies for the critical period July, 1930, through November, 193^- These cal- culations were based on operation studies of Oroville Reservoir in conjunction with the five upstream reservoirs; net reduction is stream flow was calculated on a monthly bases considering evapora- tion and additional consumptive use in Sierra and Indian Valleys during the critical period. Table 4 presents estimates of reduction in critical period water supply and resultant loss in primary power generation and dependable capacity at the Oroville Power Plant due to each of the five upstream reservoirs. STATE WATER RIGHTS AND FEDERAL POWER PERMITS A number of applications have been filed with the State Water Rights Board for permits to appropriate water, and with the Federal Power Commission for preliminary power permits, in further- ance of proposed projects in the Upper Feather River Basin. A sum- mary of the pending water right applications for proposed projects -31- TABLE I4 EFFECTS OF UPSTREM1 RKSERVOIRS ON OPERATION OF OROVILLE RESERVOIR Reservoir Reduction in water supply at Oro-: ville Reservoir during critical : period J\ily, 1930-November, 193U: Annual reduction in primary power generation, in kilowatt-hours i Los 3 in : dependable : power ca- In • acre-feet : In :tota' per cent . water su of : pply*: :pacity, in ; kilowatts Frenchman 31,500 0.29 3,700,000 . l,2l40 Grizzly Valley- 27,700 0.25 3,100,000 1,060 Abbey Bridge 8,700 0.08 1,000,000 5I4O Antelope Valley 8,000 0.07 900,000 300 Dixie Refuge -3,000 -0.01 - 100,000 - ho TOTALS 75,000 0.68 8,600,000 2,900 ^ Water supply during critical period at Oroville Reservoir is equal to the available storage plus the critical period inflow, and totals about 10,937,000 acre-feet. Dependable capacity of electric gener- ating i'aeilities at Oroville is about hl0,000 kilowatts. -32- is contained in the ensuing portion of this report. In addition, Table 5 includes a tabulation of all major applications, for amounts in excess of 3 second-feet of diversion or 200 acre-feet of storage, filed since December 19, 191^- This tabulation does not include either riparian rights or appropriative rights initiated prior to December 19^ 191^^ neither of which are of record with any state agency except in the Indian and Sierra Valley areas where there have been adjudications of water rights. Water Right Applications Applications for proposed major projects on the Middle and North Porks of the Feather River and their tributaries have been filed by the Richvale Irrigation District, R. P. Wilson, and the State Department of Finance. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company is in the process of constructing certain projects on the North Fork of the Feather River and its tributaries. These proj- ects of the company are under applications upon which permits have been issued covering the necessary water rights. Richvale Irrigation District . Application 1368I was filed on April 10, 1950, and seeks to appropriate 132,000 acre-feet per annum from the Middle Fork of the Feather River, of which 72,000 and 60,000 acre-feet are to be impounded in Clio and Nelson Point Reser- voirs, respectively. Water stored in these reservoirs would be re- leased to flow dovm the natural channels of the Middle Fork of the Feather River and the Feather River to the Sutter Butte diversion dam, located within the SWl/4 of SEl/4 of Section 33. TI9N, R3E, MDB&M, where these waters would be rediverted for irrigation of some 24,500 net acres within the boundaries of the Richvale Irriga- tion District. -33- o E-t oi O o CO re en o ca o CO i i-U ■-! H o Qi X C Cd Si ** s M o E- M V iT ^ S *^ O O CQ E-H < cn CO E w o 1-4 n tt: ;^ M CC K W 2: E- CO M o © ^ n: Cm ^ *■ 1 -P -o c C -P p c O G) o t— 1 O 0) CO • Q) '^S bC C cS C o . CO •H pa Pi w • • • •• ^ O 1 Q) • g (^ > s •H o ^ TJ O E- m ■P • a •■ Cm 1 C O Xi o o (U Q) -H -p f-, CO -P C P^ ae •• •r-i Q) C '.-, r4|^ P-, (U «c «• ^ r^i•^ I c u •HOC) r-A -H Xl P--P S CU CO 3 -a: O C 0) c 0) O •H o o o o ■LP, CO > •H a- >-< Q) ^ -P CO (D [i- ^ o ,c -p f-l o I o = C CO CO CO C5 £ C o o •H Cm O •H -H O U CO -P P- C\J I O r-H I (M ■ur\ OS CO 0) CO c 0) o •H 1-1 I o PL, ■Lf^ CO •H U 0) !-< O to "S o pa I C\J I ■Ln I OS to c o •H f-. I o (X, o CM CM CM -3 CO 0) Q) o N ts! •H Jh cr I o q f — I f=3 -O C CO C CS O. E o o o (0 to c" Cm O •H -H O f^ CO -P Ph lA CM I CM CM I lA oo On 0) to 0) o •H 1-^ 5-. O (X, o CM tD 5 H tsl ts; •H I o Q) &a c to CO CO C o o o •H Cm O •H -H O jL, CO -P Dh UN CM I r-i CM I CM CO -P •H E U I "J - •H O Jh -H !-, -P o o o 2 CM CM CO to U > •H P:: U tu -p to o -p ?-. o c o •H -P rj ao •H t^ -P (U O to -H •H fH -O -P CO to S Q PU OS CM I C-- CM I CM -a O CM SO m C 0) o •H Si O PL, •LA SO W CM U O CO CiL -P P XI •H 5h -P to % 0) Jh -P to O x: -p u o o -p Q) > •H 1 o rH CO ^ C m CO CO a c:^ e o o o •H Cm O ■H -rH O ^ CO +> Os CM I OO I -a CM SO Q) m C fl) c; •H H^ *. rH O CO •H (X-P •H to tj fl) •H 6 § o SO lA. CM C^ CM CO 2 CD ;h o f CD O to rH P3 x) to CD bC -P -H O pn o •^ r" CO E-" o ■H "3 to I O rH I t^ O o -p -P •H •H £ {^ u <1> Q) a. PL. •s rH O CO -H ft-p -H to O CD ^ •H e Q) c o 3 xi O ■LA (P (D tD C CD H ' O CO •H N to to CO C rH S^ cO CD P-H O S x; -p u to bD C ■H H O Pi CXD fA I c^^ CM I CO CJ CN -p P. O O ■LA *\ en w CO >-i O H O S •^ CM CD CM 4J to rH Q) o o OA U CA fA Cm CJ> Cm «m O •t O O l: C) a) I^IA r-i xi H -P -P -P fl) O O o OJ i-:i H^I M 0) to 0) PiL, o ■p > •H o Pi I o 0) H M X3 CO CO o o o •H Cm O •H -H O U CO -p Ph O I OS O O CO OS 1 CO CO 1 o H C •H jj rH O rH Q D.-H Pl-H a.-p Q.+3 < -< o •H 1 -P to -s to bO C Q) tn HOB 9^ ^H -H O 5 f-, +i XI O l-l P-, o o o •^ CM rA rH www CM CM CM r-i rA rA S S S CM CSJ CM CM CM CM CA CM CM CM CM CM W W to CO U % •H Pi u -p CO u O Q) rH XI XI 0) 0) O 0) O H bC ^ CO (D W •H CO C o •H -P CO bo •H M -P Q) O rH -H CO f-, > -P ^ to O -H vH O Pi O \A I o H I J- rH CO SO CA O CA r-{ fA CM CO CO 0) x; -p CO o S P^ cr: E c O •H -p CO bD •H f-i !-, O ■LA I o CM cX* SO c^ -34- « ce; o li, 3: E-H pi 2 pr. en tr « Pd s o •==; p:. ct: pa w fj ^ c CO p S l-H ^ c- Q S s M < g p:: hJ E-1 ce: X o w ^ & w o E- 1— 1 te cn w H »■=- «; p- o Pi Pi P- P- W - On s s s s CM CO CM CM \r\ CO O vO O^ CM CM H ^ w ^ w w g CO CO s s u O -P 5-. o (D £ (D CJ ^ C O CO CO •H -P -a CO C CO M [a Q) ^ CO 0) ^ CO -P -H CO C Q) CO fc CO o CO « Pi o ! H I OS I CO •H C H O P--P I Q-. O O o CM O o H W Pd W rH H O iH H H 2: S S r^ ^- r— CM CM CM lA O CM P-a CO CO CO Pd CO CD o CO -p •H Q) (D O -P do •H H C O o c o m H PL. P:! O lA CO H I \A -P •H e u CD pL. C o o •H -H -P -P CO CO bD CD •H e fn O ^^ -o M O o o o ■LfN pa CM CO CM Pd CO u o -p u o CD > o cd ^H CD CQ ^ -P -P CO CO CD 0) P^ C o •H -P cd bo •H M -P (1) O CO •H •H U TD -P CO to pL. lA i lA •H •H Pi Xi O •H 13 bo •H ^ U M -P CD O " 'H U > -P X to O -H •H C p:i CM ■LA H CM rH CO CN OS -3- I CO o •H C H O fi,-P o Ph o o o CO o o Os H Pd CO CD ,cl •p to CD PlH o CD U H Q) 73 > 73 -H •H Qi O •H to bO •H JH f-. l-H -P (D O H -H to Jh > -P X to O -H V-) O CM lA I H CM I o CM Os -^ H I to o •H C H O P. -H P.-P I to bo C •H O •H -P O O o so CTs CD CD V. O ^ CD J>^ CD H U N O tsl •H U o CD O C to o +3 to c« CD CD •H rH tsl -p bO CO -P •H fn -H pa Pn. h^ o •H ■s bO •H ^1 U M -P O iH -H to Jh & -^^ ,c; to O -H vH O Di tn •LA I lA CM I CK H \A ■LA ■LA g 1 S to to to •H C •H C •H C H H H Pu •H P.-H ft-H a-+i ft-P ft-P •=«: •H ^ ^ -H ^ Sh -P P-i M &H •\ •\ *\ so On J- -^ Pd (d td (>> CM so H r-i r-i W Pd Pd tA CM so H H H Pd SO H s s s t^ H -=f CM CM CM S B S: fA H.J- CM CM CM CM Hso r^ iH CA iH so fA rH CA fA CA CD CD U O ^ CD t>j CD H Jh N O CD O O CD O CD tsl bfl cfl ■H ;^ pa piH o -p CO to -p pi •H o •H bO •H M -P Q) O TO ;^ > += X to O -H •H Q Cti fA ■LfN I lA CM J On CM lA lA •LA CD O § § Xi O -P CO to CD ^ H CD -P CD -P U •H O 1-^ C O •H 13 bO •H M •P CD O 'to ^ t> -P x: CO O "H •H O Pi ■LA lA NO CM I fA NO H so CM fA fA (D O C to o ■p to CO l-q tD ^ i-\ CD -p CD -P ^ ■H O o •H 13 bO •H M pi CD O H H to U > -P x: to o -H ^« lA ■LP, NO CM -3- <^ NO H a o iH O P.-P < tt P. •H O •H O o •LA cm' td Pd Pd fA fA fA H r-\ '-* w ^ w S CO B ^ ^ Pd CO CO CO tD CD ^g N O tsl =H C S-. CO o e (D bO CD -H £h CO pr< to O -P O eu tH o -p •H O lA •LfN s CN H I 00 fA CA •LA NO -35- W « O (in w E-< oci O <=H fXH o to ffi td o Pi s o <« fo a PQ w l-q t-i Pi CA O pM M ^ ei g -aj g a: H^l E-. O s X o w s s prT o 5h H r^' CO Ei; s -=a -=«; & a w w E-* i-P c- O o ct; Pi o PL, Ph H < > O o m ^ < CO en s ca o M M fti E-i M O ft CiO CO *\ Cu § to CO *\ CO s cO *v CD § Q) C -H -H C pi CO ft CD Q) Q O C 0) CO P G CO -H P fe CO MD •LA I o CM I % •LA (3n CM CM CA OA CM (D O >J § tD ,G ^< o C3 -p (1) to O CO 1-^ § X CD X CJ H CD p CD p P ^ to •H O to PI 1-1 Ch tH o o •p p> *^ G (J) CD £ ^ p p> ?3 CO ft ft CD CD 0) G CO •H CO -H +^ (in HJ (xi CO CO vO >o ■LA ■LA 1 O 6 1 CO I 1 rA 1 rA $ $ CM CA ■LA ■LA C3s C3\ ^0 vO rA H •LA CM O CD in O U > O r-i O CD «H o ■p G i P> CO ft (D CD (D CO P> CO P (in CO VO ■LA I O CM I OA \A OS O so Jh •LA CD 0\ ft H CD (D CM Ch lA CD 5-( U CD o -P c\3 ft CO O £ o O CM Ch u o o tD G P o P •H U CO •H Jh > CD > S •H ^ TD to Ch CD O O p ^ CD o CD CO Ch i (D TD C ^1 O CD O Pi CD CO CO & rA O X is 0) ft CD to O p CD o CO P CO u o o p Ch TD CO CD G • Sh O TD u •H CD CD p P> Ch CO CO to O •H ^ G CO rH ^ U ft CO +> ft-P CO G CD O CO to ^ •H -p o O X fi •H -p 1 TD to !>^ 9 •H s ^ cS i-a -36- Application 13682 was filed on April 10, 1950, and seeks to appropriate 300 second-feet from the Middle Fork of the Feather River for power purposes. Under this application water v;ould be stored behind Clio Dam, located within the SEl/4 of SEl/4 of Sec- tion 23, T22N, R12E, MDB&M, and diverted at Nelson Point Dam through Power House No. 1, located at the base of said dam within the SEl/4 of SEl/4 of Section 13, T23N, R9E, MDB&M; rediverted at Minerva Dam for use through Sherman Power House No. 2., located in the SEl/4 of NWl/4 of Section 36, T23N, R8E, MDB&M; rediverted at Dogwood Dam for use through Hartman Power House No. 3ji located within SEl/4 of NEl/4 of Section 11, T22N, R7E, MDB&M; rediverted at Hartman Dam for use through Millsap Power House No. 4, located v^ithin Lot 2 of Section 2, T21N, R7E, MDB&M; and rediverted at Bald Rock Dam for use through Bald Rock Power House No. 5, located within SWl/4 of NWl/4 of Section 35, T21N,- R6E, MDB&M. Applications 14919 and 14920 vjere filed on July 21, 1952, and seek to appropriate a maximum of 1,300 second-feet direct di- version, and a total of 381,000 acre-feet per annum storage from the Middle Pork of the Feather River for irrigation and pov/er pur- poses, respectively. The follov:ing summarizes pertinent data de- scribed under these two applications. : Direct diversion and re- Point of : diversion under Applica- diversion ;tion 14920, in second-feet Storage under Appli- cations 14919 and 14920, in acre-feet Clio Dam Nelson Point Dam 8OO Minerva Dam 8OO Dogwood Dam 900 Hartman Dam 1,000 Bald Rock Dam 1,300 Subtotal Plus 50 per cent refill TOTAL 131,000 116,000 500 1,250 250 5,000 254,000 127.000 381 , 000 -37- Pertinent data pertaining to the power development pro- posed on the Middle Pork of the Feather River, as set forth under ;vater right Application 14920, are tabulated below: Maximum Maximum Maximum static head, draft, in theoretical Power house in feet second-feet horsepower No".- 1, Nelson Point 360 800 32,750 No. 2, Sherman 710 800 64,500 No. 3, Hartman 640 900 65,500 No. 4, Millsap 740 1,000 84,100 No. 5, Bald Rock 690 1.300 102,000 TOTAL 3^8,850 Applications 15551 and 15552 were received on September 25, 1953, seeking appropriations for irrigation and povjer purposes, re- spectively. Each application seeks to appropriate 40,000 acre-feet per annum from Big Grizzly Creek for storage in Grizzly Valley Dam, and 16,000 acre-feet per annum from Prazier Creek for storage in Gold Lake Dam. The general plan of development under these two applications would be to release the stored waters into the natural channel of Grizzly Creek and Frazier Creek to Clio and Nelson Point Reservoirs. From these reservoirs the v;aters vrould be diverted through the chain of pov,'er houses described under Applications 13682 and 14920, thence down the Feather River to Sutter Butte Dam vjhere the v.'aters would be diverted for irrigation purposes within the boundaries of the district. Applications l6340 and l634l were received on April 26, 1955, and propose an appropriation of 40,000 acre-feet per annum from Little Last Chance Creek for irrigation and power purposes, respectively. VJater diverted to storage on Little Last Chance Creek would be released down the natural stream channels to Clio Reservoir, v;here it may be regulated or by-passed and thence -38- rediverted' at Nelson Point Dam through the chain of power houses on the Middle Pork of the Feather River described under Applications 13682 and 14920. Subsequent to use for poxver purposes, water would be rediverted from the Feather River at Sutter Butte Dam for irri- gation purposes within the boundaries of the district. All of the applications of, the Richvale Irrigation Dis- trict , except 16340 and 16341;, have been completed and public notice thereof given. Numerous protests have been filed, and the matter is now awaiting a hearing by the State Water Rights Board. Appli- cations 16340 and 16341 have not yet been completed by the district. R. P. Wilson . Mr. R. P. Wilson has two applications pend- ing before the State Water Rights Board covering projects on tribu- taries of the North Fork of the Feather River. At one time Mr. Wilson had a third application filed for a comprehensive development on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, v/hich development i^as similar to that proposed by the Richvale Irrigation District. This applica- tion was cancelled, however, by the former Division of Water Re- sources for failure to complete. The active applications are cur- rently in the name of the Natural Youth Foundation of v/hich Mr. Wilson is President. The details of Mr Wilson's applications on tributaries of the North Fork of the Feather River are as follows: Application 13694 was filed on April 17;> 1950, and seeks to appropriate a total diversion of 8OO second-feet and 12,000 acre- feet per annum for storage from Indian Creek, Spanish Creek, and the East Branch of the North Fork of the Feather River. This appli- cation proposes to use the water for pov;er purposes through four power houses, as follows: Indian Creek Power House No. 1, located -39- within the NVa/4 of NEl/4 of Section iS, T25N, R9E, MDB&M; East Branch Power House No. 2, located vjithin the NEl/4 of NWl/4 of Section 22, T25N, R7E, MDB&M; Millsap Creek Power House No. 3, lo- cated within the NEl/4 of SWl/4 of Section 19. T25N, R7E, M)B&M; and Spanish Creek Power House No. k, located within the NWl/4 of the NEl/4 of Section l6, T25N, R9E, MDB&M. Application 13744 was filed on May l8, 1950, and seeks to appropriate 10,000 acre-feet per annum for storage from Moon- light Creek, and diversion of 100 second-feet and 15,000 acre-feet per annum for storage from Lights Creek, for use for pov;er purposes through three power houses as follows: Power House No. 1, located within the SEl/4 of NWl/4 of Section 19, T27N, RUE, NDDB&M; Power House lA,, located within the SEl/4 of the NWl/4 of Section 19, T27N, RUE, r/iDB&M; and Power House No. 2, located within the SWl/4 of SV/1/4 of Section 31, T27N, RUE, MDB&M. Mr. Wilson has completed his tvra applications and they are now in the process of being advertised. Department of Finance Applications . On March 20, 1956, the State Department of Finance filed water right Applications 16950, 16951, 16952, 16953, and 16954, which propose storage in 36.- reservoirs included in the area of this investigation. These applications were filed under Part 2, Division 6 of the Water Code in a trustee capacity in accordance with Section IO5OO of the code, vjhlch provides In part as follows: "The Department of Finance shall make and file appli- cations for any vrater which in its .judgment is or may be required in the development and completion of the whole or any part of a general or coordinated plan looking toward the development, utilization, or conservation of the water resources of the State." -40- Section 10504 of the Water Code, which relates to the applications filed under Section IO50O, states in part as follows: "The Department of Finance may release from priority or assign any portion of any appropriation filed by it under this part when the release of assignment is for the purpose of development not in conflict with such general or coordinated plan ....'' The Department of Water Resources, by virtue of Chapter 52, First Extraordinary Session of the 1956 Legislature, has had transferred to it all duties, responsibilities, and powers formerly vested in the Department of Finance under said Part 2, Division 6 of the Water Code. The details of these applications are as follows: Application I695O proposes an appropriation by storage of 49,000 acre-feet per annum from Big Grizzly Creek in Grizzly Valley Reservoir, at a point within Section 1, T23N, RI3E, MDB&M. The stored vrater is to be used for recreation purposes, to main- tain the flows in Big Grizzly Creek and the Middle Pork of the Feather River below the Grizzly Valley reservoir site to Nelson Point Dam, for municipal use at Portola and other urban areas within the Middle Fork Service Area, and for irrigation use in Mohawk Valley and Long Valley. Application I695I proposes an appropriation by storage of 18,200 acre-feet per annum from Indian Creek in Antelope Valley Reservoir, located in Sections 22 and 23, T27N, R12E, MDB&M. Stored water under this application is to be used for recreation at the Antelope Valley reservoir site and for stream flow mainte- nance along the channel of Indian Creek below the reservoir to Indian Valley. -41- Application 16952 proposes an appropriation by storage of 30,000 acre-feet per annum from Little Last Chance Creek in French- man Reservoir, at a point within Section 33, T24N, RI6E, MDB&M. Water stored under this application is to be used for irrigation purposes in Sierra Valley. Application 16953 proposes an appropriation by storage of l4,300 acre-feet per annum from Last Chance Creek in Dixie Refuge Reservoir, at a point within Section 23, T26N, R14E, KDB&M. Stored water under this application is to be used for recreation at the Dixie Refuge reservoir site, and for stream flow maintenance along the channel of Last Chance Creek below the reservoir site to Indian Valley. Application l695^ proposes an appropriation by storage of 8,400 acre-feet per annum from Red Clover Creek in Abbey Bridge Reservoir, at a point within Section 30, T25N, RI3E, MDB&M. Water stored under this application is to be used for recreation at the Abbey Bridge reservoir site, and for stream flow maintenance along the channel of Red Clover Creek below the reservoir site to Indian Valley. The applications filed by the Department of Finance (now held by the Department of Water Resources) have not been assigned ..::apleted . Applications Pending Before Federal Power Commission Both the Richvale Irrigation District and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company have applications for preliminary permit pending before the Federal Povjer Commission covering proposed major power projects along the Middle Pork of the Feather River and -42- certain tributaries thereto. These projects before the commission are No. 213^ for the Richvale Irrigation District, and No. 2136 for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Notice of the Federal Power Commission dated July 22, 1953:> describes Project 213^ for preliminary permit as consisting of two large dams across the Middle Fork of the Feather River at the Clio and Nelson Point dam sites; a series of four diversion dams across the Middle Fork of the Feather River at Minerva Bar, Onion Valley, Hartman Bar, and Bald Rock; tunnels aggregating about 23.^ miles in length; and five power houses on the Middle Fork of the Feather River between Nelson Point Reservoir and Oroville Res- ervoir, the latter reservoir being presently proposed for construc- tion by the State of California. Project 2136 of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as described in Federal Power Commission notice dated July 22, 1953:> describes that project as consisting of a development on the Middle Fork of the Feather River and its tributaries and on French Creek, consisting of five dams and reservoirs at Grizzly Valley, Clio, Gold Lake, Nelson Point, and French Creek, with a total gross stor- age capacity of 415,000 acre-feet; a system of tunnels aggregating about 23 miles in length; and four power houses located at Nelson Point, Onion Valley, Willow Creek, and French Creek. The Department of Water Resources understands that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Richvale Irrigation Dis- trict are currently carrying on negotiations with each other with respect to construction of these two projects. The Federal Power Commission has not yet Issued prelimi- nary power permits to either of these agencies, nor has it indicated whether or not a hearing v.lll be necessary, -43- Mr. R. P. Wilson has three applications pending before the Federal Pcv;er Commission for preliminary permits on Projects 2124, 2125, and 2126. Notice of the Federal Power Commission dated April 22, 1953> describes Project 2124 as consisting of: (l) six dams and reservoirs on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, located near Washington Creek, Bear Creek, Willow Creek, Ament Creek, Cold Water Creek, Middle Pork of the Feather River, or alternative locations; tunnels; and four power houses and three alternative power houses, (2) two dams on the South Branch of the Feather River, tributary to the Middle Fork of the Feather River near Yard House and Brown Kill, together with accompanying tunnel and power house on Cascade Creek, (3) three dams on Fall River adjacent to Nelson Crossing, upstream from Feather Falls, and at Dark Canyon, together with three tunnels and two power houses, and (4) a dam on the Little North Fork of the Feather River, tributary to the Middle Fork of the Feather River, together with a tunnel and power house located near Crooked Bar. Notice of the Federal Pov;er Commission dated July 22, 1953, describes Project 2125 as consisting of: (l) a dam across Llgnts Creek, a tunnel 16,500 feet long, and Lights Creek Povjer House No. 1, (2) a dam across Lights Creek forming Lower Lights Creek Reservoir, a tunnel of 6,000 feet, and Lights Creek Power House No. 2, and (3) a dam across Moonlight Creek, 7,000 feet of tunnel, and Lights Creek Power House No. 3- Notice of the Federal Power Commission dated July 21, 1953, describes Project 2126 as consisting of four dams on the East Branch of the North Fork of the Feather River and tributaries, -44- and on Indian Creek and Spanish Creek in Plumas County, together with 11.5 miles of tunnel and four power houses. The Federal Power Commission has not yet issued prelimi- nary power permits on any of Mr. Wilson's projects, nor has it in- dicated whether or not hearings will be necessary before issuing preliminary permits. It should be noted that the Middle Fork of the Feather River power developments, as proposed under applications for pre- liminary power permits before the Federal Power Commission by the Richvale Irrigation District, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and R. P. Wilson, are in conflict. -45- CHAPTER III. FRENCHMAN AND GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECTS The Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects would develop a supplemental water supply for irrigation use in portions of Sierra Valley^ provide incidental flood control to lands and struc- tures below the reservoirs, and would form the basis for an outdoor recreational area. Project Area Sierra Valley is located in a mountainous area in the southeastern portion of Plumas County and the northeastern portion of Sierra County. It is the largest mountain valley completely within the State, comprising about 115,000 acres, of which 9^jOOO acres are potentially irrigable. Under plans for the Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects, supplemental water would serve lands in Plumas County in the northern portion of the valley. Climate The predominating feature of the climate of Sierra Val- ley is the aridity. The average seasonal depth of precipitation on the valley floor is about 15 inches. The other major climatic characteristics are an abundance of sunshine, vvide range of temper^ ature, low humidity, and rapid evaporation. More than 90 per cent of the total precipitation normally occurs between the first of October and the last of May, about one-half of it being in the form of snow. The elevation of the valley floor approaches 5:. 000 feet. Consequently, killing frosts can occur during any monrh of the year, and the average growing season for tender-leaf vegetation is only -47- 29 days. For cllinatleally adapted crops, the growling season is approximately 90 days. However, the generally cool summer nights result in relatively low yields. Winters are moderately severe, with the monthly minimum temperature remaining below freezing during the period from November through March. Snov/ on the valley floor melts about March 1st, while that on the surrounding mountains generally begins to melt by March 15th. Snowmelt runoff generally declines to the point where som.e streams flowing into the valley are dry by May 15th, and even the major streams approach their minimum flow -by June 15th. In the years when heavy snowfall is experienced in the mountains, considerable flood damage occurs to downstream ranches and roads. This damage com.prises washed-out fences, roads, and bridges and i:ii'-- deposition of silt on the lands. Soils Soils derived from lacustrine depositions occupy the greater portion of Sierra Valley. These soils have been developed from sediments carried by streams into a fresh-water lake. As is common with this type of deposition, the coarser materials dropped first and the finer materials were carried out into the middle of by. Thus a wide textural range has been developed, with a predominance of fine-grained soils, or medium-textured soils under- lain by fine-textured subsoils. This has created drainage problems, and has been largely responsible for much of the salinity and alka- linity conditions to be found within Sierra Valley. Many of these problems could be overcome by artificial drainage. In general, all of these lands are suitable for m.edium- and shallow-rooted, -48- climatically adapted crops, and to a lesser extent to alfalfa where soil depth permits. Land Use Agriculture in Sierra Valley is completely dominated by beef cattle production' in owner-operated enterprises, with most of the present owners being descendants of families that migrated to California during the gold rush days. They are, therefore, well established in farming practices suited to the natural character- istics of the area. The major portion of the valley is used for range pasture in its natural state, with an estimated average brush- land carrying capacity of 12 acres per mature animal for the period of May through October. Improved range land or land with no brush is estimated to have a carrying capacity of six acres per mature animal for the same period. Irrigation is of importance in the maturation and sucess- ful production of crops in Sierra Valley. Natural meadows are lo- cated in proximity to the small creeks flowing out onto and across the valley floor. In accordance with available natural runoff, these meadow lands are irrigated by wild flooding, and are used to produce a relatively high-quality hay for winter feeding, with an estimated average yield of one ton per acre. In the more sheltered portions of the valley, alfalfa and domestic grasses have replaced the native grasses as a source of hay and green forage. Some dry grain and grain hay are produced in the valley, but the lack of moisture during the growing season results in generally poor yields. -49- Population A total of seven coinr.iunities are scattered around th^ fringe of Sierra Valley, ranging in siz.e from less than fifty to several thousand inhabitants. Three of these , Chilcoot, Vinton, and Beckwourth, are located in the inmediate project area. A fourth, Portola, located along the Middle Pork of the Feather River several miles downstreari from the outlet of the valley, would be directly affected by construction of the proposed projects. The acreage in the individual ranch holdings in the project area is large, rang- ing from about 320 acres to 4.200 acres. Consequently, the number of farm families that would benefit from construction of the proj- ects is small. It is estimated that in the project area, excluding Portola, there are aboub i|00 inhabitants o Natur a l and Economic Resources As stated previously, the agricultural economy of Sierra Valley is devoted to beef production, and as a result the income accruing is dominated by marker conditions for beef feeder-cattle and calves. Hovrever^. it is recognized that the valley is suitable to the production of hardy varieties of row and truck crops which ■ '"^ conceivably be quite profitable. In spite of this, it is the '.sus among local residents and county agricultural technicians that, for the foreseeable future, the valley will continue to de- pend upon the same economic base as at present. The natural resources of the area consist largely of the unregulated waters in streams that enter onto the valley floor and the timber that grows on mountain slopes. Some mineral deposits exist in the mountains surrounding the valley, but at the present . time there is no mln: _ tivity. -50- Several sawmills are located in the valley, and timber is hauled for savjing from the surrounding mountainous areas. Transporta tion An excellent transportation system traverses the project area. A major east-west highway, U. S. Highway 4o Alternate, and the main line of the Western Pacific Railroad, extend across north- ern Sierra Valley. Several secondary roads of varying capacity and condition provide access to the surrounding areas. Need for Project Development Sierra Valley is located in one of the most attractive recreation areas in California. Each year thousands of people from all parts of the State travel to the Feather River Basin to fish, hunt, camp, and enjoy the natural scenic beauty. As stated, an excellent transportation system serves the area and affords easy access for visitors. Further development of the vjater resources of the Feather River Basin would provide an opportunity for additional development of its recreational facilities. Better regulation of the available water supply is ur- gently needed in Sierra Valley. Runoff from the streams entering onto the valley floor, formed largely from melting snows, comes as torrential floods in the spring but drops sharply soon thereafter. The high spring flov;s run unused, and spread out over the valley floor, causing considerable flood damage. Yet, because of late- season water shortage, thousands of acres of farm land produce only part of their potential. Other lands, capable of sustained crop production, are still in sagebrush for lack of v;ater This -51- shortage of water for irrigation use^ particularly during the late irrigation season, iciakes it essential that supplemental water sup- plies be developed, if the potential of the region is to be more nearly realized. At present, no storage reservoirs for regulating stream flow exist on the streams that enter Sierra Valley, Irrigation water is commonly applied to lands adjacent to the stream channels by a series of simple check dams, which cause the water to back up and spread laterally over the meadows, and to more distant lands by small unlined ditches equipped with wooden turnout structures. Local Cooperation Present practice for the distribution of irrigation water ■.- S-..----Q Valley is by individual operators. For the Frenchrrian and Grizzly Valley Projects, it has been assumed that a contract for water sales would be m.ade by the constructing agency with a legally responsible district, such as the Last Chance Creek V/ater District. The district would then be responsible for water distribution and the collection and repayment of the reimbursable costs. Local water users have demonstrated an active interest in the proposed development for Sierra Valley, as evidenced by the ■ormc-tion of the Last Chance Creek Water District in the summer of 1956. There is as yet, however. ^-^Icntion as to the extent of their willingness to repay the reimbursable costs of the projects. Such information cannot be obtained until this report is made available to the water users for study. Public hearings and dis- cussions on this report are considered both appropriate and neces- sary. -52- Present and Future Water Use In Sierra Valley at t?ie present time there is an average consumptive use of applied water of about 81,700 acre-feet per sea- son„ It is estimated that there are about 95,000 acres of irrigable land in the valley. For full irrigation development of this land about 202,000 acre-feet of applied water would be required season- ally. This would result in a seasonal consumptive use of about 161,000 acre-feet „ The average seasonal inflow from the streams entering the valley is about 155^000 acre-feet, and the seasonal amount of precipitation averages less than 15 inches, indicating there is probably Insufficient water in the valley for full devel- opment of all the irrigable land. Also, because of the physical position of the valley, it is probable that the future use of water will be limited to the amount of the local supply that can be economically developed. The potential Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects Service Area occupies some 31^600 acres in the northern portion of Sierra Valley. This service area includes the Last Chance Creek Water District, and an 8,100-acre area lying to the north of, and contiguous to, the district. Of these 31^600 acres, about 30,300 acres have been classified as irrigable. It is estimated that the ultimate seasonal requirement of this area Vvould be approximately 72,500 acre-feet. The combined yield of the Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects would fully irrigate some 12,900 acres. About 2,^00 acres of land within the service area are presently receiving early-season irrigation water from sources other than Little Last Chance and Grizzly Creeks. The residual 15,000 acres of irrigable land within the service area would remain unirrigated until additional sources of Wd. :er become available, -53- FRBNCH MN PROJECT The Pi-enchniar?. Project is a proposed reservoir and system of v/orks to regulate the waters of Little L^st Chance Creek i''or ir- rigation use in Sierra Valley^ provide fJ.ood control downstream, and form the basis for enhancement of an outdoor recreational area. Its operation v.'ould provide a regulated ifater supply of about 16,000 acre-feet seasonally, of which 12,000 acre-feet ivould be new water that is presently unavailable to irrigators in the valley „ In addi- tion, the presently available unregulated water, by means of regu- lation, could be used more effectively and over a longer irrigation period than at present. The operation of the project <-;oa]rl provide incidental flood control benefits. In the operation studies of Frenchman Reservoir no fjpeciflc reservation of storage space was made for flood control purposes, KoTAJever, storage space above the ungated spillvjay crest would pro^-ide a high degree of flood protection by regulating the peak flovTS entering the reservoir^ It was estimated that a once-in- five -hundred --year flood peak would be reduced ■.Ci-'on-, about 6,^00 second-feet to about 2,700 second-feet. It was further estimated that a once-in-one~hundred-year flood peak would be reduced from k hon second-feet to about 1,300 second-feet, a flow that would aauKS negligible damage. The construction of the reservoir woiild enhance an outdoor recreational area by providing a setting for the building of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer hom.es. Both the area surround- ing the reservoir site and the canyon downsti'eam would be made ex- ceedingly attractive for this type of development, P.Ian of Development The Frenchman Project would consist of a dam and reservoir Frenchman Reservoir Area Li'tt/e Lasf Chance Creek Canyon Below Frenchman Reservoir on Little Last Chance Creek, about 1 mile downstream from its conflu- ence with Frenchman Creek, basic recreational facilities, and access roads o The existing stream channel of Little Last Chance Creek from the dam site downstream to Sierra Valley would be utilized in conveying the water to the service area for irrigation use. In the service area, the many existing channels and structures would be utilized to apply the water to the land. Features of the project and its potential service area are shown on Plate 3, entitled "Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects". Service Area The proposed service area of the Frenchman Project com- prises the same lands which now receive water from Little Last Chance Creek, All of this area lies within the boundaries of the existing Last Chance Creek Water District, This district encompasses approxi- mately 23} 500 acres of Irrigable lands, an area larger than could be irrigated by locally developable water supplies. At present, about 8,200 acres of this district are receiving some irrigation water, most of which is available only in the early spring. The water rights are adjudicated and apportioned by a State Watermaster. It is estimated that approximately 1,700 acres cculd receive a full irrigation supply from the water that is presently being put to beneficial use. An additional 5^000 acres could receive a full Irrigation supply from the new seasonal yield developed by the Frenchman Project, General Features of Project Frenchman Reservoir would have a gross storage capacity ( -55- of 50,000 acre-feet and a net storage capacity of 48,700 acre-feet. The water surface area would be about 1,500 acres, and the normal pool elevation would be 5^588 feet. The dam would be of rockflll construction with an imper- vious earth core. It would have a height of 119 feet and a crest length of 925 feet. The outlet to the stream channel below the dam would con- sist of a welded steel pipe located in the right abutment of the dam. Releases through a submerged Intake structure would be controlled by two hydraulically operated gate valves « A regulating valve would be located on the downstream end of the pipe. A side channel spilliiray would be located in the right abutment of the dam. At the maximum water surface elevation of 5, '=^04 feet, spillway discharge capacity would be about 5^700 second- feet and surcharge storage capacity would be about 7,000 acre-feet. The spillway would consist of an uncontrolled overflow weir, with an unlined chute discharging into the stream channel below the dam. The concrete ogee weir section would be 106 feet in length, and the chute would vary in width from 10 to 20 feet. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Frenchman Project as designed for cost estimating purposes are pre- sent, ic in Table 6. Bedrock at the Frenchinan dam site is hard, fresh, massive andesite, except in an area high on the left abutment where the foundation consists of an andesitic mudflow. Results of explora- tory drilling indicate that a minimum of abutment stripping and only light grouting would be required. The average depth of •56- TABLE 6 GENERAL FEATURES OP FRENCHMAN PROJECT Frenchman Dam Tj^e rockfill Crest elevation^ in feet 5,600 Crest length, in feet 925 Crest ividthj in feet 25 Height, spillway lip above stream bed, in feet .... 107 Side slopes, upstream 2:1 dov/nstream 1.75:1 Freeboard above spillway lip, in feet 12 Elevation of stream bed, in feet 5,^81 Elevation of normal pool, in feet 5,588 Volume of fill, in cubic yards 350,600 Frenchman Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip, in acres 1,500 Storage capacity at spillway lip, in acre-feet .... 50,000 Drainage area, in square miles 88 Estimated average annual runoff, in acre-feet .... 27,000 Estimated nev; yield, in acre-feet per season 12,000 Type of spillway--unlined side channel in right abutment with uncontrolled overflow weir Spillway discharge capacity, in second-feet 5,700 Type of outlet — 36-inch diameter welded steel pipe beneath dam Main Canal Natural channels of Little Last Chance Creek Service Area Last Chance Creek Water District in Sierra Valley Area to receive a full irrigation supply, in acres . . 6,700 alluvial fill in the channel is about 10 feet. The dam site is con- sidered adequate to support a dam of the proposed height. Exploration of potential borrov; area and materials test-- ing have revealed that ample quantities of construction materials suitable for use in an impervious core for the dam may be obtained within 1 mile of the site„ Rock for the dam fill may be quarried at the site. -57- A topographic map of the reservoir area at a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet was made by the United States Bureau of Recla- mation in 1946. The dam site was mapped at a scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet by a firm under contract to the Department of Water Re- sources during this investigation. Rights of way necessary for the dam and reservoir would involve the acquisition of privately owned land and the use of fed- erally owned land. The majority of the area is dry pasture land with some irrigated pasture in the bottom lands . Brush and some small trees are scattered on the slopes^ and moderate to good crops of native grasses grow in the meadows during the spring 'and early summer months . Approximately 3.7 miles of gravelled Forest Service road would require relocation. It v;as assura.ed that the recreational development for the project vrauld consist of both publicly ovmed and privately ovmed facilities. However, in determining project benefits from recrea- tion, only the visitor-days use of publicly owned facilities was estimated. Project Water Yield A large portion of the flow of Little Last Chance Creek Iv, presently diverted for irrigation use on adjacent meadow lands. However, the method of application and the unfavorable time of occurrence of the natural flovf results in an inefficient operation; only a small percentage of the applied water is beneficially used by growing crops. Regulation of the stream flox^r would make possible a substantial increase in the amount of water which could be put to -58- beneficial use. This increase was considered to be the new yield of the Frenchman Project. An estimate of the amount of water benefici- ally used under present conditions was prepared. For this purpose, stream flows were considered usable to the extent of consumptive re- quirements and irrecoverable losses in areas presently irrigated. This present beneficial use was found to vary from less than 2,000 acre-feet to more than 8,000 acre-feet per season, the average be- ing about 4,000 acre-feet. The estimated new seasonal yield of the Frenchman Project was therefore the total yield minus the 4,000 acre-feet, which represents the average seasonal use under present conditions . The availability of irrigation water under project condi- tions, as compared to present conditions, is presented in Table 7. TABLE 7 ESTIMATED BENEFICIAL USE OF IRRIGATION WATER, FRENCHMAN PROJECT SERVICE AREA (in acre-feet) '.October- : I : i i i Sep- T : March :April: May : June : July : August :tember: Total Pre-project 500 1,600 1,100 400 300 100 4,000 Project 100 900 3,500 5,200 4,500 1,800 l6,000* New Yield 12,000 * Reflects a 50 per cent deficiency in 1 year of a 45-year period, with an average seasonal deficiency of 2 per .jent. Economic Justification Economic justification of the Frenchman Project was based on a comparison of primary benefits with costs. -59- Primary Benefits Benefits from construction and operation of the Frenchman Project would accrue from regulation of the water for irrigation use in Sierra Valley, from flood protection downstream, and from recreational enhancement. The average annual net irrigation bene- fit was estimated to be about $108,000. This amount was based on a net annual benefit of $9 pe^ acre-foot of new water that would be developed by the project for use in Sierra Valley. The average an- nual primary flood control benefit was estimated to be about $3^000, and the average annual recreational benefit, based on at-site use of public facilities, was estimated to be about $50,000. As previ- ously stated, stream flow maintenance benefits below the dam would be negligible. The average annual benefits that would accrue from con- struction of the Frenchman Project are summarized in Table 8. TABLE 8 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENE.PITS, FRENCHMAN PROJECT Item : Benefit Irrigation $107,600 Flood control 2,600 Recreation 49,900 TOTAL $160,100 The development of local water supplies to provide sup- plemental water to irrigable lands in Sierra Valley would also re- sult in significant secondary benefits, due to stimulus to the local economy. In addition, other secondary benefits would accrue from -60- flood control protection and from an increase in recreational activ- ity and income. Costs The estimates of capital and average annual costs of the Frenchman Project, required for the purpose of determining economic justification, included costs of the following: (l) construction of the dam and appurtenances; (2) lands, easements, rights of way, and relocation of public utilities; (3) construction of public rec- reation facilities and access roads; and (4) operation, maintenance, and administration. A 3 per cent per annum interest rate was used in deriving the annual costs. The estimated capital cost of the Frenchman Project would be $1,695^000. This figure includes the present worth of initial and estimated future expenditures for public recreation facilities during the 50-year repayment period of the project. The estimated initial expenditure for public recreation facilities would be $62,500, resulting in a total initial capital cost for the project of $1,532,000. The total average annual cost of the Frenchman Project was determined to be $89,000. Capital and annual costs for features of the Frenchman Project are summarized in Table 9- Detailed costs are presented in Appendix B. Benefit-Cost Ratio The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the French- man Project v;ould be 1.8 to 1. -61- TABLE 9 ESTIMATED COSTS OP FRENCHMAN PROO'ECT Item Annual cost : Operation^ : Interest: mainte- : and re-: nance, and: Total payment : replac ement : Frenchman Dam and appurte- nance?^ Lands, easements, rights of way, and relocation of public utilities Public recreation facili- ties TOTALS $ 885,000 $3^.000 $11,000 -$45,000 584,000 23,000 226,000 9,000 $1,695,000 $66,000 12,000 23,000 21,000 $23,000 $89,000 Cost Allocation Of the total costs of the project, those for lands, ease- ments, rights of ivay , and relocation of public utilities v;ere assumed to be a responsibility of the State. The remaining costs, amounting to $66,300, were allocated by the Separable Costs-Remaining Benefits Method to irrigation and recreation purposes. These allocated costs were reduced to a common- time basis, and were expressed as average annual costs. The cost allocation is shown in Table 10. Results of the cost allocation indicated that the total annual reimbursable cost which should be assumed by the watex" users vrould amount to $30,200. The unit annual cost of new irrigation water, on the basis of the allocation, would be $2.50 per acre-foot of new water. The cost allocation also indicated that the annual cost of the recreation features of the Frenchman Project would amount to $36,100. For purposes of this report, these features were considered -62- TABLE 10 ALLOCATION OF ANNUAL COSTS OF FRENCHMAN PROJECT Item of annual : Irriga- : Re ere- : benefits or cost : tlon ; atlon ; Total Benefits $107,600 $49,900 $157,500 Alternative single-purpose cost 45,400 53,200 98,600 Benefits limited by alternative cost 45,400 49,900 95,300 Separable costs 13,100 20,900 34,000 Remaining benefits 32,300 29,000 6l,300 Unallocated joint costs 32,300 Allocated joint costs 17,100 15,200 32,300 Total allocation 30,200 36,100 66,300 to be of general state-v/ide interest and, therefore, their costs were assumed to be nonreimbursable. Proposed Method of Financing For purposes of this investigation, it was assumed that sufficient funds would be made available to the constructing agency for the construction of initial features of the project. In addi- tion, it was assumed that some provision v;ould be made for future construction of recreation facilities as they m.ight become necessary. It was further assumed that the reimbursable costs allocated to irrigation use vrauld be repaid from sales of water to the Last Chance Creek Water District, -63- The following conclusions with reference to the Frenchman Project are based on results of the engineering, geologic, and eco- nomic investigations and studies. 1. The project would be an engineeringiy practicable means of developing the waters of Little Last Chance Creek for supplemental irrigation use in Sierra Valley. 2. The project would have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 to 1 andj therefore, would be economically justified. 3. The irrigation benefits would provide direct eco- nomic gain to the water users. Therefore, in accordance with the criteria adopted for this study, the irrigation costs were considered to be reimbursable by the beneficiaries . 4. The ability of water users to pay the annual cost of irrigation water would exr.eed the cost of that water. 5. The recreation benefits would be of state-wide interest and^ therefore, in accordance with the criteria adopted for this study, the 3osts for this purpose were assumed to be a responsibility of the State and nonreim- bursable . Recpjciimenda t ions For the Frenchman Piojecr. it; is recommended: 1. That a public hearing be held to determine the willingness of prespective waters users to pay for proj- ect water. 2. That funds in the amount of $556^000 be appropri- ated for purchase of lands, easements, rights of way, for relocation of public utilities, and for final design and preparation of specifications, provided that reasonable assurance be obtained that the water users will assume the obligation for repayment of reimbursable costs. -64-^ GRIZZ LY VALLEY PROJECT The Grizzly Valley Project Is a proposed reservoir and system of works to regulate the waters of Big Grizzly Creek for irrigation use in Sierra Valley^ and to form the basis for enhance- ment of an outdoor recreation area. Its operation would provide a regulated water supply of about 15,100 acre-feet seasonally, of which l4,900 acre-feet would be new water that is presently unavail- able to irrigators in the valley. The project would include Grizzly Valley Reservoir, which would enhance the recreational setting and provide an opportunity for the construction of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer homes. Both the area surrounding the reservoir and the canyon down- stream would be desirable for this type of development. Although the reservoir would detain and reduce peak flood flows, relatively little damage presently occurs to private or public structures, so that only minor flood control benefits would be realized by con- struction of the project . Plan of Development The Grizzly Valley Project would consist of Grizzly Val- ley Reservoir, formed by a dam on Big Grizzly Creek about 5 miles north of Portola, a main conveyance canal to deliver water to Sierra Valley, and basic recreational facilities and access reads. The existing stream channel of Big Grizzly Creek, from the dam site downstream to the pond at Walton's Grizzly Lodge, would be utili-zerd^ as part of the water distribution conduit. From the pond at the lodge, a canal would extend eastward along the northern edge of Sierra Valley for a distance of about 17 miles to its terminus in -65- the Middle Fork of the Feather River. A portion of the service area could be served from the canal and another portion served by diver- sion from the Middle Pork of the Feather River below the point of discharge . Features of the Grizzly Valley Project and the service area are sho;-m on Plate 3- Service Area The service area for the G'rizzly Valley Project would con- sist of a portion of the existing Last Chance Creek Water District, and the valley area immediately north of the district. Operation of the project would be integrated with operation of the Frenchman Project. At present the area outside the water district is dry- farmed, while that vjithin the district receives some irrigation water, most of which is available only in the early spring. It was estimated that approximately 6,. 200 acres could receive a full irri- gation water supply from the Grizzly Valley Project. Study may in- dicate that in connection with the project it would be desirable to include additional lands within the existing water district. General Features of Project Grizzly Valley ReseriT-oir would have a gj.-'oss storage capac- ity of 80,000 acre-feet, and a net storage capacity of 77:»800 acre- feet. The water surface area would be about 4,100 acres, and the normal pool elevation would be 5j775 feet. The dam would be of earthfill construction. It vjould have a height of 123 feet, and a crest length of 38O feet. -66' p Grizzly Valley Reservoir Area r BP^ ,^.. • .fl; .>«iM ;Js S/erra Valley Service Area of Grizzly Valley and Frenchmar] Projects ^ y"*^^,. ^ ■a^. /' -m # ;?;. .jfc*- /v ^.-^ A concrete-lined chute spillway would be located in the right abutment of the dam. At the maximum water sa:?face elevation of 5>780 feet J spillway discharge capacity would be about 3,100 second-feet and surcharge storage capacity would be about 14,000 acre-feet. The spillway would have a concrete ogee control weir with a length of 75 feet^ and would discharge into the stream chan- nel below the dam. The distribution conduit from the pond at Walton's Grizzly Lodge would consist of an asphalt-lined canal, l6.6 miles in length, with an initial capacity of 8? second-feet, reduced to 17 second- feet at its terminus. Water surface elevation at the canal head- works would be 4,9^7 feet, and at the point where the water dis- charges into the Middle Pork of the Feather River the water surface elevation would be 4,897 feet. The outlet at the pond would con- sist of a concrete inlet structure containing three 4x3 foot head- gates, constructed on the upstream face of the dam. An opening through the left end of the existing dam forming the pond would con- nect to 600 lineal feet of flume which would discharge into the distribution canal. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Grizzly Valley Project as designed for cost estimating purposes are presented in Table 11. Bedrock at the Grizzly Valley dam site is a jointed gran- odiorite which outcrops nearly continuously along both abutments. Occasional andesitic dikes cut the granodiorite in the area of the dam site. Several joint sets are prominent. Gouge is developed along some shear zones. Talus on the abutments and fill in the channel are thin, but heavy excavation to shape the steep rocky -67- TABIiS 11 GENERAL FEATURES OF GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECT Grizzly Valley Dam Type Crest elevation, in feet Crest length, in feet Crest width, in feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed, in feet earthfill 5.786 380 25 112 Side slopes, upstream 2:1 and 3:1 dovmstream "2:1 Freeboard above spillvray lip, in feet 11 Elevation of stream bed, in feet 5.^663 Elevation of normal pool, in feet 5,775 Volume of fill, in cubic yards 230,800 Grizzly Valley Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip, in acres .... Storage capacity at spillway lip, in acre-feet Drainage area above dam site, in square miles Estimated average annual runoff, in acre-feet Estimated new yield, in acre-feet per season , Type of spillvray--lined chute in the right abutment with concrete control weir Spillway discharge capacity, in second-feet Type of outlet — 42-inch diam.eter welded steel pipe beneath dam Diversion Works Existing concrete slab and buttress dam at Walton's Grizzly Lodge, 175 feet in length, and 37 feet in height above stream bed, crest elevation, 5^.052 feet Type--buried asphalt membrane Length, in miles Capacity, in second-feet Service Area Sierra Valley Area to receive a full in-igation supply, in acres . . 4,100 80,000 45 25,000 15,000 3,100 16.6 87 to 17 6,200 abutments may be required. The foundation is considered adequate to support a dam of the height proposed. Large deposits of lake sediments for use as impervious fill are located within 0.25 mile of the site. Decomposed granodi- orite located on the left abutment above the dam site is suitable for use in the dam fill. Rock for riprap can be quarried at the site . -68- A topographic map of the reservoir area at a scale of 1 inch equals 4C0 feet was made by the United States Bureau of Recla- mation in 19^6. The dam site was mapped at a scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet by a firm under contract to the Department of Water Re- sources during this investigation. To secure rights of way necessary for the dam and reservoir and conduit would involve the acquisition of privately owned land and the use of federally owned land. The majority of the land is uti- lized for dry pasture, with brush and some small trees scattered over the slopes. Moderate crops of native grasses grow in the mead- ows during the spring and early summer months. Approximately 3 .5 miles of gravelled county road would require relocation. It was assumed that the ultimate recreational development for the project would consist of both publicly owned and privately owned facilities. It would include summer homes located at consid- erable distance from the water along the eastern shore line of the reservoir; resort areas, including retail stores, motels, and boat- ing facilities, along both sides of the reservoir; and public camp sites in the area immediately west of the reservoir. The latter area would also include two commercial developments. The recreation facilities proposed for immediate develop- ment would consist of access roads, basic public utilities, and a camp site area. Although it was assumed that the recreational de- velopment for the project would consist of both publicly ovmed and privately owned facilities, in determining project benefits from recreation, only the visitor-days of use of publicly owned facili- ties was estimated. -69- Pro.lect Water Yield Big Grizzly Creek joins the Middle Fork of the Feather River Just downstream from the outlet of Sierra Valley. Therefore/ except for a few hundred acre-feet of water per season that is pres- ently used in an area adjacent to Big Grizzly Greeks none of the wa- ters of Big Grizzly Greek are used for irrigation. Construction of the Grizzly Valley Project would make available l4,900 acre-feet of new water seasonally for irrigation use in Sierra Valley. The estimated seasonal distribution of new water that would be made available by the project is presented in Table 12. TABIE 12 PROPOSED SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF IRRIGATION WATER, GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECT (In acre-feet) October- : : : : : Sep- : March : May : June : July : A ugust; tember : Total 300 3.100 5,100 4,500 1,800 15,000 Econom i c Ju sti fication Economic justification of the Grizzly Valley Project was based on a comparison of primary benefits v/ith costs. Primary Benefits Benefits from construction and operation of the Grizzly Valley Project would accrue from the regulation of water for irriga- tion use in Sierra Valley and from recreational enhancement. It was estimated that the average annual net primary irrigation benefits would pe about $13^,000. This amount was based on a net annual (. -70- benefit of $9 per acre-foot of new water that would be developed by the project for use in Sierra Valley. The average annual net recrea- tion benefits, based on at-slte use of public facilities, were esti- mated to be about $59,000. As previously stated, flood control bene- fits would be negligible, as would stream flow maintenance benefits below the dam. The average annual benefits that would accrue from con- struction of Grizzly Valley Project are summarized in Table 13 . TABLE 13 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS, GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECT Item : Benefit Irrigation $134,100 Recreation 59.^00 TOTAL $193,500 The development of local water supplies to provide supple- mental water to irrigable lands in Sierra Valley would also result in significant secondary benefits, from the stimulus to the local econ- omy. In addition, other secondary benefits would accrue from an in- crease in recreational activity and income. Costs The estimates of capital and average annual costs of the Grizzly Valley Project, required for the purpose of determining eco- nomic justification, included costs of the following: (l) construc- tion of the dam and appurtenances; (2) construction of the main canal from Big Grizzly Creek to the service area; (3) land, easements, and -71- rights of way, and relocation of public utilities; (4) construction of public recreation facilities and access roads; and (5) operation, main- tenance, and administration. A 3 per cent per annum interest rate was used in deriving the annual costs. The estimated capital cost of the Grizzly Valley Project would be $1,900,000. This figure includes the present worth of ini- tial and estimated future expenditures for public recreation facili- ties during the 50-year repayment period of the project. The estimated Initial expenditure for public recreation facilities would be $71,000, resulting in a total initial capital cost for the project of $1,716,000, The total average annual cost of the Grizzly Valley Project was determined to be $107,000. Capital and annual costs for features of the Grizzly Valley Project are summarized in Table l4. Detailed costs are presented in Appendix B. TABLE Ik ESTIMATED COSTS OP GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECT Item Grizply Valley Dam and appurtenances Main canal Lands, easements, rights of way, and relocation of public utilities Public recreation facilities TOTALS Capital cost $ 568,000 729.000 255,000 $1,900,000 Annual cost : Operation, : Interest: mainte- : and re- : nance, and : Total paym e nt ;replacement ; $22,000 28,000 348,000 14,000 10,000 $74,000 $13,000 6,000 14,000 $33,000 $ 35.000 34,000 14,000 24 . 000 $107,000 -72- Benefit-Cost Ratio The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Grizzly- Valley Project would be 1.8 to 1. Cost Allocation Of the total costs of the project^ those for lands^ ease- mentSj rights of way, and relocation of public utilities were assumed to be a responsibility of the State. The remaining costS;, amounting to $93j 500, were allocated by the Separable Costs-Remaining Benefits Method to irrigation and recreation purposes. These allocated costs were reduced to a common-time basis, and were expressed as average annual costs. The cost allocation is shown in Table 15. TABLE 15 ALLOCATION OF ANNUAL COSTS OF GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECT Item of annual ' Irri- : Recre- : benefit or cost : gation : ation : Total Benefits $13^,100 $59.^00 $193,500 Alternative single-purpose cost 69,300 44,600 113,900 Benefits limited by alternative cost 69,300 44,600 113,900 Separable costs 48,900 24,200 73.100 Remaining benefits 20,400 26,400 40,800 Unallocated joint costs 20^400 Allocated joint costs 10,200 10,200 20,400 Total allocation 59,100 34,400 93,500 Results of the cost allocation indicated that the total an- nual reimbursable cost which should be assumed by the water users -73- would amount to $59,100. The unit annual cost of irrigation water, on the basis of the allocation, would "he $4 per acre-foot of new water. The cost allocation likewise indicated that the annual cost of the recreation features of the Gr-lzzlj Valley Project would amount to $34,400. For purposes of this report, these features were consid- ered to be of general state-wide interest and, therefore, their costs were assumed to be nonreimbursable. Proposed Me thod of Financino; For purposes of this investigation^ it was assumed that suf- ficient funds would be made avai.lable to the constructing agency for the construction of initial featiires of the project. In addition, it was assumed that some provision would be made for futux'-e const^miction of recreation facilities as they might become necessary. It was further assumed that the reimbursable costs allocated to irrigation use would be repaid from sales of water i;o an expanded Last Chance Creek Water District. Conclusions The following conclusions with reference to the Grizzly Val- ley Proiect are based upon results of the engineering;, geologic, and economic investigations and stur7iss. 1. The project would be an engineeringly practicable means of developing the waters of Big drizzly Creek for sup- plemental irrigation use in Sierra Valley. 2. The project would have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 to 1, and, therefore, would be economically justified. 3. The irrigation benefits would provide direct eco- nomic gain to the water users. Therefore, in accordance with the criteria adopted for this study, the irrigation costs were considered to be reimbursable by the beneficiaries. -74- 4. The ability of water users to repay the annual cost of irrigation water would exceed the cost of that water. 5. The recreation benefits would be of state-wide interest and, therefore, in accordance with the criteria adopted for this study, the costs of this purpose were assumed to be a responsi- bility of the State and nonreimbursable. Recommendations For the Grizzly Valley Project it is recommended: 1. That a public hearing be held to determine the willing- ness of prospective water users to pay for project water. 2. That funds in the amount of $387,000 be appropriated for purchase of lands, easements, rights of way, for relocation of public utilities, and for final design and preparation of speci- fications, provided that reasonable assurance be obtained that the water users will assume the obligation for repayment of re- imbursable costs. -75- CHAPTER IV. ALTERNATIVE GRIZZLY VALLEY RECREATION PROJECT Grizzly Valley Reservoir was also studied from the stand- point that it would be operated principally as a recreation project. Water stored in the reservoir on Big Grizzly Creek could be regu- lated and released to maintain the flow of the Middle Pork of the Feather River rather than being used for irrigation in Sierra Val- ley. A firm controlled flow would aid in developing the recrea- tional potential of 33 miles of attractive natural strea,m channel, and provide the basis for an increase in angling use. The reser- voir itself would provide a setting for the development of recrea- tional facilities. In addition, the project would provide regulated water for the production of hydroelectric power at several proposed downstream power plants, including the power plants below Oroville Reservoir. Project Area The Middle Fork of the Feather River drains a mountainous area in northern Sierra sind southern Plumas Counties almost wholly within the Plumas National Forest, The principal benefits from a stream flow maintenance program on the Middle Fork would be realized along the stretch of river from Portola to the vicinity of Sloat. Along this reach, through Humbug, Mohawk, and Long Valleys^ the stream is particularly attractive and easily accessible. Downstream from Sloat the river drops through a precipitous canyon where access is difficult and where recreational use would therefore be limited. -77- Climate The predominating features of the climate of Plumas and Sierra Counties have previously been discussed. As stated, the winters are moderately severe, but the summers are warm and exceed- ingly pleasant. Land Use Nearly all of the raoxmtain and hill land in the Middle Pork of the Feather River Basin is presently owned and managed by the United States Forest Service for timber production^ wildlife^ grazing of livestock, recreation, and water production. The land is largely in its natural state. On the other hand, most of the valley land is privately owned. PoDUlation A total of four communities, Porcola, Clio. Blairsden, and Sloat, are located along the Upper Middle Fork., ranging in size from less than fifty to several thousand inhabitants. These comraunities would be directly affected by construction of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project, It is estimated that there are over :";. 000 inhabitants living in the project area. Transportation The highway and railroad routes through the Feather River country follow the Middle Fork of the Feather River in the higher elevations. Both U. S. Highway 40 Alternate and the V/estem Pacific Railroad would provide access to the reach of the river that would be enhanced by the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project. -78- Antelope Valley Reservoir Area ^^*V;.,.|K., Middle Fork Feafher River Below Grizzly Valley Reservoir Need for Project Development A significant increase in use of the outdoor recreation and fishing potential of the Middle Fork of the Feather River would be realized by regulation of the stream flow. As has been stated, runoff from streams in the basin, formed largely from melting snows, occurs as torrential floods in the spring, but drops sharply to minimum flows soon thereafter. Because of the natural scenic beauty of the tree-covered slopes an.d moxmtain meadows, the Middle Fork receives considerable recreational use at present. People from throughout California travel to the area to fish, hunt, and vacation along the river. De- velopment of the waters of Big Grizzly Creek for stream flow mainte- nance In the Middle Fork would provide opportunity for a greater expansion of the recreational activities. Public and private facili- ties could be developed along the stream after improvement of its flow by operation of the headwater reservoir. Plan of Development Grizzly Valley Reservoir, If utilized for recreational purposes, would be constructed in Grizzly Valley, with the dam lo- cated on Big Grizzly Creek about 5 miles north of Portola. It was estimated that an additional average annual total of 39^^00 visitor- days of use would be realized from developments around the lake, and about 323,000 visitor-days from the stream flow maintenance program. Features of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Project are shown on Plate 3. -79- General Features of Project Grizzly Valley Reservoir, planned as a recreation project, would have a gross storage capacity of 44,000 acre-feet and a net capacity of 43,000 acre-feet. The water surface area would be about 2,700 acres, and the normal pool elevation would be about 5,763 feet. The dam would be of earthfill construction, with a height of 101 feet and a crest length of 315 feet. A concrete-lined chute spillway would be located in the left abutment of the dam. At the maximum, water surface elevation of 5,767.5 feet, spillway discharge capacity would be about 2,465 second-feet, and surcharge storage capacity would be about 12,000 acre-feet. The spillway xirould have a concrete ogee control weir with 8 length of about 75 feet, and would discharge into the stream channel below the dam. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project as designed for cost estimating purposes are presented in Table I6, Geologic characteristics of the foundation are the same for this structure as for the larger Grizzly Valley Reservoir pro- posed for irrigation use. Details are discussed in Chapter III. The ultimate recreational development planned for the lake area would consist of both public and private facilities. In deter- mining project benefits from recreation, hov/ever, the visitor-days use of only publicly owned facilities were considered. The proposed ultimate plan of development includes summer homes located a considerable distance from the water along the eastern shore line of the reservoir. Resort areas, including retail stores, motels, and boating facilities would be constructed on both sides of -80- TABLE 16 GENERAL FEATURES OF ALTERNATIVE GRIZZLY VALLEY RECREATION PROJECT Grizzly Valley Dam Type earthflll Crest elevation;, in feet 5^77^ Crest lengthj in feet 315 Crest v/idth, in feet 25 Height, spillway lip above stream bed, in feet .... 90 Side slopes, upstream 2:1 and 3:1 downstream 2:1 Freeboard above spillway lip, in feet 11 Elevation of stream bed, in feet 5,673 Elevation of normal pool, in feet 5,763 Volume of fill, in cubic yards 153,700 Grizzly Valley Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip, in acres 2,700 Storage capacity at spillway lip, in acre-feet .... 44,000 Drainage area above dam site, in square miles .... 45 Estimated average annual runoff, in acre-feet .... 25,000 Estimated stream flow maintenance, at Middle Fork Feather River at Clio, minimum flow, in second-feet. 50 Type of spillway--lined chute in the left abutment with concrete control weir Spillway discharge capacity, in second-feet 2,465 Type of outlet--30-inch diameter pipe beneath dam -81- the reservoir. Camp sites, together with two commercial develop- ments, would be located In an area immediately west of the reservoir. The initial development would consist of access roads, basic public utilities, and a camp site area^ all of which was assumed would be constructed with public funds. As the demand for facilities in- creased, private development would be encouraged. Specific developments along the Middle Fork of the Feather River from Portola to Sloat were not planned. It was anticipated that public access to the stream i-jould be maintained, but, otherwise, the physical structures would be privately owned. Project benefits were derived from an estimated increase in fishing use of the stream. Project Water Yield Grizzly Valley Reservoir, if operated to maintain stream flow in the Middle Fork of th3 Feather River by combining releases with the natural outflow from Sierra Valley, v/ould assure a minimum flow in the Middle Fork at Portola of 50 second-feet. Monthly floivs in the Middle Fork of the Feather River at the gaging station near Clio for the critical dry year of record, 1931 J as compared vrith flows that would have occurred with the proj- ect in operation, are presented in Table 17. Economic Justification Economic justification of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project vras based on a comparison of primary benefits v/ith economic costs. -82- TABLE 17 COMPARISON OF PLOWS IN MIDDLE PORK FEATHER RIVER, WITH AND WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE GRIZZLY VALLEY RECREATION PROJECT, FOR CRITICAL DRY YEAR OF 1931 (In second-feet ) Con- ; Average monthly flow dltion ; Jan.c ;Febc gMar, : Apr. : May ; Jime ; July ; Aug . rSept , ;Oct . ;Nov, ;Dec . Pre- 91 108 207 72 63 26 11 8 10 18 22 56 project Project 90 99 159 53 69 50 50 50 50 50 50 66 Primary Benefits Benefits accruing from construction of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project would result from the recreational enhancement of the area. The estimated average annual net benefits, based on the use of public facilities around the reservoir, would be about $59^000, Based on an.ticipated increased use of the im- proved Middle Fork for fishing, an additional average annual net benefit of about $719^000 would result. The total average annual benefits accruing from operation of Grizzly Valley Reservoir for recreational purposes would be $778,000, Average annual benefits that would accrue from construction of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project are presented in Table I8, TABLE 18 ESTIMATED AVERAGE A1>JNUAL NET BENEFITS, ALTERl^ATr\rE GRIZZLY VALLEY RECREATION PROJECT Item : Benefit Recreational enhancement of reservoir area $ 59^^00 Stream flow maintenance program 7l8,600 TOTAL $778,000 -83- Considerable secondary benefits to the area would ac- crue from the increased recreational activltyo New business and additional income would stimulate and enhance the general economy. Costs The estimates of capital and average annual costs of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project required for the purpose of determination of economic justification included costs of the following: (l) construction of the dam an.d appurtenances; (2) land, easements, and rights of way, and relocation of public utilities; (3) construction of public recreation facilities and access roads; and (4) operation, maintenance, and administration. A 3 per cent per annura interest rate was used in deriving the ai->niTal costs. The estimated capital cost of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project would be $950, 000„ This figure includes the present worth of initial and estimated future expenditures for public recreation facilities during the 50-year period of analy- sis. The estimated initial expenditure for public recreation would be $62,000, resulting in a total initial capital cost of $758,000. The total average annual cost of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project v/as der-emined to be $59>000„ Estimated capital and annual costs of features of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project are itemized in Table 19 . Detailed costs are presented in Appendix Bo -8k. TABLE 19 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ALTSRNATI\^ GRIZZLY VALLEY RECREATION PROJECT Item Annual cost : Operation, : Interest: mainte- : and re~:nanca, and : Total payment : replacement ; Grizzly Valley Dam and appurtenances Lands, easements, rights of way, and relocation of public utilities Public recreation facili- $348,000 $14,000 $ 7,000 $21,000 348, 000 14, 000 t2.es TOTALS 14, 000 254,000 10,000 14, 000 24,000 $950,000 $38,000 $21,000 $59,000 Benefit-Cost Ratio The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Alter- native Grizzly Valley Recreation Project would be about 13 to 1„ Cost Allocation The uses of the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project would be of state-wide interest, and in accordance with the criteria adopted for this study, it was assumed that all costs would be borne by the State, Public Policy Considerations Although it has been shown that Grizzly Valley Reservoir could be operated as a recreation project to produce benefits in excess of costs, to do so would eliminate the possibility of serv- ing potentially irrigable lands in Sierra Valley, It has long been a policy of the State that domestic use is the highest use and -85- irrigation is the next highest use of water. This policy is set forth in section 106 of Chapter 1 of Division 1 of the Water Code. Furthermore, In accordance with the policy set forth in section 10500 of Part 2 of Division 6 of the Water Code, full consideration must be given to the water needs of Sierra Valley as an area of origin. Sierra Valley is an inherently water-deficient area. It is believed that to deny this area the waters of Grizzly Creek would not be in the public interest. Therefore, further consider- ation of this alternative project should be contingent upon the acceptance or rejection of the Grizzly Valley project for irri- gation use by water users in Sierra Valley. Conclusions The following conclusions with reference to the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project are based upon re- sults of the engineering and geological investigations and economic studies. 1. The project would be an engineeringly practicable means of developing the waters of Big Grizzly Creek for recreation, fish, and wildlife purposes. 2. The project vjould have a benefit-cost ratio of 13 to 1 and, therefore, would be economically justified. 3. The recreation benefits would be of state-v/ide Interest. Therefore, in accordance vjith the criteria adopted for this study, the costs for this purpose x^^ere assumed to be a responsibility of ^^"'^ State and nonreimbursable . 4. The intei'ests cf the State would best be served by developing the waters of Big Grizzly Creek for irri- gation use in Sierra Valley. -86- Recommendations For the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project it is recommended that: Further consideration be given to the project only if it is found that prospective water users in Sierra Valley are unwilling to assume the obligation of repay- ment for the reimbursable costs of the Grizzly Valley Project. -87- CHAPTER V. INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PROJECT The Indian Creek Recreation Project would be a major factor In development of the considerable recreational potential of the Upper Indian Creek Basin. The project would include three dams and reser- voirs, to be operated for stream flow maintenance purposes, and to provide a setting for the development of recreational facilities around the reservoirs. In addition, the new water that would be ob- tained from the project would provide a supplemental water supply for irrigation use in Indian Valley. Project Area The Upper Indian Creek Basin is located in a mountainous area in northeastern Plumas County, almost wholly within the Plumas National Forest. The upper basin is defined as that portion of the Indian Creek Basin situated above Indian Valley. It is irregular in shape, with a maximum east-west length of about 30 miles, and an aver- age north-south width of about 20 miles. It has a drainage area of about 550 square miles. The principal tributaries of Indian Creek in the upper basin are Last Chance and Red Clover Creeks. Climate The climate of the Upper Indian Creek Basin is quite sim- ilar to that of the Middle Fork Basin, although the average seasonal precipitation is somewhat greater. Precipitation varies from a low of 30 inches to a high of 50 inches, and more than half of that occur- ring between October and May is in the form of snow. Other climatic characteristics are typical of the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada, such as an abundance of sunshine, -89- wide range of temperature, and low humidity during the summer months. Land Use The major use of land in the Upper Indian Creek Basin is for timber production, and most of the land is owned and managed by the Federal Government. Agriculture is of importance, and consists of the raising of beef cattle, both on scattered privately owned and on fed- erally owned lands. The grazing land is in its natural state, with tree-covered slopes and open meadow lands, and has a low cattle- carrying capacity. The gFsziBg season extends from May through Octo- ber, and irrigation is of minor importance in the operations. In Indian Valley, the major use of land is for the produc- tion of beef cattle on Improved range pasture. Here, irrigation is Mecessary for the maturation and successful production of crops. In accordance with the availability of natural runoff, meadow lands are irrigated by wild flooding, producing a high-quality hay for winter feeding. Several wells are operated to provide supplemental water for irrigation use. Some alfalfa and grain are produced in the valley, but additional water is needed in the late irrigation season for the maximum production of crops . Pocujajbign The Upper Indian Creek Basin is sparsely inhabited, with permanent residents numbering less than a hundred. Several scattered logging and forestry camps experience an influx of workers during the summer season, but few remain during the winter months. None of the cattle-raising activities extend beyond the grazing season. -90- Transportation An excellent transportation system extends to the project area. 'This includes U. S, Highway 40 Alternate, U. S. Highway 395, State Highway 89^ and the Western Pacific's mainline railroad through the Sierra Nevada . Further development of the local road system would be needed in the project area. At present, this system includes a number of logging roads and several gravelled county roads that crisscross the area. Need for Project Development A significant increase in the outdoor recreation and fish- ing potential of the Upper Indian Creek Basin would be realized from regulation of the available water supplies. At present, runoff from streams in the basin, formed largely from melting snow, occurs as tor- rential floods in the spring, but drops sharply to a minimum flow soon thereafter. Although it enjoys much natural scenic beauty, tree-covered slopes, and mountain meadows, the Upper Indian Creek Basin presently experiences only limited use as an outdoor recreation area. However, a limited number of people from throughout California do travel to the area to fish, hunt, camp, and vacation, for the area is readily acces- sible. Flan of Development The Indian Creek Recreation Project would comprise a system of works for regulating the waters of Indian Creek and its tributaries for the enhancement of recreation in the Upper Indian Creek Basin. The works would include Antelope Valley Dam and Reservoir on Indian -91- Creekj Dixie Refuge Dam and Reservoir on Last Chance Creek, Abbey Bridge Dam and Reservoir on Red Clover Creek, and public recreation facilities at each. In addition, the project would provide opportun- ity for the development of a large park and recreation area in Genesee Valley. It was estimated that an average annual total of 93^200 visitor-days of use, over and above the present use, would be realized from developments proposed around the reservoirs. In addition, about 309,000 visitor-days of use ivould be realized from 62 miles of im- proved streams. Features of the project are shown on Plate 3. General Features of Project The following sections set forth more detailed descriptions of project features of Antelope Valley, Abbey Bridge, and Dixie Ref- uge Da.ns and Reservoirs > Pertinent data vjith respect to the features of the Indian Creek Recreation Project as designed for cost estimating purposes are presented in Table 20. Antelope Valley Dam and Reservoir . Antelope Valley Reser- voir would be constructed in Antelope Valley, with the dam at a site on l-.oian Creek about 1 mile downstream from the Boulder Creek Guard Star-ion. An auxiliary dam would be constructed in a saddle about 300 feet west of the main dam. The reservoir would have a gross storage capacity of 21,600 acre-feet and a net capacity of 18,300 acre-feet. The water surface area would be about 930 acres, and the normal pool elevation would be about 5,000 feet. -92- TABLE 20 GENERAL FEATURES OF INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PROJECT A ntelope Valley Dam Type Crest elevation, in feet Crest length, in feet Crest width, in feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed, in feet Side slopes, upstream downstream Freeboard above spillway lip, in feet Elevation of stream bed, in feet Elevation of normal pool, in feet Volume of fill, in cubic yards Antelope Valley Auxiliary Dam Type Crest elevation, in feet Crest length, in feet Crest width, in feet Total height, in feet Side slopes, upstream downstream Volume of fill, in cubic yards Antelope Valley Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip, in acres Storage capacity at spillway lip, in acre-feet Drainage area, in square miles Estimated average annual runoff, in acre-feet Estimated new yield, minimum flow, in second-feet . . . Type of spillway--unlined chute in the right abutment with concrete control weir Spillway discharge capacity, in second-feet Type of outlet--24-inch diameter welded steel pipe beneath dam Dixie Refuge Dam Type Crest elevation, in feet Crest length, in feet Crest width, in feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed, in feet Side slopes, upstream ^ downstream ...... Freeboard above spillway lip, in feet Elevation of stream bed, in feet Elevation of normal pool, in feet Volume of fill, in cubic yards earthfill 5,016 490 25 77 2.5:1 2:1 16 4,923 5,000 182,200 earthfill 5,016 390 25 29 2.5:1 2:1 19,000 930 21,600 70 21,000 6 3,400 earthfill 5,751 1,025 25 70 2.75:1 2 . 25 : 1 11 5,67c 5,740 319,300 '93- TABLE 20 (Continued) GENERAL FEATURES OP INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PROJECT Dixie Refuge Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip. In acres 800 Storage capacity at spillway lip. In acre-feet ...... 16,100 Drainage area. In square miles 46 Estimated average annual runoff, in acre-feet 13,000 Estimated new yield, minimum flow, in second-feet .... 8 Type of spillway — unlined saddle on left abutment with concrete control v;eir Spillway discharge capacity, in second-feet 2,250 Type of outlet — 24-inch diameter, welded steel pipe beneath dam -' Abbey Bridge Dam Type rockfill Crest elevation, in feet 5,433 Crest length, in feet 645 Crest width, in feet 25 Height, spillway lip above stream bed, in feet 58 Side slopes, upstream 2:1 downstream 1.5:1 Freeboard above spillway lip, in feet 13 fcfcrearji bed elevation, in feet 5^362 Elevation of normal pool, in feet 5^.420 Volume of fill, in cubic yards 95,800 Abbey Bridp;e Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip, in acres 540 Storage capacity at spillway lip, in acre-feet 11,100 Drainage area, in square miles 89 Estimated average annual nanoff, in acre-feet 24,000 Estimated new yield, minimum flow, in second-feet .... 12 Type of splllway-~lined chute in right abutment with concrete control weir Spillway discharge capacity, in second-feet 7,750 Type of outlet— l8-inch diameter welded steel pipe beneath dam -9^>_ The dam would be of earthfill construction^ with a height of 93 feet and a crest length of 490 feet. The auxiliary dam would be of earthfill construction, with a height of 29 feet and a crest length of 390 feet. An unlined chute spillway would be located across the right abutment of the dam. At a maximum water surface elevation of 5j011 feet, the spillway would have a maximum discharge capacity of 3^380 second-feet, and a surcharge storage capacity of about 8,400 acre-feet, The spillway would be constructed with an uncontrolled overflow weir section, and the chute would discharge into the stream channel below the dam. Tlie concrete control weir would be 25 feet In length. The outlet to the stream channel below the dam would con- sist of a welded steel pipe located in the left abutment of the dam. Releases through a submerged intake structure would be controlled by use of two hydraulically operated gate valves. A regulating valve would be located on the downstream end of the pipe. Bedrock at Antelope Valley dam site is heavily jointed biotite hornblende granodiorite. That forming the left abutment is fresh, and outcrops continuously over the uniform slope. Very little stripping would be required. The right abutment is deeply weathered, with an irregular slope due to large unweathered blocks. Stripping would be deep under the impervious section of the dam. The channel is filled with upward of 15 feet of sand, gravel, and blocks. This fill would have to be removed to prepare for the impervious section of the dam. The broad saddle behind the right abutment is underlain by decomposed granodiorite to a depth of over 30 feet. Removal of the root zone and treatment of the decomposed granite would be necessary -95- to prepare for the auxiliary dam. Considerable grouting would be re- quired. The results of exploratory drilling Indicate that the site is suitable for the height of dam proposed. Exploration of possible construction material borrow areas indicates that ample quantities of material for construction of an earthfill dam exist within 1,5 miles of the site. A topographic map of the reservoir area at a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feetj and of the dam site at a scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet, was made by a firm under contract to the Department of Water Resources during this investigation. To secure rights of way necessary for the dam and reservoir would involve the acquisition of privately owned land and the use of iederally owned land. Most of the area is dry pasture land, with some irrigated pasture in the bottom lands. Timber grows on the slopes. Moderate-tc-good crops of native grasses grow in the meadows during the spring and early summer months. It was assumed that the recreational development for the project would consist of both publicly owned and privately owned fa- cilities. However, in determining project benefits from recreation, only the visitor-days of use of publicly owned facilities were esti- mated. The facilities around the lake would consist of extensive family and organizational camps. Camp sites vrauld be located on rel- atively flat wooded terrain with access to the lake frontage.. The public beaches would be sandy and favorable to swimming. A pack sta- tion would be located near the westerly end of the reservoir and would accommodate parties into the Diamond Mountain country to the east. The primary commercial and resort area would be located along -96- Abbey Bridge Reservoir Area 'jj^:%r' T " v ■<( * >■ - V- •a*:''i — ^^•^■^.^!■;^-»-> .^"^T'^^^^^'^^^-^'^*'^^"^^^^^-. ' - * *<. ■-=3#t.=i-^-- PWB^' f.4* .1??. t. *A .^^. J^kJ^M Dixie Refuge Reservoir Area the south shore. Summer homes would be scattered In small groups around the entire reservoir. The development downstream along Indian Creek would con- sist of public campgrounds and picnic areas and associated recrea- tional facilities. Some summer home areas and resort and commercial facilities would be developed. Abbey Bridge Dam and Reservoir . Abbey Bridge Reservoir would be constructed on Red Clover Creek in the lower part of Red Clover Valley, with the dam at a site about 2 miles upstream from the Abbey Bridge Guard Station. The reservoir would have a gross storage capacity of 11,100 acre-feet and a net storage capacity of 10,100 acre-feet. The water surface area would be about 5^0 acres, and the normal pool elevation would be about 5j^20 feet. The dam v/ould be of rockfill construction with an impervi- ous earthen core. It would have a height of 71 feet and a crest length of 645 feet . The outlet to the stream channel below the dam would con- sist of a welded steel pipe located in the right abutment of the dam. Releases through a submerged intake structure would be controlled by two hydraulically operated gate valves. A regulating valve would be located on the downstream end of the pipe. A chute spillway would be located in a saddle on the right abutment of the dam. At maximum water surface elevation of 5,427-5 feet, it would have a discharge capacity of about 7^750 second-feet and a surcharge storage capacity of 5^100 acre-feet. The spillway would consist of an uncontrolled overflow weir, with a concrete- lined chute discharging into the stream channel below the dam. The concrete ogee weir section would be 100 feet in length. -97- Bedrock at Abbey Bridge dam site is a Jointed, massive olivine hornblende basalt. In the spillway saddle the bedrock is in contact with porous andesitic mudf lows . Stripping on the abut- ments under the impervious section of the dam would consist of about 5 feet of soil and bedrock. About 10 feet of debris and jointed bedrock would have to be removed from the channel. The dam site is considered adequate to support a dam of the height contemplated. Rock for use in the dam as fill material could be quarried at the site. Also, talus slopes, located about 1 mile downstream, are a source of rockflll. Ample quantities of impervious material could be obtained from Red Clover Valley. A topographic map of the reservoir area and dam site, at a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, was made by a firm under con- tract to ■:he Department of Water Resources during this investigation, To secure rights of way necessary for the dam, reservoir, and recreation facilities would involve the acquisition of privately owned land and the use of federally owned land. Most of the land is utilized for dry pasture, with brush and some small trees scattered over the slopes. Good crops of native grasses grow in the meadows during the spring and early summer months. Approximately 3-8 miles of gravelled county road would require relocation. It was assumed that the recreational development for the project vjould consist of both publicly owned and privately owned facilities. However, in determining project benefits from recrea- tion, only the visitor-days of use of publicly owned facilities were estimated. The facilities around the reservoir would consist of summer homes set back from the lake on both the north and south shores. A major resort vjould be located on the south shore near -98- the dam sites, and an additional resort could be developed near the middle of the north shore . Camp areas would be located well back from the reservoir to provide a good view of the reservoir, adequate drainage, and to prevent pollution of the reservoir. The greatest concentration of development would probably take place near the westerly end of, and downstream from the reservoir. The developments downstream along Red Clover Creek would consist of campgrounds and picnic areas and associated recreational facilities. Some summer home areas and resort and commercial facil- ities would be developed. Dixie Refuge Dam and Reservoir . Dixie Refuge Reservoir would be constructed on Last Chance Creek, with the dam located about 5 miles south of Milford. The reservoir would have a gross storage capacity of l6,100 acre-feet and a net storage capacity of l4,150 acre-feet The water surface area would be about 800 acres, and the normal pool elevation would be about 5^7^0 feet. The dam would be of earthfill construction, with a height of 81 feet and a crest length of 1,025 feet. The outlet to the stream channel below the dam would con- sist of a welded steel pipe located in the right abutment of the dam. Releases through a submerged intake structure would be controlled by two hydraulically operated gate valves, A regulating valve v.'ould be located on the downstream end of the pipe. A chute spillway would be located in a saddle behind the left abutment of the dam. At maximum water surface elevation of 5^7^5.7 feet, it would have a discharge capacity of about 2,250 second-feet, and a surcharge storage capacity of about 5^100 acre-feet -99- The spillv/ay would consist of an uncontrolled overflow weir with an unlined chute discharging into the stream channel below the dam. The concrete ogee weir section would be 40 feet in length. Bedrock at the Dixie Refuge dam site is biotite hornblende granodiorite. The depth of weathering is generally shallow, except for the terrace area on the right abutment. Stripping would be shallow, but it would be necessary to excavate a trench to assure a cutoff. Preliminary exploratory drilling indicates that the founda- tion is suitable to support a dam of the height contemplated. The results of preliminary borrow exploration and mater- ials testing indicate that an ample supply of material is available for construction of an earthfill dam. A topographic map of the reservoir area at a scale of 1 inch £^:juals 400 feet, and of the dam site at a scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet, was made by a firm under contract to the Department of Water Resources during this investigation. To secure rights of way necessary for the dsm, reservoir, and recreation facilities would involve the acquisition of privately owned land and the use of federally oivned land. Most of the land is utilized for dry pasture, with brush and some small trees scattered over the slopes. Moderate crops of native grasses grow in the meado-vs during the spring and early summer months. Approximately 1.5 miles of gravelled county road, and 2 miles of power line would require relocation. It was assumed that the recreational development for the project would consist of both publicly owned and privately owned fa- cilities. However, in determining project benefits from recreation, only the visitor-days of use of publicly owned facilities was estimated. -100- The facilities around the lake would consist of camp sites in the higher elevations overlooking the reservoir along the north shore, with home sites closer to the reservoir. Two camp sites are pro- posed, one on the northwest shore close to the lake, and another larger area near the dam site. The development downstream along Last Chance Creek would consist of campgrounds and picnic areas and associated recreational facilities. Some summer home areas and resort and commercial fa- cilities would be developed. Pro.iect Water Yield The Indian Creek Recreation Project would be operated to provide releases from the reservoirs for stream flow maintenance purposes in Indian, Last Chance, and Red Clover Creeks. The three streams combine into a single stream at the upper end of Genesee Valley. The regulated flows would substantially enhance recreation from May through October. During the remainder of the year, the reservoir releases would be reduced by about one-half. The relationship of average historical monthly stream flows during the minimum season of record, 1930-1931^ as compared to average pre-project and project flow conditions, is presented in Table 21. Economic Justification Economic justification of the Indian Creek Recreation Project was based on a comparison of primary benefits with costs. -101- TABLE 21 COMPARISON OF FLOWS IN INDIAN, LAST CHANCE, AND RED CLOVER CREEKS DITRING MINIMUM DRY SEASON OF 1930-31 WITH AVERAGE PRE-PROJECT AND PROJECT FLOW CONDITIONS, INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PROJECT : Average monthly flow, in second- feet Condition :Oct, :Nov. :Dec. : Jan. :Febo :Mar. :Apr. jMay : June ; July: Aug o sSepto Indian Creek Estimated historical flow, 1930-31 Average pre-project Project 2 3 9 h 8 5 k 23 12 7 26 19 lU Uo 26 18 67 51; 9 99 89 h 53 U7 1 23 19 1 5 9 1 3 9 1 2 9 Last Chance Creek Estimated historical flow, 1930-31 Average pre-project Project 1 2 10 3 5 5 3 lii 5 5 16 9 9 25 11 11 U2 2li 6 62 U6 2 33 27 1 15 lU 1 3 10 1 2 10 1 1 10 Red Clover Creek Estimated historical flow, 1930-31 Average pre-project Project 7 6 13 8 lU 7 7 31 15 12 3.5 23 20 50 32 3U 76 6? 22 107 101 18 69 65 11 17 13 1 1 13 3 3 13 Primary Benefits The average annual net benefits from construction and oper- ation of the Indian Creek Recreation Project would accrue from rec- reational enhancement of the reservoir area, estimated to amount to about $146,000, and from stream flow maintenance for the enhancement of fish and wildlife, estimated to amount to about $467,000. These estimates were based on a net benefit of $2 per visitor-day of use. The benefits are summarized in Table 22. The Indian Creek Recreation Project would also result in significant secondary benefits, by providing a stimulus to the local economy. These benefits, in general, would result from an increase in income to commercial establishments servicing the recreationists. •102- TABLE 22 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS, INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PROJECT : Reservoir ^Stream flow : Unit ; area :maintenance : Total Antelope Valley Reservoir $ 53.000 $ 86,000 $139,000 Dixie Refuge Reservoir 42,000 242,000 284,000 Abbey Bridge Reservoir 51.000 139,000 190.000 TOTAL $146,000 $467,000 $613,000 Costs The estimates of capital and average annual costs of the Indian Creek Recreation Project, required for the purpose of deter- mining economic Justification, include costs of the following: (l) construction of the dam and appurtenances; (2) lands, easements, rights of way, and relocation of public utilities; (3) constiniction of public recreation facilities and access roads; and (4) operation, maintenance, and administration. A 3 per cent per annum interest rate was used in deriving the annual costs. The estimated capital cost of the Indian Creek Recreation Project would be $2,327,000. This figure includes the present worth of initial and estimated future expenditures for public recreation facilities during the 50-year repayment period of the project. The estimated initial expenditure for public recreation facilities would be $266,000, resulting in a total initial capital cost for the proj- ect of $1,925,000. The total average annual cost of the Indian Creek Recrea- tion Project was determined to be $142,000. -103- Capital and annual costs for features of the Indian Creek Recreation Project are summarized in Table 23. Detailed costs are presented in Appendix B, Benefit-Cost Ratio The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Indian Creek Recreation Project vrould be 4.3 to 1. Cost Allocation Tt viasr; consld^r^d that the recreational purposes and uses of the Indian Creek Recreation Project would be of general state-wide interest^ andj therefore, in accordance with the criteria adopted for this study, all costs of the project were assiimed to be borne by the State and nonreimbursable. Proposed Metho d of Financing; It was assumed that the capital cost of the Indian Creek Recreation Project, estimated to be about $1,925,000, would, in accordance with criteria adopted for this study, be financed by direct appropriation of the Legislature. Likewise, the costs of future additional public recreational units, and annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs necessary to deep the project in operation, would be pro>/ided by legislative appropriations. A por- tion of these latter costs might be reduced by revenues from the project . As has been previously stated, operation of this project for recreational purposes could so regulate the: iwatefc^^sv.ppjy pres- ently utilized for irrigation in Indian Valley as to provide positive -104- TABIxE 23 ESTIMATED COSTS OF INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PROJECT J. tern Annual costs Capital cost : : Operation, : Interest: mainte- :and re- : nance and :payment : replacement Total Dams and appurtenances Antelope Valley Abbey Bridge Dixie Refuge Subtotals Lands, easements, rights of way, and relocation of public utilities Antelope Valley Abbey Bridge Dixie Refuge Subtotals Public recreation facilities Antelope Valley Abbey Bridge Dixie Refuge Subtotals TOTALS $ 386,000 433,000 '355.000 93,000 127,000 65.000 $ 228,000 241,000 199.000 $ 668,000 $2,327,000 $15,000 17,000 22.000 $ 6,000 4,000 5.000 $ 4,000 5,000 3.000 $ 285,000 $12,000 $ 9,000 9,000 8,000 $26,000 $92,000 $13,000 13,000 11,000 $37,000 $52,000 $ 21,000 21,000 27 . 000 $1,374,000 $54,000 $15,000 $ 69,000 $ 4,000 5,000 3,000 $ 12,000 $ 22,000 22,000 18.000 $ 63,000 $144,000 benefits to the irrigation users. These benefits would be incidental to the main purpose of the project, and were omitted from the eco- nomic analysis. Conclusions The following conclusions with reference to the Indian Creek Recreation Project were based upon the results of the engineer- ing, geologic, and economic investigation and studies. -105- 1. The project would be an engineerlngly practicable means of developing the waters of Indian Creek and Its tribu- taries for recreation and fish and wildlife purposes. 2. The project would have a benefit-cost ratio of 4,3 to 1, and J therefore, would be economically justified. 3. The recreational benefits from the project would be of state-wide Interest, and, in accordance with the assumed criteria, the costs should be the responsibility of the State and nonreimbursable. Recommendations In connection with the Indian Creek Recreation Project it is recommended that: Funds in the amount of $357^^00 be appropriated for pur- chase of lands, easements, rights of way, for relocation of public utilities, and to provide for final design and prepar- ation of specifications. -106- CHAPTER VI. SUMMARY OF POLICY ASSUMPTIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS In April;, 1955^ the Division of Water Resources Issued a re- port entitled "Report on Upper Feather River Service Area". As a result of the findings of this report, and subsequent legislative hearings en the subject, the 1956 Session of the California Legislature made the following appropriations: Item 223->l. "For completion of engineering and geological investigations, studies, and reports with recommendations for construction programs for multiple-purpose water development and flood control projects in the Upper Feather River Service Area, Division of Water Resources, Department of Public Works. $385, 000" Item 419,6. "For acquisition of dam and reservoir sites for the following reservoirs. Water Project Authority . „ , $273,000 Grizzly Valley Reservoir on Big Grizzly Creek, Frenchman Reser- voir on Little Last Chance Creek, Antelope Valley Reservoir on Indian Creek, Dixie Refuge Reservoir on Last Chance Creek, Abbey Bridge Reservoir on Red Clover Creek„" The Department of Water Resources, as successor to the Divj- sion of Water Resources and Water Project Authority, has had the responsibility of carrying out the intent of this legislation. Sections of the Water Code which constitute general directives to the Department of Water Resources for the investigation of water re- source developments such as those reported on herein include: 12581, "In studying water development projects, full con- sideration shall be given to all beneficial uses of the State's water resources, including irrigation, generation of electric energy, municipal and industrial consumptr'.on of water and power, repulsion of salt water, preservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, and recreational facilities, not exclud- ing other beneficial uses of water, in order that recommenda- tions may be made as to the feasibility of such projects and for the method of financing feasible projects," 12582, "Fish and wildlife values, both economic and recreationaL shall be given consideration in any flood control or water conservation program. In the design, construction, and operation of projects, when engineering and economic features of the project make it practicable, adequate provisions shall be made for the protection of migratory fishes, and the designs for structures and facilities required for such protection shall be prepared in cooperation with the United States Pish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fis-h and Game," -107- Because important matters of policy relating to water resource developments have yet to be decjded by the Legislature, it has been nec- essary to make certain assumptions v/ith respect thereto, to assist in analyzing the projects reported on herein. The principal policy assump- tions are summarized in the following paragraphs. This chapter also in- cludes a brief recapitulation of the more significant conclusions resulting from the investigation, and contains recommendations for ap- propriate action. Policy Assumptions In order to evaluate the initial units of the Upper Feather Pdver Basin Development as to their economic justification and finan- cial feasibility, the following assumptions regarding as yet ujideter- mined State policy have been made: 1. That economic justification and financial feasibility of those projects comprising the initial units of the Upper Feather River Basin Development would be evaluated individually and separately for each project. An evaluation of the effect of their possible future economic and/or financial integration with a comprehensive, basin-wide project or with the Feather River Project as a whole v/as not undertaken for this study. 2. That costs of lands, easements, rights of v;ay, and relocation of public utilities necessary for the projects would be borne by the State as a nonreimbursable item, 3. That primary recreational benefits would be derived fi'om usv; of public recreational facilities on reservoirs of the projects, and fishing in streams affected by the projects, and that these benefits can be expressed in monetary terms. 4. That costs of the projects incurred in the interests of recreation and fish and wildlife, including costs of minimum at- tendant public recreational facilities, which are of general state-wide interest, would be borne by the State as nonreimburs- able items. 5. That increased costs of county and local district road improvements and maintenance resulting from recreational use of the projects, as well as losses in local tax revenue from lands for the projects acquired by the State, would be borne by local interests as part of their contribution to the projects. •108- 6. That financial feasibility of project features proposed for irrigation purposes would be contingent upon a reasonable margin of profit to the purchaser of the irrigation watero 7o That the obligation for repayment of reimbursable costs would be borne by the water users and met over a 50~year period at a 3 per cent interest rate, 8, That costs of the projects Incurred in the interest of providing flood control would be borne by the State or by the Federal Government as nonreimbursable items^ but that allocation of costs would be made for flood control only when features of a project are specifically provided for flood control and where the flood control benefits are of significant magnitude^ 9o That costs of the projects would be allocated to the various purposes by the Separable Costs-Remaining Benefits Method. 10, That an appropriate governmental agency, such as the State of California, would provide funds necessary for construction, op- eration, and maintenance of the projects, and would assume the role of creditor insofar as reimbursable costs are concerned. Conclusions As a result of the engineering, geologic, and economic surveys and studies during the current and prior investigations, the following conclusions have been reached: 1, The Frenchman Project, the Grizzly Valley Project or the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project, and the three units constituting the Indian Creek Recreation Project would be both en- gineeringly feasible and economically justified, either Jointly or individually. Summaries of the general features, and of the bene- fits and costs of these projects, are presented in Tables 24 and 25, respectively, 2, Because of the rapidly expanding requirement for outdoor recreational opportunities in California and the established use of existing outdoor recreational facilities in the Upper Feather River Basin by people from throughout California, there is a gen- eral state -wide interest in and current need for the benefits to be derived from the recreational features of the foregoing projects. 3, Because of the limited and undependable water supply pres- ently available for Irrigation use and the possible expansion of irrigated agriculture if adequate water supplies can be made avail- able in the Upper Feather River Basin, there is current need for the benefits to be derived from the irrigation features of the foregoing projects. -109- CV) •a; 1-^ M Eh H E-i S i O O M w •«: E-< "" Em « a; S pq E-i PS <•; S ^^ O H Pu •a; CO o O ■H C0 § CO *" G V g •H 73 H 3 ^ C -P nJ •S to O Q) G ^ O Q) O XI c O 0) tH m H •H 1— 1 CO nJ s Cm (D to V,^ 1 0) -P ^ C ?-. 0) 0) M O TD Ch tc 0) O TJ to -p iH CD o to CO •> !h CO E iH O Ch CO f^ O CO h t O O C Ph G CO cti •H 0) V G M O •H 1 Oj CO 5 O CD -P o -P CO Ch CO •H i *% 1 H .H C ca G cc! Q) O TS -H -P •H 0) ^ H -P VJ - (D ^ o to CO P ^^ O > fi U Q) to O p. ^ CL, 1 CM H CJ\ 1 H a: rH C) •H n Cm p:; CNJ m ^ i< Fh o [n Jh ^ t>> 0) J^ rH T3 (0 > 0) •H (U CD CO TJ CD •H TJ fn XI u •H > •H pn. Qi H CO O O QO OO -=r H r^ H C\l r-l .t>- CN CO iH (H 1 1 1 1 43 H Xi iH 1 H JZ iH x: H -P -H -p H a: iH -p r-i -p rH ^ •H f^ •H o •H ^ •H fn •H CO Cm CO Cm o Cm CO Ch CO Ch W w « H W o o o O o C5 C5 -^ ro o iH r~- lA 0\ CO O O O H vO rH •\ W\ •\ •\ <»\ •\ O -cr rH rH vO U^ CO .=! rH CM H CO lA CA CO r— MD C\J -^ ir\ i>- r- -=t t~- •\ On •3N «^ ns •\ ■LA ■LA ■LA ■LA XA lA 1 !>. >> !>5 >i S, K>. S^ x; H CD r-i CD M ^ o N H N rH Is-.-O rH rH C c N H N H •H ^ •H Ch (U CO ■H cd •H to 43 Fh -P .3 1: B ^ > ^> ^ pa ^ > « to Sh Cm -P fn fn ?-, (D to e. to e to 6 to e M M Dii Qi rt (rj -P S>= !>» © to rH H^ U CO N N C ^ 0) 1.-3 •H ^ cd xi Q> O ^ ^4 ^ fn ^ rH ^ c ^ Jbd rH § tu a Q) © CO -P Q) Q) 0) •H P P 4:: ^ tu3 ^H M fn TJ Vi XI u to iH •H •H •H G c:> CO i-:i pq P3 K v^^v. M ^ ^^ i-:i .^ ^ -P 1 o tS! 1 ■p 5 !a M O 0) ca •n ^ >5 > ^ $ G s > •H H !:h •H -P -p H C CJ> Pi -p g >. CD CO CO x: rH CD C > •H § o C5 •r-3 U P U •r-J c N (0 >-, Cd •rl 0) •H ^ -P rH T3 i ^ u Pu H N !-, C « P.H «3: M -.110- to M O M (a s > M H O Ci-( o s M ^^ CO CD o o Pi W P > S 1-1 «< (t; CO (H E-H r£l I— I w CD O S •a; w P-, o CO c: tH o 0) -P •H o. C -P o to •» tM bO t. 1 •H CO 0) -P m -P fC o o .. .. P c CO -H O -P O CO H CO P O H (D to 0) H 5 ,Q e to Q) ?j '^ CO •p -p •H CO P, o to o o tn p c rH CO (D to 1) > 13 -P O E-i !^ O a) p O P H C i< O O o •H P CO bD E o o lA o o o CM -3 <» H H • o •* CO ao e O r-i <-\ O o O o O o *N »N CA r— CD o H ^^ O O o o o o «^ •% CN CO l/> J- :«#^ o o o o o o •s •V o CJs c^ \A =^ o o o o o o •\ r. ■Lf^ o C3N o MD On ^ o o o vO o o o o UN o o o o o o CO o H p o (D •r-3 O CO O c CD o o o o\ H O O o o, \A o o o cr\ o ^ Pi to > H N N •H P' o Q) •f-3 O CU C O •H •P CO •V »v *\ »\ H l>- C!\ C-- CO O O H OJ CO CO ^-co ro CN <^ ff\ CO XA =^ =^ O O O O O O O O O o O O O O o •^ tfV » *\ •% o oo -cr CO vO CK r^co H vO rH rH CM \0 CN ^p ^ O O O O o O o O O O o o •s «\ *\ •% *\ o CO _=r CO rH CN f^CO H CO H H CO vO C-- =^ o o o ^= O o o CO CO H 0) H ^ ■H Ch ^H (U (D pa p^ce; o t>5H Q) Q) Q) "H J3 P X XI C -A < «3 Q -p o p> CO CO •a: O E-i -11.1- 4. It is Indicated that the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project would have a higher benefit-cost i-'atio than the Grizzly Valley Project „ Hovjever^ the Grizzly Valley Project v/ould provide needed irrisation water for- Sierra Valley, coiistitut- Ing, under state law, a higher use of the water than would occur under the alternative recreation project„ For this reason, it was assumed that further consideration of the alternative project would be contingent upon nonacceptance of the Grizzly Valley' Pro ject by water users in Sierra Valley. 5. The Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects would develop supplemental wa-cer supplies for irrigation^ which would bring economic gain to local ranchers and provide a stimulus to the general economy of the Upper Feather River Basin, The Income to be derived from use of the new irrigation water /.'ouldc be, -suffi- cient to repay the costs as allocated to Irrigation for purposes of this report, and provide a margin of incentive to local users. However, the price actually to be charged for irrigation water from the projects cannot be definitely determined until policy is established by the Legislature as to the scope of the total proj- ect for which repayment allocation is to be made and as to defini- tion of the repayment allocation procedure „ 6. Based on the assumptions and conditions cited,, the French- man Project, the Grizzly Valley Project or the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project, and the Indian Creek Recreation Project are financially feasible. 7. Water right applications are on f j le with the State Water Rights Board for storage and use of the waters of Big Grizzly and little Last Chance Creeks, that conflict with and are prior in tim.e to the filings by the State for the Grizzly Valley Project, the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project, and the French- man Project. 8o Although the Legislative Counsel has interpreted the 1956 statute authorizing the Feather River Project as Including the Upper Feather River Basin Development, a clarification of legis- lative Intent in this respect would be desirable^ The cited opin- ion of the Legislative Counsel is Included as Appendix C to this bulletin, 9, The Frenchman Project, the Grizzly Valley Project or the Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project, and the Indian Creek Recreation Project would have negligible effects on the con- trol of floods in the Feather River at Orovilleo They would re- duce by less than 1 per cent the water available from Oroville Reservoir during the critical dry period. This reduction in wa- ter supply would cause a loss at Oroville of about 3,000 kilo- watts in primary power generation capacity, and an annual reduction in the amount of electrical energy that could be gener- ated of about 8,500,000 kilowatt-hours „ The effect on secondary power generation would be negligible „ It is indicated that with full water resources development of the Upper Feather River Basin, these minor negative effects on water supply and power production at Oroville Reservoir would be reversed, and that operations at Oroville vjould be enhanced „ -112- Recommendations In connection vjith the initial units of the Upper Feather River Basin Development, and in full cognizance of the foregoing assumptions and conclusions, it is recommended: 1. That the Legislature clarify its intent as to authori- zation of the Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects and the Indian Creek Recreation Project, as set forth in this report, as features of the Feather River Project, 2. That the Legislature make an appropriation of $1,300,000 for the following purposes in connection with the Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects and the Indian Creek Recreation Project: a. Complete the acquisition of lands, easements, and rights of way $ 717^000 b. Prepare plans and specifications 350,000 c. Relocate public utilities 233,000 TOTAL $1,300,000 3. That negotiations be Initiated to determine willingness of prospective v;ater users in Sierra Valley to pay for irriga- tion water developed by the Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects; and that expenditure of funds from the foregoing appropriation for preparation of plans and specifications and relocation of public utilities in connection with these two projects be contingent upon the provision of reasonable assurance by prospective water users in Sierra Valley that they v/111 assume the obligation for repay- ment of such costs of these projects as may be allocated to irri- gation, when policy relating to cost allocation procedure and to scope of the total project for which repayment allocation should be made has been established by the Legislature. 4o That funds be appropriated for construction of the French- man and Grizzly Valley Projects and the Indian Creek Recreation Project v;hen necessary water right permits in connection with these projects have been obtained, and vjhen reasonable assurances of re- payment of costs allocated to irrigation purposes have been pro- vided by the prospective water users, 5. That the Federal Power Commission be notified of legis- lative action in connection with the Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects and the Indian Creek Recreation Project „ 6, That the Legislature establish definite policies for financing and constructing needed local water development projects, such as those reported on herein, in which there is determined to be a substantial amount of State interest. -113- PLATE 2 LEOCNO •OUNURV or UPMR PEATHCK RIveK KKVICC MttL fit te' raorOSCO PDOJCCTt STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT INTERIM REPORT ON ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, ANO FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INITIAL UNITS PROPOSED PROJECTS 1957 SCALE OF MILES PLATE 3 R 17 E STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT INTERIM REPORT ON ENGINEE RING , ECONOM IC, AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INITIAL UNITS FRENCHMAN AND GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECTS 957 SCALE OF MILES PLATE 4 INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER ^ii^^ BASIN DEVELOPMENT INTERIM REPORT ON ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INITIAL UNITS FRENCHMAN AND GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECTS 1957 SCALE OF WILES APPENDIX A EVALUATION OP RECREATION BENEFIT FROM FIVE PROPOSED RESERVOIRS IN UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN Prepared by Harold F, Wise & Associates, Consultants -115- EVALUATION OF RECREATION BENEFIT FROM FIVE PROPOSED RESERVOIRS IN UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN prepared by Harold F. Wise & Associates, Consultants Planning and Urban Economics 707 Forum Building Sacramento 14, California for the State of California Department of Water Resources January 18, 1957 m<.?w«yw->«nr»a:^;r.^,vT>.p^fH rMrg'Vi(ti^'fil< HAROLD F. WISE & ASSOCIATES PLANNING AND URBAN ECONOMICS ssestEssssmagsiaeteii 707 Forum Building, Sacramento 14, California telephona Gllbtrt 2-4477 January 18, 1957 Mr. Harvey O. Banks, Director Department of Water Resources State of California 1120 N Street Sacramento 14, California Dear Mr. Banks: We submit to you our report on recreational development and use of five proposed reservoir site areas in the Upper Feather River Basin. These are the projects known as Antelope Valley, Dixie Refuge, Abbey Bridge, Grizzly Valley, and Frenchman. The analysis presented in this report indicates that if the reservoirs are built, recreational use of the reservoirs will, by itself, yield benefits which sub- stantially outweigh the costs of the public facilities needed to make such use possible. This favorable ratio of recreational benefits Is based on consider- ation of the reservoir areas apart from their uses for flood control, irrigation, and fish and wild life preservation, and does not reflect capital costs of the dams. It is assumed that feasibility will be determined by comparison of the total benefits for all purposes with the total costs of development, of which recreation Is one part. We appreciate the cooperation of your staff In providing engineering, oper- ational, and development data on the reservoir projects which were essential for an analysis of recreation benefit. We trust this analysis will assist in determinations as to the feasibility of the projects. Sincerely, V ■■..:'/„ ~SAMUEL E. WOOD Resident Partner. Enclosure. .1'-^tA.t-«-i-i>.'' cipal offico: 546 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California/other officei: Ravenswood, West Virginia; Tulsa, Oklahoma CONTENTS Part Page Introduction 1 I Trends in recreational use of Upper Feather River Basin 3 li Present recreational use of five proposed reservoir areas 4 HI Projected recreational use of five proposed reservoir areas 5 IV Comparison of recreational benefits and costs of proposed projects 9 V Measurement of the dollar value of a day's recreation 13 TABLES Table Page I Probable Annual Recreational Use of Reservoir Areas - 2050 6 II Cumulative Visitor-Days Use of Reservoir Sites During "Fifty-Year" Investigational Period, 1961 - 2010 8 III Unit Costs of Public Facilities 10 IV Net Cumulative Benefits and Costs at End of "Fifty-Year Investigational Period", 1961 -2010 12 PLATES Plate A Graph: Recreation Visitor-Days and California Population, 1941 - 2050 B Grizzly Valley Reservoir Illustrative Site Development Plan C Antelope Valley Reservoir Illustrative Site Development Plan D Abbey Bridge (formerly Red Clover) Reservoir Illustrative Site Development Plan E Dixie Refuge Reservoir Illustrative Site Development Plan F Frenchman Reservoir Illustrative Site Development Plan EVALUATION OF RECREATION BENEFIT FROM FIVE PROPOSED RESERVOIRS IN UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN Inlrodijction Five of the proposed water resource developments In the Upper Feather River Basin have been evaluated In terms of their potential contribution to the recreational assets of the area. These developments are the proposed reservoirs knov/n as Grizzly Valley, Antelope Valley, Abbey Bridge, Dixie Refuge and Frenchman. Evaluation of the proposed reservoirs as recreation assets has been made on the assumption that they v/ill form part of a general development of the recreation resources of the Upper Feather River Basin, one of the most attractive and accessible recreation areas of the State . One of the resources which has been appraised during this survey is Genesee Valley, which we believe has a high rating for development as a recreation area. Genesee Valley, on Indian Creek, forms a natural gateway to the Antelope Valley, Dixie Refuge, and Red Clover reservoir areas, and the Diamond Mountains primitive areo to the east. With construction of a small reservoir at Its east end, Genesee Valley would attract motels, restaurants, dude ranches and similar facilities and these would enable a large number of people to visit the reservoir areas of the Upper Feather River Basin than would otherwise occur. Successful recreational development of the Upper -1- Feather River Basin will, in our opinion, depend to a large extent on proper devel- opment of Genesee Volley as a focal point and means of entry Into the higher country beyond . Development of the recreation resources of the Upper Feather River Basin Is considered as .an Important part of the State's natural resources for meeting the recreation needs of an expanding population. In mid-1956, California had an estimated population of 13,600,000. In the next 100 years or less, the State's population Is expected to grow to approximately 45,000,000. In addition, the State must continue to prepare for a large influx of out-of-state visitors. In 1953, for example, there was one out-of-state tourist for every three California 1/ residents. Demand for outdoor recreation facilities will be further intensified by the higher proportion of state population living in urban areas In the future. Higher Incomes, more leisure, and improved transportation will increase the mobility of the population and its ability to enjoy the recreation resources of areas like the Upper Feather River Basin. In this context, it is assumed th at pu blic polic y will requIfB maximum de- velopment of the State's recreation resources, and that the Upper Feather River Basin will ploy an important part in satisfying this demand. 1/ Kenneth Decker, The Tourist Trade in California , Bureau of Public Administra- tion, University of California 1955. -2- I . Trends in recreational use of the Basin Presently developed recreation facilities In the Basin include the areas around Lake Almanof/ Bucks Lake, and the Lakes Basin, and along the forks of the Feather River. Recreation use of the Upper Feather River Basin area is steadily increasing. For example, records of the United States Forest Service show that visitor-days use of camp grounds in Plumas National Forest Increased from 76,650 in 1950 to 269,863 In 1955. The Upper Feather River Basin now accounts for about five percent of total visitor-days use of all national forests in the State. By the year 2050, it is reason- able to expect that the Basin will account for seven to eight percent of visitor-days use of national forests in the State, and the proportion may well be higher because of the Basin's unusual attractions. The anticipated trend of recreational use of the Upper Feather River Basin Is shown on the accompanying graph entitled "Recreation Visitor Days and California Population, 1941 - 2050" (Plate A). The graph records the projected trend of visitor- days use of all national forests in California, and of Plumas National Forest. Approx- imately 70 percent of the land area of the Upper Feather River Basin is within national forest boundaries, chiefly Plumas National Forest, but also including parts of Lassen and Tahoe National Forests. Forest Service records provide practically the only available historical record on which to base a projection of the trend of recreation use in the area. Recreation use of California's national forests, measured in visitor-days, has more than doubled since 1941 when reliable records began to be kept. Thus in 1941, use was estimated at 14,475,541 visitor-days, equivalent to two days per state resident per year. In 1956, use was estimated at 31,073,622 visitor-days, equiv- alent to 2.4 days per state resident per year. Projecting to the year 2050, as shown on the graph. It is anticipated that visitor-days of use of national forests will approximate 10 days per resident per year. Use of Plumas Natlorwl Forest recreation areas has increased three and one- fialf times since 1946. Distinction is made in the graph between total visitor-days, and visitor-days accounted for by persons "driving through" the national forests to enjoy the scenery and environment. Persons "driving through" are presently not counted by the Forest Service as "users" of public recreation facilities. As facilities are developed, however, there is every reason to believe that an increasing propor- tion of persons driving through will become users. Furthermore, persons who now drive through may in many, if not most, cases patronize private facilities adjacent to the national forests, such as hotels, motels, restaurants and stores. This constitutes an important part of the total demand for rec- reation facilities. n, r=-e:~nt recreational use of five reservoir areas Present recreational use of the five reservoir areas is nominal and almost entirely limited to hunting and fishing. Estimates of the State Department of Fish and Gome indicate the following use of the reservoir areas, in visitor-days per year, as of 1956: -4- 500 500 1,000 500 100 600 500 100 600 700 200 900 1,000 100 1,100 Reservoir Hunting Fishing Total Antelope Valley Dixie Refuge Abbey Bridge Grizzly Valley Frenchman 3,200 1,000 4,200 If the proposed dams were not constructed, the use of the area by hunters and fishermen could nevertheless be expected to Increase year by year. There is also the likelihood that camp grounds and resorts would be developed to accommodate these visitors and other persons seeking to enjoy the scenery and climate. With the large bodies of water the reservoirs would create, however, the attractions of the sites would be multiplied many times. The purpose of this study is to estimate how much the recreational use — and the corresponding recreational benefit in dollar terms — would be increased by con- struction of the proposed reservoirs. III. Projected recreational use of five reservoir areas Evaluation of potential recreational use of the five proposed reservoirs is based on study of the terrain around each site; classification of areas around the site according to the use for which they appear best fitted. I.e., camp and picnic areas, summer residences, resorts, or organizational camp sites, and an Illustrative site de- velopment plan for each reservoir showing Its capacity In units and visitors. (Plates B - F). The evaluation takes Into account the operational characteristics of the pro- posed dams, and the probable affect of a fluctuating lake level and shoreline on -5- recreation use. However, past experience suggests that even unfavorable oper- ational characteristics will not deter recreational use of a reservoir area. Development of the reservoir areas will depend to considerable extent on improvement and extension of the present road system which connects them with major highways, with each other, and with other recreation areas in the Upper Feather River Basin, including Genesee Valley. Recreation use of the reservoir sites has been projected over a 90-year per- iod, starting In approximately 1960 (when it Is assumed that necessary roads and public camp and picnic facilities will be installed and reservoirs will be at operc- tionai levels) and extending to year 2050. It is assumed that use (measured in visitor-days) will increase at a fairly uniform rate over the whole 90-year period, the rate of increase being somewhat greater in the first half of the period and flat- tening out somewhat in the second half. Under these assumptions probable maximum use would not be reached until the year 2050 and would approximate the visitor-day estimates shown in Table I . (Curves showing the anticipated rates of recreation de- velopment at each reservoir site will be shown in a later report on the recreation potential of the Upper Feather River Basin). TABLE I i/ Probable Ann ual Recreationoi Use of Reservoir Areas — 2050 Annual Visitor Days Without Reservoir With Reservoir Grizzly Valley 71,525 297,470 Antelope Valley 45,070 194,670 Abbey Bridge 40,340 181,755 Dixie Refuge 30,790 134,725 Frenchman 34,515 230,905 Totals 222,240 1,039,525 1/ Probable use estimated at half of theoretical capacity use with full development of sites and access roads. -6- Computation of recreation benefit from the proposed reservoir projects has been based on use during the first 50 years of the life of the projects, or approxi- mately 1960 to 2010. Cumulative use during this 50-year "pay-out" period has been estimated, both with and without the proposed reservoirs, and Is shown in Table II. The difference between anticipated use with reservoirs and anticipated use without reservoirs Is the basis for measuring the net recreation benefit from construction of the reservoirs. As Indicated In Table II, cumulative total use of all reservoir sites by year 2010, at the end of the 50-year pay-out period, would approximate 13,906,000 visitor-days at the anticipated rates of development, if the reservoirs are constructed compared with 1,264,000 visitor-days if no reservoirs are constructed. Thus the estimated net Increase in total use due to reservoir construction approximates 12,642,000 visitor-days over the 50-year period. For project Justification and cost analysis purposes, only the use of facilities constructed with public funds is taken into account. The comparison between use with reservoirs and use without reservoirs indicates a net Increase of 8,272,000 visitor-days over the 50-year period if all reservoirs are built. -7- TABLE II CUMULATIVE VISITOR-DAYS USE OF RESERVOIR SITES DURING "FIFTY-YEAR INVESTIGATIONAL PERIOD, 1961 - 2010 Totoi Recreational Use Grizzly Valley Antelope Valley Abbey Bridge Dixie Refuge Frenchman Totals Cumulative Visitor Days Net Increase No Reservoir Reservoir in Visitor Days 338,100 3,457,650 247,200 2,951,650 241,750 2,383,250 204,650 2,349,450 232,750 2,764,550 3,119,550 2,704,450 2,141,500 2,144,800 2,531,800, 1,264,450 13,906,550 12,642,100 Use of Public Facilities Only Grizzly Valley Antelope Valley Abbey Bridge Dixie Refuge Frenchman Totals 237,550 2,208,150 1,970,600 191,500 1,882,350 1,690,850 163,850 1,818,650 1,654,800 162,600 1,476,050 1,313,450 177,950 1,81 9,850 1,641,900 933,450 9,205,050 8,271,600 -8- IV. Comparison of benefits and costs Recreational benefit from construction of the five reservoirs has been computed by applying a figure of $2.00 per visitor-day lo the nef increase in use due to reservoir construction and public facilities, access roads, etc. (Derivation of the $2.00 figure is discussed in the next section). Recreational benefit, thus computed, has been adjusted to a basis of present worth. To obtain present worth, recreation benefit for each year of use hos been dis- counted at three percent, cumulatively, beginning with year 1961 . Thus the present worth of recreation use In year 1961 Is computed at 97.1 percent of the estimated rec- reation benefit for that year. For the year 2010, the present worth factor Is 22.8 percent of the estimated recreation benefit. Recreational costs are construed to be those for the installation of public facilities — camp and picnic grounds — and construction of necessary roads to serve these facilities. Costs have been estimated on the basis of unit costs shown in Table Hi. Capital costs were computed for each year of use by application of these unit costs to the number of new camp and picnic units and miles of road constructed. Op- erating, maintenance and replacement costs were computed for each year by applying the unit costs to the net increase in number of units resulting from reservoir construction. All costs were combined for each year and adjusted to a present worth basis. -9- TABLE UNIT COSTS OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Capital costs of one camping and picnic unit : Table, fireplace, food locker, and paved parking area for one automobile $260 Comfort station (pro-rated at one for each 50 camp and picnic units) 160 Combination shower and comfort station (at one per 50 units) 260 Shop and equipment building (at one per 200 units) 40 Housing for park personnel (at one residence per 200 units) 80 Total capital cost per camping and picnic unit $750 Capital costs per mile of road construction : Specifications: Z'O ho\ right-of-way two shoulders, six feet in width, four-inch depth of crushed rock two eleven-foot paved lanes. Four-inch crusher run base, two-inch asphaltic hot plant rnix Total cost per mile 35,000 Q peratin9 costs for camp c-nd picnic unit, including salaries Power and salaries per year 64 Maintenance costs of one camping and picnic unit estimated at one and one-half percent of cost of structures per year, with replace- ment each 25 years: 41 Road maintenance and replacement, including major repair and re- surfacing, per mile, per year: 400 ■10- Table IV summarizes benefits and costs involved in recreational use of the five reservoir sites over the 50-year "investigational" or pay-out period. Net benefits are computed on tv/o bases: 1. Estimated increase in total use of recreation facilities, both public and private. If reservoirs are built, compared v^ith projected use if reservoirs are not built. 2. Estimated increase in use of public facilities only. If reservoirs are built, compared with projected use If reservoirs are not built, This is the basis used for project justification and cost analysis purposes. -11- TABLE !V NET CUMULATIVE TOTAL BENEFITS AND COSTS AT END OF 'TIFTY-YEAR INVESTIGATIONAL PERIOD", 1961 - 2010 Grizzly Valley Cumulative dollar benefit and costs Adjusted to present worth Annual present worth equivalent Antelope Valley Cumulative dollar benefit and costs Adjusted to present worth Annual present worth equivalent Ab bey Bridge Cumulative dollar benefit and costs Adjusted to present worth Annual present \*.'orth equivalent Dixie Refuge Cumulative dollar benefit and costs Adjusted to present worth Annual present worth equivalent Frenchman Cumulative dollar benefit and costs Ac;*'.s''ed to presen-t worth Annual present worth equivalent Net benefit for all recre- ational uses 6,239,100 2,318,609 90,124 5,408,900 2,158,624 83,905 4,283,000 1,674,217 65,076 4,289,400 1,730,596 67,268 5,063,600 1,392,385 73,557 Net benefit Net cost of pub- for public lie recreational recreation facilities 1 / 3,941,200 1,529,144 59,437 3,381,700 1,368,410 53,190 3,309,600 1,302,234 50,617 2,626,900 1,083,061 42,098 3,283,800 1,284,857 49,942 1,445,175 623,220 24,224 1,211,895 565,814 21,993 1,272,150 566, 832 22, 032 978, 490 469,921 18,265 1,229,740 537, 062 20,875 Totals Cumulative dollar benefit and costs 25,284,000 16,543,200 6,146,450 Adjusted to present worth 9,774,431 6,567,706 2,762,849 Annual present worth equivalent 379,930 255,284 106,589 1/ These figures include capital, operating, and maintenance costs for public recreational facilities and the additional roads required to service these facilities. Private expend- itures for summer homes^ resorts and organizational camps ore nat included. -■12- V. Measuremeni' of t he dollar value of a day's recreation A figure of $2.00 per visitor -day has been selected to represent the av- erage recreational benefit from use of facilities at the proposed reservoir sites. This figure is used with full knowledge of the difficulty of finding an acceptable monetary measure of recreational enjoyment. It is, however, considered to be a conservative measure of recreational value for purposes of benefit-cost analysis of the projects, and is in line with benefit figures currently used by federal agencies. The figure has been arrived at after extensive review of the literature of recreation benefit analysis, and a series of conferences with representatives of most public and private agencies having a direct Interest In the measurement of recrea- tion benefits. Public agencies represented at conferences include the United States Forest Service, Department of Commerce, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and National Park Service; and the State Division of Beaches and Parks, Depart- ment of Fish and Game, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Water Re- sources, and the University of California School of Forestry. Private agencies represented at conferences Include the State Chamber of Commerce, the California State Automobile Association, Callfornlans, Inc., The Southern Pacific Company, Pacific Greyhound Lines, Western Air Lines, Standard Oil Corporation, resort owners and sportsmen. *Material In this section is based on a comprehensive study of the problem of measuring recreation benefits made by Professor Andrew Trice of Sacramento State College. His analysis will appear in a later report on recreational re- sources of the Upper Feather River Basin which is being prepared by Harold F. Wise and Associates. -13- Willie ilie agencies iisted above are in no way responsible for selection of the $2.00 figure, the Information and opinions derived from the conferences v/ere helpful in reaching o decision to use this figure. Most public agencies concerned with the problem of measuring recreation benefit have been reluctant to use a dollar measure because of the sub|ective nature of the recreational enjoyment and the danger that any acceptable dollar figures v^III understate the actual value of recreational facilities. They hove generally felt that public expenditures for recreation facilities are best justified in terms of accepted public policy which Includes governmental responsibility to promote health and welfare. Whej-a recreational benefit is a relatively small proportion of the total benefits derived from a public project, os in ihe case of a multi-purpose flood control, power and irrigation facility, the lack of a monetary measure is of small concern in justify- ing the project. However, where recreation is expected to be a substantial or major product of project expenditures, it may be desirable and necessary to promote the concept that a monetary value may be assigned to It. Where a dollar value is assigned, core should be taken not to depreciate the Importance of recreation from the point of vtevy of public policy. Major General E. C. Itschner, Chief of engineers, U. S. Army, has stated that even in th« case cf projects built primarily for flood control and navigation, the recreational benefits are becoming increasingly important and recognized. In his words, "these benefits should be taken into account In project planning". General ■14- Itschner points out that "though the question of evaluating recreation benefits will require much more study and experience, It would seem that a satisfactory method could be based upon the concept of the benefit from a visitor day of use". (Remarks before Arkansas Basin Development Association, October 29, 1956). One approach to measuring recreation benefit Is through study of what people spend per day while engaged exclusively In recreation activity. Analysis of 37 case studies of tourist and other recreation expenditure Indicates o range of $4.00 to $18.00 per visitor-day, with most expenditures In the range of $5.00 to $] 1 .00. The median expenditures shown by the 37 studies Is $8.00 per vlsItor-day. These studies range over a number of states and cover the years 1948 - 1955. Sample studies In Plumas County In 1956 Indicate an average of $7.64 spent per visitor-day by fishermen, and $6.54 by other recreatlonlsts. A 1956 survey by the American Automobile Association on the travel habits of Its members revealed, on the basis of more than 13,000 returns, that the average dally expenditure per person for trips of less than one week was $7.58. For trips of one week, the average was $10.32; and for trips of two weeks it was $9.31 . Expenditure figures measure what recreationists spend on goods and services bought In the economic market place. They are a useful measure of the Impact of recre- ation activity on a local business community. However, much of the expenditure would hove occurred if the people had stayed home, and Is therefore simply a transfer of busi- ness from one area to another. Most Important, expenditures do not represent the value which people obtain -15- from recieaVion, and for which there is no charge In the economic market place. At best, then, a measure of recreation benefit is a value judgment and should be ac- companied by explanation of the non-monetary benefits and values which individuals, society and the state derive from recreation projects. The $2.00 figure used in this study is intended to represent the intangible value, over and above actual expenditures on the trip, which the average visitor obtains from his day of recreation in the Upper Feather River Basin. It may be reasoned that if the food, lodging, gas- oline, boat rental and other goods and services which he buys are worth the expenditure of $8.00 per day to him, then the intangibles of scenery, climate, spiritual uplift, and release from the pressures of the daily work routine in the cities "down below" are worth at least an additional $2.00, even though there is no one to collect it from him. The $2.00 figure has been selected on no single statistical basis, but after considera- tion of the whole range of current proposals for solution of the problem of measuring recreation benefits. There is, however, considerable support for the figure in the results of an analysis of data from a 1956 survey by the State Department of Fish and Game, showing numbers of vis- itors to the Upper Feather River Basin, their average lengths of stay, and distances travelled to the Basin. These data make it possible to compute the travel cost per visitor-day for per- sons visiting the area. The upper range of travel costs per visitor-day may be taken to repre- sent what vacationers considered the trip to be worth; the average cost indicates what most people had to pay. The difference between the upper range of costs and the average cost, which approximated $2.00 per visitor-day, may be described as a partial measure of the net enjoyment attributable to the recreation resources of the area. Over the life of the proposed projects, the value of the recreation benefit should in- crease substantially. Thus by the year 2010 the comparable benefit is likely to be closer to $3. 00 per visitor-day than to $2.00. -16- HAROLD F. WISE & ASSOCIATES Project Staff Samuel E. Wood Bruce Waybur Harry G. Halatyn Kenneth Anderson William N. Roberts Marjorie Greene Margaret Wiederhold Winifred McGowan Andrew Trice, consulting economist -17- PLATE A o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ I 1 1 \ o CM o 1 \ 1 I 1 1 4 _l 'i\ \ \ \ \ CVJ O ro 1 ' in 1 °^ 1 ^ 1 I \ 1' 1 \ \ \ \ \ o CM o 1 1 1 o O \ -I 1 ^ in u) tf c u \ o. o OJ o o "A o -z.\ \ 1 \ o o u. H « \ \ \ 5? o \ i il \ 1 \ \ 0} o \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ > \ \ \ If) LlI y- O 10 \ N > \ \ X \ \ ■^; "> ■^ o o CO to < (0 01 o t /^ s > ). > LiJ ?1 o i_ _J _I O < X 2 o in o I I- < CL O Q. O Li_ O C/) < Q O CO > < a: o UJ OO O o o ooo o o 00 f^ IC lO ^ o o ro o o CVJ O OO OOO o O oor^ to lO ^ ro SNomiw O cor^ CD in c Ni sxva aoiisiA qnv NOiivindOd ooh- ii> in * do d CD d CVJ d SUMME R HOME S FEET 1000 1000 2000 3000 4000 HAROLD F. WISE AND ASSOCIATES ILLUSTRATIVE RECREATIONAL SITE PLAN FOR GRIZZLY VALLEY RESERVOIR PLATE B 5UMMER HOMES COMMERCIAL FEET 1000 1000 2000 30O0 4000 I I I I I I HAROLD f. WISE AND ASSOCIATES ILLUSTRATIVE RECREATIONAL SITE PLAN FOR ANTELOPE VALLEY RESERVOIR PLATE C 400 400 aOO 1200 1600 I K ! mlkrvdl- HAROIO F. WISE AND ASSOCIATES ILLUSTRATIVE RECREATIONAL SITE PLAN FOR ABBEY BRIDGE RESERVOIR PLATE D HAROLD f. WISE AND ASSOCIATES ILLUSTRATIVE RECREATIONAL SITE PLAN FOR DIXIE REFUGE RESERVOIR PLATE E PI ATE F % r'^'.P^ » CAMP OROUNOi \^ -V -I- FEtT 400 ' 400 aoo aoo HOP MAIOIO ' WISf AND A&SOCiA^tS ILLUSTRATIVE RECREATIONAL SITE PIAN FOR FRENCHMAN RESERVOIR fT APPENDIX B COST ESTIMATES -117- APPENDIX B COST ESTIMATES -117- TABLE OF CONTENTS COST ESTIMTES Page Estimated Capital Cost of Frenchman Project ......... 119 Estimated Capital Cost of, Grizzly Valley Project »..,», , 120 Estimated Capital Cost of Alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project , ., 12-2 Estimated Capital Cost of Indian Creek Recreation Project •. o 12'4 -118- ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF FRENCHMAN PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in fall of 1956) Elevation of crest of dam: 5,600 feet, U„S.G,S. datum Elevation of spillway crest: 5,588 feet Height of dam above stream bed: 119 feet Storage capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 50,000 acre-feet Discharge capacity of spillway with 6.2-foot residual freeboard: 5,700 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Frenchman Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and preparation of foundation Common Jointed rock Grouting Embankment Impervious Pervious Filter Spillway 2,900 cu,yd, 7,700 cu.yd. 97,900 cu,yd. 235,740 cu.yd, 16,960 cu.yd. $lump sum $ 10,000 0,50 1,500 2,00 15,400 lump sum 17,100 0,82 80,300 1.50 353,600 3oOO 50,900 $528,800 Excavation 39,015 cu„yd„ 1„50 58,500 Concrete 239 cu.yd. 60,00 14,300 Reinforcing steel 23,900 lb. 0,15 3,600 Grout lump sum 7,100 83,500 Outlet Works Excavation Trench 763 cu»yd„ 5,00 3,800 Outlet channel 800 cu.yd. 3.00 2,400 Welded steel pipe 43,680 lb. 0,25 10,900 Concrete Structural 46 cu.yd. 90,00 4,100 Pipe encasement 240 cu.yd. 25,00 6,000 Earth backfill 410 cu,yd. 1,00 400 Reinforcing steel 34,300 lb. 0,15 5,200 Structural steel 9,000 lb. 0,25 2,300 Miscellaneous metal 600 lb. 0,20 100 Gate valves lump sum 9,000 Howell-Bunger valve lump sum 14,400 58,600 Subtotal $670,900 Engineering and admlnls' tratlon, 15^ $100,650 Contingencies, 15^ 100,650 Interest during construction. 1% per annum 13,1(X TOTAL $885,300 Lands, easements, and rights of way $540,500 Relocation of public ut: ilitie s 43,200 Initial expenditure for publi c recreation 62,500 TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST $J .,531,500 -119- ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing In fall of 1956) Elevation of crest of dam: 5,786 feet, U.S.G.S. datum Elevation of spillway crest: 5,775 feet Height of dam above stream bed: 123 feet Storage capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 80,000 acre-feet Discharge capacity of spillway with 6.4-foot residual freeboard: 3,100 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Grizzly Valley Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping Foundation treatment Grouting Grout cap Embankment Impervious Semipervious Filter Rock toe and riprap (from salvage) 3 pillv?ay Excavation Approach Transition and chute Concrete Weir, walls, and slab Structural Reinforcing steel Tile drains Outlet Works Excavation Trench Inlet structure Welded v". teel pipe Concrebe Structural Pipe encasement Reinforcing steel Miscellaneous metal Gate valves Howell-Bunger valve Subtotal 41,300 cu.yd, 32,900 sq„ft, 135 cu.yd. 58,100 cu.yd. 149,300 cu.yd, 5,600 cuoyd. 17,800 cu„yd. $lump sum $20,000 2.00 82,600 0.11 3,600 lump sum 13,500 30„00 4,100 0.67 0,60 0.75 38,900 89,600 4,200 1.00 17,800 $274,300 8,400 cu.yd. 2.00 16,800 4,500 cu.yd. 3.00 13,500 411 cu.yd. 44,00 18,100 5 cu„ydo 90.00 500 41,500 lb. 0.15 6,200 600 lin.ft. 4.00 2,400 57,500 912 cu.yd. 5,00 4,600 406 cu,yd. 2,00 800 93,000 lb. 0,30 27,900 46 cu.ydo 90,00 4,100 433 cu.yd. 45oOO 19,500 74,200 lb. 0.15 11,100 9,900 lb. 0.30 lump sum 3,000 9,000 lump sum 18,900 98,900 $430,700 -120- ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF GRIZZLY VALLEY PROJECT (continued) Item Quantity Unit price Cost Engineering and administration; Contingencies. 15^ Interest during construction, ,• TOTAL, GRIZZLY VALLEY DAM GrJzzly Valley Main CanaJ Intake structure Sec. A (Q = 86,7 cfs) Part i Part 2 Sec, B (Q = 73 cfs) Sec, C (Q = 45 cfs See, D (Q = 17 cfs Appiirtenant features 15^ ^ per ajinum $ 64,500 64,500 8,400 $ 568,100 lump sum 25,000 lin.ft. 7.12 24,100 lin.ft. 6.06 8,000 lln.ft. 5.87 14,000 lin,fto 4.87 16,500 lin.fto 3.81 lump sum $ 6,500 178,000 146,000 46,000 68,200 62,900 67,000 Subtotal Engineering and administration, 10^ Contingencies^ 15^ Interest during construction, Z% pe^r annum TOTAL, GRIZZLY VALLE.Y MAIN CANAL Lands, easements, and rights of way for Grizzly Valley Dam and Reservoir Relocation of public utilities Initial expenditure for public recreation facilities TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST $ 574,600 57,500 86,200 10,800 $ 729,100 $ 320,000 27,900 71,300 $1,716,400 -121- ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OP ALTERl^IATI.VE GRIZZLY VALLEY RECREATION PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in fall of 1956) Elevation of crest of dam: 5,77^ feet, U.S.G.S. datum Elevation of spillway crest: 5,763 feet Height of dam above stream bed; 101 feet Storage capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 4^,000 acre-feet Discharge capacity of spillway with 6„4~foot residual freeboard: 2,465 second-feet • Unit : Item : Quantity : price : C ost Grizzly Valley Dam Diverson and care of stream $lump sum $20,000 Stripping 10,460 cu„yd. 2,00 20 , 900 Preparation of foundation 17,865 sq„fto 0,11 2,000 Grouting lump sum 17,200 Grout cap 100 cu„ydc 30 ,00 3,000 Embankment Impervious 41,810 cu,yd. 0,67 28,000 Semipervious 96,490 cu„yd„ 0,60 57,900 Filter 5,470 cu.yd. 0„75 4 „ 100 Rock toe and riprap (x'roni salvage) 9,890 cu.ydo 1,00 9,900 $163. 000 Solllway Excavation Approach 8,140 cu,ydo 2.00 16,300 Transition and chute 5,690 cu.ydo 2,50 14,200 Concrete V'/eir, walls, and slab 470 cuoydo 45,00 21,200 Structural 20 cu,yd„ 90,00 1,800 Reinforcing steel 38,600 lb. 0,15 5,500 Tile drains 980 iin.ftc 4,00 3,900 62, 900 Outlet Works Excavation 670 cu„yd. 5»00 3,400 Welded steel pipe 40,900 lb„ 0o30 12,300 Concrete Structural 46 cu.yd. 90,00 4,100 Pipe encasement 222 cu„yd„ 25.00 S,600 Reinforcing steel 31,400 lb. 0,15 4,700 Miscellaneous metal 9,900 lb. 0,20 2,000 Gate valves lump sum 5,000 Hov.'ell-Bunger valve lump sum 11,200 48, 300 Subtotal $274,200 -122 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE GRIZZLY VALLEY RECREATION PROJECT (continued) Item ; Quantity ; price ; Cost Engineering and adminstration, 15^ $ 41,150 Contingencies, 15^ 41,150 Interest during construction, 3^ per anniim 5^ 300 TOTAL $361,800 Lands, easements^ and rights of way 320,000 Relocation of public utilities 27,900 Initial expenditure for public recreation facilities 62,300 TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST $772,000 -123- ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OP INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in fall of 1956) Elevation of crest of dam: 5,016 feet, U.S.G.S. datum Elevation of spillway crest: 5,000 feet Height of dam above stream bed: 93 feet Storage capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 21,600 acre-feet Discharge capacity of spillway with 5.. 5-foot residual freeboard: 3,400 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Antelope Valley Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and preparation of foundation Grouting Embankment Impervious Pervious Filter Riprap 20,800 cu„yd. 38,700 cu.yd. 143.000 cu„yd. 15,900 cu.yd, 3,600 cu,yd. $lump sum $10,000 2.00 41,600 lump sum 17,300 0,75 29,000 0„65 93,000 1«50 23,900 2,00 7.200 $222,000 Excavation Concrete Reinforcing steel Tile drains Outl et W orks Excavacion Welded steel pipe Conci*ete Structural Pipe encasement Reinforcing steel Miscellaneous metal Gate valves Howell -Banger valve Subtooal Engineering and administration, 15^ Contingencies, 15^ Interest during construction, yfo per annum TOTAL, ANTELOPE VALLEY DAM 10,525 cu.yd, 225 cu„yd. 22,500 lb, 480 linoft, 470 cu.yd, 30,600 Ibo 41 cu„yd„ 225 cu,yd. 6,200 lb, 9,900 lb. 1,50 15,800 50.00 11,300 0,15 3,400 4.00 1,900 32,300 5o00 0,30 90,00 25o00 0.15 0,30 lump sum lump sum 2,300 9,200 3,700 5,600 900 3,000 3,500 7,600 35.800 $290,100 $ 43,500 43,500 8,700 $385,800 •124- ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PROJECT \contlnued ) Elevation of crest of dam: 5,433 feet, U„S.G.So datum Elevation of spillway crest: 5,420 feet Height of dam above stream bed: 71 feet Storage capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 11,100 acre-feet Discharge capacity of spillway wica 5*- 5-foot residual freeboard: 7,750 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Abbey Bridge Dam. Diverslon and care of stream Stripping and preparation of $l\imp sum $ 10,000 foundation 7,200 cuoyd. 2,50 18,000 Grouting lump sum 17,300 Embankment Impervious 32, 000 cu.yd. 0,80 25,600 Pervious 55,200 cu,yd. 2.00 110,400 Filter 8,600 cUoyd. 4.00 34,400 $215,700 Spillway Excavation 27,900 cu.yd. loOO 27,900 Concrete Weir 283 cu,yd„ 35«00 9,900 Walls 380 cu„yd. 50.00 19,000 Slab 345 cu.yd. 40.00 13,800 Reinforcing steel 100,000 lb. 0.15 15,000 Gravel drain 175 cu.yd. 4.00 700 86,300 Outlet Works Excavation 146 cu.yd. 5.00 700 Welded steel pipe 7,600 lb. 0.30 2,300 Concrete Structural 41 cu.yd. 90.00 3,700 Pipe encasement 88 cu.yd. 35.00 3,100 Reinforcing steel 21,400 lb. 0.15 3,200 Structural steel 9,300 lb. 0.30 2,800 Miscellaneous metal 600 lb. 0„20 100 Gate valves lump sum 3,000 Howell-Bxinger valve lump s\im 7,200 26, 100 Subtotal $328,100 Engineering and administration, 15^ $ 49,200 Contingencies, 15^ 49,200 Interest during construction. Z% per annum 6,400 TOTAL, ABBEY BRIDGE DAM $432, 900 -125- ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OP INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PROJECT (Continued) Elevation of crest of dam: 5,751 feet, U„S,G.S. datum Elevation of spillway crest: 5,7^0 feet Height of dam above stream bed: 81 feet Storage capa6ity of reservoir to spillway crest: 16,100 acre-feet Discharge capacity of spillway with 5.6-foot residual freeboard: 2,250 second-feet • ; Unit : Item : Quantity ; : price : Cost Dixie Refuge Dam Diversion and care of stream $lump sum $ 10,000 Stripping and preparat ion of foundation 37,600 cu„yd. 0.50 18,800 Grouting lump sum 34,600 Embankment Impervious 269,700 cu.yd. 0.65 175,300 Filter 4,200 cu.yd. 6.00 25,200 Rock toe and riprap 45,400 cu.ydo 2.00 90,800 $354, ,700 Spillway Excavation 10 , 900 cu„yd. 1,00 10,900 Concrete 118 cu„yd„ 50.00 5,900 Reinrorolng steel 11,800 lb. 0,15 1,800 Tile drains 160 lin.ft. 6„00 1,000 Grouting lump sum 5,600 25; ,200 Outlet Works Excavation 280 cueyd. 5»00 1,400 Welded steel pipe 24,000 lb. 0.30 7,200 Concrete Structural 41 cu.yd. 90,00 3,700 Pipe encasement 210 cu,yd. 40,00 8,400 Reinforcing steel 37,700 lb. 0.15 5,700 Miscellaneous metal 9,900 lb. 0,30 3,000 Gate valves lump sum 4,000 Howell-Bunger valve lump sum 7,400 40, ,800 i.-.ub total $420, ,700 Engineering and admlnl stratlon, 15^ $ 63. ,100 Contingencies, 15^ 63, ,100 Interest during construction. 3^ per annum 8, ,200 TOTAL, DIXIE REFUGE DAM $555,100 ■126- ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OP INDIAN CBEEK RECREATION PROJECT (Continued) Item Quantity Unit price Cost Lands, easements, and rights of way Antelope Valley Abbey Bridge Dixie Refuge Relocation of public utilities Antelope Valley Abbey Bridge Dixie Refuge Initial expenditure for public recreation TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST $71,900 43,300 17,300 $ 132,500 28,000 83.500 47,500 159>000 266 , 400 $1,931,700 -127- APPENDIX C OPINION OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL AUTHORIZATION OP UPPER FEATHER RIVER SERVICE AREA FEATURES -129- 4 . KLEPS SI ATIVE COON8EU L W.JOHNSON II3BPUTY ;i.UM N'AL DtPUTIU » 1956 Lawrence G. Allyn Terry L. Baum Harriett R. Buhler Barbara C. Calais VIRSINIA Coker Bernard czesla Kent L. DeChambkau ROBLEY E. OeOROE J. Gould Stanley M. Lourimore George H. Murphy Ryan M. Polstra Edward K. Purcell Ray H. Whitaker rose woods DEPUTICa Honorable Pauline L. Davis 116 San Antonio Way Sacramento, California Authorization of Upper Feather River Service Area Features #3828 Dear Mrs. Davis: QUESTION You have asked us whether the Upper Feather Service Area features have been authorized by the Legislature as a part of the Feather River Project. In this connection you have submitted a letter of the Controller dated November 19j 1956, a letter of understanding of the Department of Water Resources dated November 8, 1956, and a modified letter of understanding of the Department of Water Resources dated November 26, 1956. OPINION While it is neces ambiguities in the applicab Stats. 1956 (1st E.S.) Ch. conclusion, the rules of st the conclusion that the Upp features are by legislative River Project. We conclude interpretation of the 1956 Service Area features have the Feather River Project. sary to resolve certain le statute (Wat. C. II26O, 54) in order to arrive at a atutory construction point to er Feather River Service Area act a part of the Feather , therefore, that the proper statute is that the Upper Feather been made an authorized part of -131- Honorable Pauline L, Davis - p, 2 - #3828 ANALYSIS In 1951 the Legislature added Section 11260 to the Water Code, authorizing, as a part of the Central Valley Project: "The units set forth in publication of the State Water Resources Board entitled 'Report on Feasibility of Feather River Project and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Division Projects Proposed as Features of the California Water Plan,' dated May, 1951, subject to such modi-- fications thereof as the authority may adopt,,.." (Ch. 1441, Stats. 1951/ This portion of Section 11260 was amended by Chapter 54 of the I956 First Extraordinary Session to read: "The units set forth in publication of the State Water Resources Board entitled 'Report on Feasibility of Feather River Project and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Division Projects Proposed as Features of the California Water Plan, ' dated May, 1951, as modified in the publication of the Divis ion of W ater Res ources entitled ' Program for Financing and Co nstructing the Feather R iver Project as the Inlt^ial Unit of the California V Jater Flai i, ' d ated February, 1955, subject to such further modifications thereof as the authority m.ay adopt,, o, ," (Language added by 1956 amendment underscored) Construed in the llgh'c of the power of the Water Project Authority as indicated in both am.ended forms of the quoted section and otherwise (Wat, C, 11290) the question immediately arises as to the power of the Division of VJater Resources to modify the Feather River Project as of the time that the division issued its report. We are not aware of any such povjer. Further ambiguity arises from the 1955 division report itself. The first time modification is mentioned in the report (page 3) it is in the context of "two possible modifications," and the second time (page 3) it is in the context of "There are also presented two modifications of -132- Honorable Pauline L, Davis - Pc 3 - #3828 the Feather River Project Aqueduct," Other language Is found with respect to other features of the project, such as: "It was found that It was advantageous to the projecc from operational and economic view- points to add to it the following features along the Feather River Project Aqueduct, not included in the original (l95l) report: the San Luis Porebay, San Luis Reservoir, » „ „" (page 2) Until Chapter VI the report does not discuss the Upper Feather River Service Area features, nor does any plate indicate any features of the Upper Feather River Service Area as part of the Feather River Project. However, that chapter opens: "Estimates of water requirements and water development plans for the Upper Feather Service Area have been given consideration in planning the Feather River Project," The chapter includes estimates of the capital cost require- ments of various project features for the Upper Feather River Service Areao Chapter VII is the final chapter of the report and contains the following four recommendations: "l. Adequate funds be appropriated by the Legislature to initiate construction of the Feather River Project (the initial unit of The California Water Plan) as presented in this report, "2, The Legislature consider enactment of legislation for submission to the electorate of a proposal to authorize Issuance of bonds in the aggregate amount of $1,500,000,000 to finance construction of the Feather River Project in a step construction program, "3o Upstream features of the North, Middle and South Forks of the Feather River, as set forth in Chapter 6 of this report, be included in the Feather River Project, -^33- Honorable Pauline L, Davis - p, if ~ #3828 "4, Further vorks of The; Calii^'ornia Water Plan be financed and constructed in accordance • with a predetermined schedule iM order that the excess water supplies of the State be developed and made available for beneficial use as and when the need arises." There thus being ambiguity as to the meaning to be attributed to "modified" as used in Section 11260 of the Water Code as amended in 1956 with respect to tlie report of the Division of Water Resoui'ces, it is appropriate that additional factors be considered in arriving at the proper interpretation of that word in accordance with established rules of statutory construction, ( Stockton Savings & Loan Bank v, Ma£;saaet (l94l), I8 Cal. 2d 200, 207.) ( a ) The General Meanin.o: of the Words Uged As pointed out, the Division of Wrter Resources had no povjer to modify the Pef tb.er River Pro.ject and in fact cannot reasonably be said to have purported to have done so. When speaking of the project as planned or in presenting modifications, the I'easonaMe Import of the report js that the Division of Water Resources acted in its role of advisor to the Water Project Authority (Wat, C, 11160) and proposed to that body certain, modoflcations. In its conclusions (Chapter VII) the division recommended adequate funds for the Feather River Project as presented in the report and also recommended that upstream features of the Feather River be included in the Feather River Project. So far as the presenting of the project and the recommending for inclusion in the project are concerned we find little difference. Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (1951), defines r-jconmend as to commend or bring forward as meriting consideration, and present as the bringing or inti'oducing into the presence of someone. To attempt to draw distinctions from these slight differences is to attribute a significance to them clearly repugnant to their lack of precision. Where a word has a popular and also a technical meaning, the courts will accord it its popular meaning, unless the mere nature of the subject indicates or the context suggests that it is employed in its technical sense ( City of Pasadena v. Railroad Commission of the State of California -134- Honorable Pauline L, Davis - p= 5 - #3828 (1920), 183 Cal. 526, 532). The analogy is pertinent here, particularly in view of the impossibility of applying the technical meaning, (b) Contemporaneous Administrative Construction ' You have made reference to a letter of the State Controller, dated November 19, 1956, which points out that as of that date approximately $1468,07 had been expended by the Department of Water Resources from the appropriation made by Item 419.6 of the Budget Act. Since as heretofore pointed out that appropriation could only be lawfully expended if the project was authorized, there is indicated the contemporaneous administrative interpreta- tion of the Department of Water Resources and of the State Controller that the Upper Feather River Service Area features had been included in the authorized Feather River Project. The letters of understanding dated November 8 and November 26, 1956, are in effect requests of the Department of Water Resources fbr Department of Finance approval (Gov, C, 14034) of the transfer by the State Controller of the moneys appropriated by Item 419.6 to the Water Resources Revolving Fund„ Conceding that they may be further evidences of the recognition by the Department of Water Resources of the authorization of the project, their effect is cumulative. Until acted upon by the Department of Finance, there is no evidence of that department's view of the matter. However, the action of the State Controller and the Department of Water Resources, almost upon the taking effect of Section 11260, as amended in 1956, does appear to be a contemporaneous administrative interpretation of the effect of a statute, which would be g;iven weight by the courts ( City of Los Angeles v, Rancho Homes, InC o (1953), 40 Cal, 2d 764, 770). Very truly yours, Ralph N, Kleps Legislative Counsel By J, D„ Strauss Deputy JDS/la -135- STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ""'*'' DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING „v.s COPY 2 VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF INTERESTED AGENCIES APPENDIX D '1^1- OF INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER RASIN DEVELOPMENT INTERIM REPORT ON ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND FINANCIAL FEASIRILITY OF INITIAL UNITS r \m GOODWIN J. KNIGHT F^^Flil^l HARVEY 0. BANKS Governor \y^ v1_^^'^''?t' a«/ Director of Water Resources "tiVtrtSllY OF CALIFORNIA AUG 2 1957 LIBRARY APRIL, 1957 r STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF INTERESTED AGENCIES APPENDIX D OF INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT INTERIM REPORT ON ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INITIAL UNITS GOODWIN J. KNIGHT B&S^rt 1 iS) HARVEY 0. BANKS Grovemor fc% sl^y^^^^ /,?/ Director of Water Resources APRIL, 1957 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword , , il STATEMENTS REGARDING BULLETIN NO. 59 DELIVERED AT PTJBLIC HEARING QUINCY, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY l4, I957 .... 1 California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Parks ...,=.............. 2 California Department of Fish and Game 3 County of Lassen 7 Last Chance Creek Water District ...... 8 Oroville Chamber of Commerce ................ 9 Pacific Gas and Electric Company ..... 10 Plumas County Board of Supervisors 12 Plumas National Forest, United States Forest Service .... 13 Richvale Irrigation District ... ..... l4 Sierra County 15 WRITTEN STATEMENTS SUBMITTED REGARDING BULLETIN NO . 59 ....... I6 California Department of Fish and Game ........... 1? Last Chance Creek Water District ... 20 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 24 Plumas County Board of Supervisors ...... 2? Plumas County Chamber of Commerce ............. 30 Plumas County Water Resources Board . 32 City of Portola ...................... 35 Richvale Irrigation District ......... 37 Sierra County Board of Supervisors and Water Resources Board .......... 4l FOREWORD At the direction of the Legislature of the State of Cali- fornia, and in accordance with Section 12623 of the Water Code, the State Department of Water Resources held a joint hearing with the State Water Board on February ik, 1951 , in Quincy, California, to secure comments on the preliminary edition of Bulletin No. 59^ "Investigation of Upper Feather River Basin Development, Interim Report on Engineering, Economic, and Financial Feasibility of Ini- tial Units". This appendix report contains the comments presented ver- bally and in writing at the public hearing. It also contains the written views and recommendations of interested agencies submitted to the Director of the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Board following the date of the hearing, but prior to the pub- lication date of this appendix report. li STATEMENTS REGARDING BULLETIN NO. 59 DELIVERED AT PUBLIC HEARING QUINCY, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY l4, I957 > I CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OP NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OP BEACHES AND PARKS Statement by Newton B„ Drury^ Chief Presented by Robert B. Hatch * The preliminary investigation of the Upper Feather River Service areas by the Division of Beaches and Parks was started shortly after July 1st of 1956. Work is nearlng completion on the authorized reservoir sites; namely ^ Antelope Valley,, Abbey Bridge^ Dixie Refuge, Frenchman and Grizzly Valley reservoirs. Preliminary work has been done on Meadow Valley, Genesee, Squaw Queen, Nelson Point and Sheep Camp reservoirs. Studies will be completed as needed. A Factual Report is scheduled to be presented to the State Park Commission for their review and consideration at their March meeting. The planning staff of this Division is Impressed with the recreation potential of the area in general, as well as with the prob- lems caused by climate, geographic location and existing land use and management. Construction of these reservoirs will enhance the area for recreationlsts and act as focal points for recreation activities. One of the major deficiencies of the area is the lack of adequate roads to support continued commercial traffic and increased recreation traffic safely and without conflict. Almost all roads require widen- ing, new alignment and a general raising of standards. Some right-of- way problems can be expected and eventaally a paving program will be required. All facts compiled indicate recreation as an increasingly large attraction and economic factor in the Upper Feather River Serv- ice Area, in the opinion of the planners of this Division. =2" CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OP FISH AND GAME Statement by Seth Gordon, Director Presented by Ed V. Dwyer, Fisheries Biologist III Although some of its personnel have worked closely with the Department of Water Resources in the investigations preparatory to com- pilation of Bulletin 59, entitled, "investigation of Upper Feather River Basin Development: Interim Report on Engineering, Economic, and Financial Feasibility of Initial TJnits", the Department of Fish and Game has had opportunity to review it only in a very preliminary man- ner. Some features of the Upper Feather River Basin Development deserve more consideration than was possible in the limited time avail- able, and therefore the Department of Fish and Game desires to withhold comment on these features at this time. Bulletin 59 Includes projects for the improvement of fishing and recreation, a long awaited and greatly needed concept in the devel- opment of the State's water resotirces, and one which the Department of Pish and Game heartily endorses. Agricultural, industrial and population growth in California in recent years have brought to bear great pressures on the natural resources of the State, Among these resources, the one of most immed- iate concern to the Department is water and the storage, conservation and use of water. The Fish and Game Comirdssion has stated its policy regarding water storage developm.ents . This policy dictates so clearly the posi- tion of the Department in this hearing that it should be read into the record. A statement of this policy resolution follows: "WHEREAS, The California Fish and Game Commission recognizes the need ^^y tha orderly development of water resources of Cali- fornia; and WHEREAS, The pressure of the State's expanding population and industry is resulting in an unprecedented number of proposed v;a- ter development projects on virtually all of its rivers; and l,fflEREAS, The population of California will probably double in the next tv/enty-five years and the need for recreation, partic- ularly fishing, v^ill become increasingly acute; and WHEREAS, Past experience has indicated that fisheries re- sources of vast economic importance have been permanently de- stroyed by poorly conceived x^^ater projects; and WHEREAS, Most water resource developments in the past have not been multi-purpose projects for the population as a v;hole be- cause the concurrent recreational and wildlife aspects have been neglected; and VjHEREASj It v/ill become Increasingly Important that fish and v.'ildlife resources be carefully considered by the planners of water projects as more dams are proposed^ novj, therefore^ be it RESOLVED, That the Fish and Game Commission adopts the fol- lowing policies v;ith respect to the vrater resource developments of California in the future: 1. The value of vjater for fisheries, v;ildlife and recreation is fully as important as, and may in some instances outweigh, some of the other beneficial uses and should therefore be care- fully considered in the planning of v/ater resource developments. 2. The State of California should make every effort to ex- pand and not merely attempt to preserve v/ildlife and recreational values vjhich v;ill be adversely affected by the construction of water projects . 3. All applications for water use should be carefully re- viewed by those State agencies having jurisdiction thereof, and no applications should be granted unless adequate provision is made for preservation of the existing fish and wildlife resources or their replacement in kind. 4. Every effort should be made to secure recognition by the public at large and by all State agencies, of the practical and esthetic values of the State's fish, vjildlife, and recreational resources . 5. It is recognized that the majority of vrater resource de- velopments are essential to the economy of the State, but result- ing damage to fish and v;ildlife resources can be minimized. The State of California should oppose any water project where the permanent loss of practical and esthetic values of its fish, wildlife and recreational resources will outweigh or will approx- imate the financial return to the users of the project during its economic life , " r* 'Jv* 4r 'Ip "*;• The importance of recreational fishing in the United States can be shown by a report published in 1956 by the U. S. Fish and Wild- life Service. This report indicates that in 1955^. almost ti\renty-one million fishermen spent more than tv;o billion dollars to enjoy almost four hundred million m.an-days of recreation. In the three Pacific States about tvra and a quarter million fishermen spent more than two hundred and tv/enty million dollars to enjoy about forty-six million man-days of recreation. In California in 1955, about ten per cent of the population, . r.out one million three hundred and three thousand people, bought ../ling licenses. This represents only a portion of the total number or rishermen in California since children and servicemen are not re- quired to purchase angling licenses. The percentage of the population In California purchasing angling licenses has been increasing steadily -4- so v;e anticipate that in the future an Increased percentage of the cop- ulation vjill buy fishing licenses. It must be emphasized that fishing and associated recreation nov; play an important part in the welfare of the people of the State, and will play an increasing part in their welfare as the economy devel- ops to afford more leisure time and a greater margin of the economv expendable on recreation. The area in the Upper Feather Rlvei' Service rea under consideration is of extreme importance to the recrertion'^l resource of California. Access is good, the recreational season is relatively long, and the topography of the country is suitable for in- creased recreational use. The streams generally are suitable for trout fisheries, and are susceptible of ordinary fisheries management practices. The late summer flows, hov/ever, are a limiting factor in trout production, and the carrying capacity of the streams is reduced, both for fish and for fishermen. In this northeastern section of Plumas County, an area of about seven hundred square miles, there are no lakes nor fishable reservoirs. It is apparent that the use of this area by people seeking recreation would be tremendously increased by the creation of lakes and the maintenance of stream flov/s as contemplated in this report. In the summer of 1956 the Department of Water Resources fi- nanced, and the Department of Fish and Game conducted a survey in the Upper Feather River Service Area to determine the actual use by anglers of the streams to be affected by the five dams proposed as the initial units of the xrater development in this area. In the area of the Indian Creek Project, comprising Antelope Valley Dam on Indian Creek, Dixie Refuge Dam on Last Chance Creek, Abbey Bridge Dam on Red Clover Creek, and the stretch of Indian Creek through Genesee Valley to Tsylorsville, there were approximately 9^000 man-days spent in angling. In the area below Frenchman Dam and Grizzly Valley Dam, in the Middle Fork drain- age area as far west as Sloat, there v/ere approximately 20,000 man-days spent in angling. It is estimated that these anglers spent ap'^roxi- mately tvra hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($270,000) to o-:-iJoy their sport. Along with these anglers there were others in their parties v/ho did not fish, bringing the total visitor-days in these areas to approximately 44,000. The expenditure of time and money of these people can be credited primarily to the attraction of fishing in live streams. It is Important for the purposes of this hearing to remember that only 11^ of these visitors originated in Plumas County, that 47^ came from the Bay Area, and that 19^ came from Southern California. This distribution indicates that development of the recreational re- sources of this area will benefit not only the local people and busi- ness interests, but will benefit the welfare of the entire population of California. Impressive as the figures of present use might be, they are relatively insignificant v;hen compared to the predicted use. The assumed ultimate population of California less than a hundred years from nov; is 45 million people. In considering construction of water conservation projects, an economic period of 50 years is adopted for judgement of value. California population fifty years from now will be about 35 million or more than twice our present population. In these fifty years we will have gained a higher standard of living, including four or even three day v/ork v;eek, longer vacations, and better transportation. At the same timej we v/ill find less opportunity for outdoor recreation in the vicinity of the cities where most of these people v;ill live. The prediction of the use of the area considered then, is based on a conservative estimate of the saturation level of anglers per mile of stream at this distant time. The stream in an improved condition will accommodate more fishermen than in an unimproved con- dition. The difference v;ill be creditable to the presence and opera- tion of these proposed water conservation projects. The method of prediction used by the Department of Pish and Game is described as follows: A curve of probable increased use with the projects was drawn from the present number to the ultimate number. A depression was made in the early years of the curve to allow for construction periods for public and private facilities such as camps, resorts, hotels and motels. A second depression was made in the curve to allow for delay in universal adoption of the short work week and the year-round operation of city schools. A second curve ^^fas drawn which depicted the use of these streams without the proposed projects. The difference of use between the conditions with and without the proj- ects was taken for the first fifty years. The tremendous use of the streams during the second fifty years was disregarded as being irrele- vant to this type of analysis. It must be remembered, however, that this second half-century will find even greater use than the first half. The average annual number of angler-days creditable to the project in the fifty years is predicted to be as follows: Indian Creek below Antelope Valley Dam 32,000 Last Chance Creek below Dixie Refuge Dam 128,000 Red Clover Creek below Abbey Bridge Dam 42,000 The average annual number of angler-days along Indian Creek down as far as Taylorsville is predicted to be 107,000, giving a total benefit of 309 J 000 average annual angler-days. These numbers are considered con- servative, or minimal, and the actual increase will undoubtedly be greater than this. In view of these facts and predictions, the Department of Fish and Game concurs in the recommendation of the Department of Water Resources that the Indian Creek Project be built and operated for rec- reation and stream flow maintenance. The .two projects proposed in the Middle Pork drainage area are of different character and present different possibilities of use. The Department wishes to defer comment on the proposed Frenchman Proj- ect until some later time. The economy and welfare of the State would derive great ben- efits from the proposed Grizzly Valley Project, if it were built and operated for recreation and stream flow maintenance. Operated for these purposes, it would provide benefits of approximately 13 times the cost, as estimated by the Department of Fish and Game, using the net benefit formula described in Bulletin #59. The Department of Fish and Game recommends that the proposed Grizzly Valley Project be built and operated for recreation and stream flow maintenance. The Department of Pish and Game appreciates the opportunity of making this presentation, and of making known some of its views and comments on Bulletin #59- -6- COUTJTY OF LASSEN Letter from Paul Milton, Chairman Water Resources Committee The Lassen County Water Board wholeheartedly endorse Mr. Donnenwirth's, Chairman of the County Board of Supervisor's of Plumas County, statements in regard to the development of the Upper Feather River Basin Projects. We suggest further reservation of time for future study and recommendations. -7- LAST CHANCE CREEK WATER DISTRICT Statement by William E. Ryan, President Board of Directors My name is Ryan, Director of the Last Chance Water District, Last Chance Creek Water District, relative to the Frenchman Project. There is, of course, the water users who are willing to negotiate with the proper agency for water purchase contracts, when the policy and the price, cost, repayments, is better defined by the Legislature. On the Grizzly, we are willing to also contract or negoti- ate for that part of the water that is envisioned to be brought into Last Chance Creek Water District. Now, there is a large service area lying outside, contemplated service area, lying outside of the Last Chance Creek District, and we can't speak for those people. We would like time, perhaps two weeks, to submit a written statement of. our position and have It become a part of the record. Will we be granted permission to do that? MR. BERRY: That will be perfectly satisfactory, Mr. Ryan, yes. Do you have any questions, Mr. Volk? MR. VOLK: I am not very well versed in this area, but I am under the impression there isn't additional water for much outside land? I might be mistaken in that? MR. RYAN: Would you restate that, please? I didn't hear you. I hear bad. MR. VOLK: You mentioned the fact there are certain areas outside of your present boundaries, which would like water and you couldn't speak for them. I am just under the impression that there is not a surplus of water for lands outside? MR. RYAN: You are thinking of the Grizzly? MR. VOLK: Yes. MR, RYAN: As you look at the map, there is a lot of area between the ditch on the north boundary of the valley, and that part there that is Irrigable land. It is closer to the source of supply. It is possible that those people would wish to form a district and they probably are people entitled to that water as we are for their development. We would take that part of the water, and perhaps more if negotiated, but we are not trying to eliminate those people as pos- sible users. MR. VOLK: One thing I would like to point out in connection with your costs for irrigation: you will have certain costs within your district, distribution canals that should be taken into consid- eration in your total cost of water. MR. RYAN: That's right; but that would be a district prob- lem, one that we would accept ourselves. -8- OROVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Telegram from L. D. OhlsoHj Chairman Water Resources Committee We wholeheartedly support State construction earliest pos- sible time proposed five upstream water development projects in Plumas County. In addition to providing local areas with benefits to which they are entitled^ these projects will produce extensive recreational benefits for sportsmen throughout the State and will comprise valu- able units of the Feather River Project by regulating stream flow thereby aiding flood control. -9- PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Statement by Barton W. Shackelford We appreciate this oproi'tunity to appear before repre- sentatives of the Department of" Water Resources and the State Water Board to present our comment on the February 1957 Preliminary Edition of Bulletin No. 59, entitled., "Investigation of Gpper Feather River Basin P-evelopment, Interim Report on Engineering, Economic and Financial Feasibility of Initial Units." These coiiiments are however DrelJ.minary in nat'ure since a copy of Bulletin 59 was obtained by the Company only this morning and for that reason the Company has not had sufficient time to adequately review the con- clusions set forth in the interim report. Our appearance here is solely for the purpose of advising the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Board of certain facts which the Pacific Gas and Electric Company feels should be made part of the record and taken into consideration before final adoption of the report and recommendations by the Department are made. The Company owns certain water rights and facilities in connection with its comprehensive water and power development on the North Fork Feather River. In addition, the Company., as custodian for public sei'vice use, ow.is certain water rights and facilities in connection with its Western Canal which diverts water from the Feather River below Oroville for irrigation purposes. We recognize, however, that the State Water Rights Board will have Jurisdiction in the mstter of issuance of Water Right Permits re- lating to the five reservoir projects set forth in this interim report and that said Board v^ould be the pxx>-pev forum to vjhich to submit matters of water rights. However,, since the Department of Water Res-arces is now the custodian of certain Water Right Applications made in furtherance of these five Projects, we believe comment on this matter is pertinent. We assume that there will be no interference with the rights associated with existing projects and projects under construction by the Company,, Because we have not seen detailed operation studies rf the proposed projects con- sidered in the report, we are imable at this time to determine to what extent, if any, the operation of these reservoir projects will interfere' with Company's vested rights. In accordance with law, this Company is charged with the responsibility of protect- ing all rights that are used and useful in the public service. We do not have the rj.ght to deviate from this obligation. In the Feather River basin alone, the Company has con- structed v/ater development facilities costing over $100 million and the Company plans to expend in excess of another $100 million on facilities now 'onder construction. With these figures in mind, it is obvious that the Company would be concerned if the operation of the five proposed reservoirs would impair the pro- ductive performance of the Company's dciAmstream facilities. We therefore urge the Department and the State Water Board to take -10" no action to adopt this report until sufficient time has been allov/ed for interested parties to review the report to determine if there may be interference with vested water rights . The Company has always supported sound water development projects. The Feather River Basin waters are a valuable resource to the inhabitants of California and should be developed v;hen needed. As prerequisites to authorization of construction of the initial units of the Upper Feather River Basin Development as set forth in this interim report, it is essential that interested parties be allowed sufficient time to review the report to deter- mine if there may be interference vjith vested rights and that the economic feasibility be clearly demonstrated. I would also like to request permission to file a written further comment which we may wish to do after studying the report. I submit that we might like to have a month, rather than two weeks, if that is agreeable with the board. -11- PLUMAS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Statement by Glair Donnenwirthj Chairman We are wholeheartedly in agreement with the recommendations lof your report "Bulletin No. 59 " Investigation of Upper Feather River (Basin Development", with the following comments: 1. Your recommendation No. 1 has to do with authorizing the Jpper Feather River Projects as features of the Feather River Project, lit is our understanding, based on opinion of the Legislative Counsel, [that the Upper Feather River Projects have already been authorized as (part of the overall Feather River Project. We understand that this conclusion was also recognized by [the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Finance before [Legislative Committee Hearings in January, 1957- 2. We agree with your recommendation No. 4, which has to do [with the obtaining of water rights prior to any construction project. It has always been our understanding that regardless of the )roject, water rights were needed prior to construction. We wonder *rhy this matter is specifically incorporated in your recommendations [for the Upper Feather River Projects. May we take this opportunity to express our appreciation to Fthe personnel in the Department of Water Resources for the excellent Mob they have done in the prepai'^ation of Bulletin No. 59- -12- UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST Statement by William A. Petersorij Forest Supervisor The Forest Service Is greatly Interested in the establish- ment of the proposed reservoirs in the Upper Feather River watershed. Where National Forest lands are needed for water storage they will be made available to the Department of Water Resources or the appropriate agency involved . National Forest lands are used for multiple purposes includ- ing public recreation. As the reservoir program develops the Forest Service will prepare detailed plans to meet public recreation needs. Adjacent National Forest areas not required for intensive public use will be managed for grazing of livestock, growing and harvesting of timber, and maintenance and development of wildlife habitat in a man- ner which will protect and improve the watershed. It is the intent that National Forest land will be developed to meet requirements for public recreation facilities. •13- RICHVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT Statement by Alvil L. Harry, Secretary We haven't much to say due to the fact we haven't been able to get hold of this 59 Bulletin, as you know, but we are re- questing to file our comments later, and we will also have some proposals at that time. I would like to say now, we have said it before, that we think that this upper area is entitled to all the water that they can reasonably use, and we don't v/ant to take any of the water away if we can help it. We would like to cooperate with you, and I will say this : our door is open for a get-together, a genuine get- together, no rocks thrown, and see what we can work out. I think that is about all I care to say. -14- SIERRA COUNTY Statement by Wlnslow Christian, District Attorney So far as Sierra County is concerned, we are^, of course, to some extent by-standers at this point, since it is our under- standing that although there may be some negligible irrigation bene- fit across the line into Sierra County, the major irrigation features, and also recreation features would be in Pliomas County, and nevertheless we are slightly interested in the work that has been done on these initial features, since we do look forward to the time when consideration may be given to some of the other projects in Sierra County which have been considered in earlier phases of this study, and we would like to comment first, as indicating our whole- hearted support of the concept of Upper Basin development on the part of the State of California, and we believe in this concept and be- lieve it should be extended not only to these projects but to other projects in this region. Second, we would also like to indicate our support of the basic concept of cost allocation between irrigation and recreation features that is included in this recommendation and report. That is, of course, a matter for legislative determination, and we anticipate some conflict and difficulty as to the details of that allocation, but we do endorse the basic concept that has been developed in this report. Then, thirds v/e would like to urge on the part of the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Board, that these agencies use their influence toward bringing the other features of this upper stream development to the stage that these five projects are nov; in as soon as possible. •15- WRITTEN STATEMENTS SUBMITTED REGARDING BULLETIN NO. 59 -16- *COPY STATE OF CALIFORNIA Inter-Departmental Communication Harvey 0, Banks, Director Department of Water Resources P. 0. Box 1079 Sacramento J California Attention: William Berry n: Department of Fish and Game Date: March 21, 1957 File No. Subject: Bulletin 59^ Investlga tion of Upper Feather River Basin Development The Department of Fish and Game previously commented on the investigation of the Upper Feather River Basin. These comments, made at a public hearing held in Quincy on February l4, 1957;. v;ere necessarily general as the Department did not have the opportunity to review Bulletin 59 prior to the hearing. We appreciate this opportunity to submit these additional comments which are the result of a review of the Bulletin. We feel the concept of public funds supporting that portion of the cost of a project which can be attributed to recreation benefits is extremely important to the future of the fish and wildlife resources of California, It is definitely in the public Interest to maintain these r-^ sources and support the recreation associated with them. It is reassur- ing to us to see the recreational use of viater recognized as a major important use of water after an extensive study of the drainage basin. Indian Cr eek R ecrecit ion Project The proposed Indian Creek Recreation Project would be operated to provide releases from the reservoirs for stream flow maintenance purposes in Indian, Last Chance, and Red Clover Creeks. Regulated flows in these streams would provide tremendous benefits to the people of California if their full recreation potential can be realized. It is immediately apparent to us that there are several important factors which will influence the realization of this potential. These factors should be considered by the people and their representatives at the same time they are asked to consider the concept of public funds supporting a local development of this nature for recreation. These factors are: 1, A iTieans must be provided to protect the releases of water for streamflow maintenance from appropriation along the course of the stream. It is our understanding that at the present time these releases are subject to appropri- ation for other uses. The purpose of the project would be defeated unless the amount of water necessary to main- tain the streams for recreation is reserved in some way. ■17- Harvey 0. Banks, Director March 21, 1957 Department of Water Resources 2. The primary benefits from stream flow maintenance have been calculated with the assumption that the public v/ould have access to the entire length of stream in which the flow is maintained. These benefits may not be realised and the public may not receive full value for the expenditure of State funds unless access is assured along each stream. We understand that there is to be further study of the area below the Indian Creek Project to compare the value to the State of the possible Genessee Reservoir and an alternate development of G-enessee Valley as a recreation area. It is apparent that maintenance of stream flow would render this valley highly desirable as a recreation area, and that the interests of the State would be served by acquisition or other assurance of public access. Grizzly Valley Pro.iect The Grizzly Valley Project is proposed as a single-purpose irrigation project v/hich would produce little, if any, benefit to recrea- tional uses of the stream below the project. The report also contains an alternate proposal for the operation of the project for maintenance of stream flows in Grizzly Creek and the Middle Pork Feather River. We a_uote a sentence from page l4 of Bulletin 59.» "The public interest demands that the available funds be applied in such a manner as^ ^^ . to bring maximum returns for the moneys, resources, and energies expended." We concur in this statement and believe that it applies especially well to the alternate Grizzly Valley Recreation Project, whei^e the estimated ratio of benefits to costs is several times greater than the ratio estimated for the Grizzly Valley Irrigation Project. We do not believe it would be in the best public interest to sacrifice the tremendous recreational potential on Grizzly Creek and the Middle Pork Feather River. This concentrated recreational use would have an extremely important beneficial effect on the economy of the area, and this should be given further careful consideration in attempting to serve the public interest. We understand that the streamflow maintenance benefits of the Grizzly Creek project were considered to extend only to Nelson Point on the Middle Fork Feather River. In the event a dam is to be constructed at Nelson Point by the State or some other agency, we v/ill certainly request that the fish, wildlife, and recreational resources of the river below this dam be maintained with adequate, continuous vrater releases. Water developed at Grizzly Valley for stream flow purposes could be utilized to form part of the Nelson Point releases. Thus the benefits of such water would extend over many additional miles of stream. -18- Harvey 0, Banks, Director March 21, 1957 Department of Water Resources We recommend that the State build the alternative Grizzly Valley Recreation Project. However, as a further consideration we suggest the possibility of a multi-purpose project for both irrigation and stream flow maintenance,, Under this type of development both uses would take a deficiency in dry years, but one use would not have to be developed at the complete expense of the other. Frenchman Project Here, again we suggest additional consideration be given to the possibility of preventing losses to the fishery of Little Last Chance Creek through multi-purpose development. The quantities of water needed to maintain a live stream during the off-irrigation season need not be large in this case. There has been no legislative consideration of the possibility that less than the five proposed projects be built. However, such a possibility must be considered, and if the proposed Frenchman or Grizzly Projects v;ere to be constructed independently and operated solely for irrigation, the fish and game resources would suffer losses. We recommend that, in this event, a definite allotment of water be made for stream flow maintenance below either or both dams, in amounts to be determined by further study. We wish to commend you and your staff for the quality of work displayed by this investigation and report. The farslghted recognition of the importance of recreation to the economy of the project area is exemplary from the standpoint of serving the public interest in the development of the State's water resources. Sincerely yours. /s/ Seth Gordon Seth Gordon Director -19- COPY I Vinton, California 26 February 1957 Mr, Harvey Banks Division of Water Resources Sacramento, California Mr. Clair Hill, Chairman State Water Board Sacramento, California Gentlemen: I enclose a statement concerning Bulletin No. 59 on behalf of the Last Chance Creek Water District which I have been authorized by the Board of Directors of the District to file and forv;ard to you. This statement is submitted pursuant to leave granted at the Joint hearing of the Water Resources and State Water Board held in Quincy on February l4, 1957. Sincerely yours, /s/ William E. Ryan WILLIAM E. RYAN President, Board of Directors Last Chance Creek Water District Enc. 1 cc : Senator Stanley Arnold State Capitol Sacramento, California Assemblywoman Pauline Davis State Capitol Sacramento, California -20- STATEMENT OP LAST CHANCE CKEEK WATER DISTRICT FILED WI-TH THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Al^ Tffi; STATE WA'TER BOARD Following an oral statement made by William E, Ryan on behalf of the Last Chance Creek Water District at the joint hearing in Quincy on Pebrttary l4^ 1957^ the District was given leave to file a statement in writing commenting upon Bulletin No „ 59 insofar as it relates to the proposed Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Reservoirs. Status of the Last Chance Creek Water District The Last Chance Creek Water District is a district formed under the provisions of the California Water District Act for the purpose of developing and distributing irrigation water. The District comprises lands now having adjudicated water rights in Little Last Chance Creek„ The Act under which the District was organized specifically authorizes it to contract with the State of California for the purpose of developing irrigation water supplies. Comment on the Concept of Basin Development By implication Bulletin No „ 59 assumes that integrated develop- ment of the water resources of the Feather River Basin is properly a concern of the State of California . The Board of Directors of the Last Chance Greek Water District endorses that assumption^ for the following reasons: 1, All five of the projects now proposed for construction will produce substantial benefits to recreation. The provision of public recreational facilities has traditionally been a function of govern- ment. The need for such facilities., which would benefit the entire State of California^ is increasing yearly. 2. The construction of the major features of the Feather River Project has been undertaken as a responsibility of the State^ and there is general agreement that it is a proper concern of the State of California to alleviate water deficiencies in Central and Southern California. Sierra Valley, though it is part of the watershed of the Feather River, is an area of deficient water supply. The position of the inhabitants of this Valley is in no way different from that of residents of other areas to be served by the Feather River Project: we all need water, and we are all willing to pay a reasonable price to get water. Comment on P r oposed Cost Allocations One of the most interesting features of Bulletin No, 59 is its discussion of the problem of allocating the cost of any -21" k particular project between irrigation and other functions. Although basic policy in this regard remains to be determined by the Legislature, the District concurs with Bulletin No. 59 in the following conclusions and recommendations: 1, The State should assume the cost of providing for lands, easements, and rights of way, and of relocating public utilities. 2, The costs apportioned to recreation and flood control will be incurred in connection with State functions, and there- fore should not be reimbursable by water users. 3, The costs apportioned to irrigation should be reimbursed with interest at ^0^, over a 50 year repayment period. Readiness of District to Negotiate for Purchase of Water Land owners within the Last Chance Creek Water District can beneficially use all of the additional irrigation water proposed to be developed by the Frenchman Project, The District is there- fore ready and willing to enter into negotiations with the State of California for the purchase of Frenchman Project water. While the District is not prepared to enter into any binding commitment until the directors have made further cost and benefit studies, the Board of Directors offers the following comments concerning questions which will arise in connection with such negotiations: 1. It would be desirable to have a determination from the Legislature before negotiations are entered into concerning basic policies of cost allocation and reimbursement, 2. It would appear that the cost of project water as set forth in Bulletin No. 59 would be the maximum that could be borne by the land owners in the Last Chance Creek Water District, This is for the reason that the District will have to bear substantial additional costs of distribution if project water is to be put to its most efficient use. 3. In contract negotiations representatives of the District will raise the question of providing for a reduction in water rates following full repayment of the reimbursable portion of the project cost. The District's Position Regarding the Grizzly Valley Project We are informed that the major portion of the service area of the proposed Grizzly Valley Project as presently contemplated by the Department of Water Resources lies outside the present boundaries of the Last Chance Creek Water District. There is some indication that land owners in the area west of the Last Chance Creek Water District will desire either to form a new district of their own or to be annexed to the Last Chance Creek District. Beyond commenting on these possibilities, the Directors of the Last Chance Creek District do not feel that -22- they can properly make representations concerning the major portion of the Grizzly Valley service area. The Directors are informed, however, that the Last Chance Creek District is more directly involved by the proposed Grizzly Valley Project in that we are informed that the proposed main conduit running along the northern rim of Sierra Valley v/ould terminate within the Last Chance Creek District and would have a capacity, at its terminus, of 17 second-feet. Concerning the purchase of water from this project, the Directors can state that the Last Chance Creek Water District will enter negotiations on the basis of the price stated in Bulletin No. 59. The comments set forth above concerning the proposed Frenchman Creek PrO'ject contract apply as well here. Dated: 26 February 1957 /s/ William E. Ryan WILLIAM E. RYAN, President Board of Directors Last Chance Creek Water District i -23- I COPY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 245 Market Street SAN FRANCISCO 6, CALIFORNIA WALTER DREYER e-President and Chief Engineer March 12, 1957 Mr. Harvey 0. Banks, Director Department of Water Resources P. 0. Box 1079 Sacramento ^, California Dear Mr. Banks: the joint hearing by the Department of Water Resources and V/ater Board on Bulletin 59^ "investigation of Upper Feather Interim Report on Engineering, Economic and Initial Units", on February l4, 1957. the Company submitted a statement and requested to make further comments. At the State River Basin Development, Financial Feasibility of Pacific Gas and Electric additional time in which Enclosed herewith are such additional comments, setting forth the Company's position with respect to v/ater rights in greater detail, as well as its conclusions regarding certain recommendations contained in Bulletin 59. To complete the record, a copy of the Company's original statement is also Included. This opportunity to comment upon Bulletin 59 is appreciated. Very truly yours, /s/ Walter Dreyer Walter Dreyer WD ab End. cc Mr. Clair Hill, Chairman State Water Board (with end . ) -24- /'.DD ITIONAL COr#ENTS ON DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES P RELIMINARY EDITION OF BULLETIN NO. 5 9 "INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT INTERIM REPORT ON ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INITIAL UNITS" PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY The following comments supplement the statement which the Pacific Gas and Electric Company submitted before representatives of the Depart- ment of Water Resources and the State Water Board at Quincy on February ih, 1957. At that time, the Company had not had the opportunity to review Bulletin 59 and its statement was necessarily of a preliminary nature. The statement on February l4, 1957 called attention to certain water rights which the Company holds as custodian for public service use for its power and irrigation facilities on the Feather River. A subse- quent study of the planned operation of the reservoirs of the Indian Creek Recreation Project furnished to the Company by the Department shows that water would be stored adversely to Company rights in many years, in- cluding the driest years such as 1924 and I93I and that there would be a significant reduction in the energy generated and an effect on the capac- ity output of the Company's Rock Creek, Cresta, Poe and Big Bend hydro- electric projects. In order to avoid the detrimental Interference v/ith existing dovm- stream water rights, sufficient storage should be provided and operated to carry over stored water from periods of surplus supply in order to compensate for consumptive uses and evaporation losses in period"; when surplus water is not available. There has been insufficient time since release of Bulletin 59 to review in detail the effect of the proposed reservoirs upon the Company's irrigation diversion to the Western Canal. It is knovm, however, that the proposed operation of these upstream reservoirs would create a detri- mental effect during the early months of the irrigation season in certain years. Much of the water diverted to the Western Canal and other canal systems below Oroville is used for rice culture which requires consider- able quantities of vrater during April and May, during which months of most years it is planned to store water in the proposed reservoirs. Con- sumptive uses from and operation of the proposed Grizzly Valley and Frenchman Projects vrauld also reduce flov/s available for the Western Canal in many dry years unless sufficient carryover storage is provided to prevent infringement upon established downstream water rights. The broad assumptions and methods used for economic justification in Bulletin 59 are properly a subject for review by the Legislature, but it should be noted that the detrimental effect of the planned operation of the proposed reservoirs upon existing hydroelectric development and on the proposed Oroville Power Plant should have been evaluated and charged as costs to the proposed reservoirs. -25- In view of the interferences with water rights cited above^ the Company as well as other downstream water users v;ould be obligated to protect their vested rights against the proposed projects unless the plan of operation is revised to eliminate such interferences. In view of possible complications in the water rights situationj the Company con- curs in Recommendation No. 4 of Bulletin 59^ that no construction should be undertaken until necessary water right permits have been obtained. Legislative authorization, if granted, should apply specifically to the initial units described in Bulletin 59^ as called for in Recommen- dation No. 1. Such authorization should be made only after opportunity for full and complete hearings before Committees of the Legislature. As suggested by Recommendation No. 6, there should be similar opportunity for hearings on, and adoption by the Legislature of. State policies relating to cost allocation, repayment, nature and amount of non-reimbursable costs, if any, to be borne by the State taxpayers, eco- nomic justification, financing, and construction of water development projects . In view of the above considerations, it appears that appropriation of $1,300,000, in accordance with Recommendation No. 2, would be prema- ture, unless made conditional upon acquisition of water right permits, specific authorization, and establishment of State policies concerning water development projects. -26- COPY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF PLUMAS State of California QUINCY, CALIFORNIA 22-March-1957 Mr. Harvey 0<, Banks j Director Department of Water Resources Box 1079 Sacramento 5^ California Dear Mr. Banks: Enclosed please find certified copy of Resolution No. 865^ adopted by the Plumas County Board of Supervisors at their adjourned regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March, 1957. Sincerely, LOIS KEHRER, County Clerk and Ex~Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors b y /s/ June Crivello Deputy end - 1 -27- I RESOLUTION No . 865 WHEREAS, at the 1956 session of the Legislature of the State of California, there was appropriated the sum of $385,000.00 for the purpose of making engineering and geological investigations for a construction program of multi-purpose water development and flood control projects in the Upper Feather River Service Area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said appropriation and legislative direc- tion, the Department of Water Resources of the State of California made said investigations, and in February, 1957, published the re- sults of sucii investigations in a report, described as: Bulletin No. 59; and WHEREAS, said Bulletin No. 59 reports and determines that the Indian Creek recreation project, the Frenchman Creek project, and the Grizzly Valley project, are feasible both from an engineering and financial standpoint, and are economically Justified, either Jointly or individually; and WHEREAS, there is a general state-wide interest in and current need for the benefits to be derived from the general recreational features of the foregoing projects, because of the rapidly expanding requirement for outdoor recreational opportunities in this State, and the established use of existing outdoor recreational facilities in the Upper Feather River Basin by people throughout California; and WHEREAS, on the assumption that they will form a part of a general development of the recreation resources of the Upper Feather River Basin -one of the most attractive and accessible recreation areas in this State - the evaluation of the proposed initial units was made; and WHEREAS, it is important in the full realization of the State's natural resources for meeting the recreational needs of an expanding population, that development of the recreational facilities of the Upper Feather River Basin be utilized; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Legislative Counsel of the Department of Water Resources, and the Department of Finance, of the State of California, that the Upper Feather River projects have already been authorized as part of the over-all Feather River pro- ject; NOW THEREFORE., BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Plumas, State of California, that said Board hereby urges the Legislature of the State of California, in its 1957 Ses- sion, to establish legislation, and appropriate funds, for the full development of the Upper Feather River Service area; and -28- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Board vigorously endorses Bulletin No. 59j and urgently requests that sufficient and adequate funds be appropriated for the purchase of sites for design features, and for construction of the initial units, as described in said Bulletin No, 59; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that additional funds be appropriated at this Session of the Legislature for further engineering, econ- omic, and feasibility studies of the Meadow Valley-Nelson Point, Genessee, and Squaw Queen projects in the Upper Feather River Ser- vice Area, for multi-purpose development, all such projects being a unit of the Feather River project, and an Initial phase of the California Water Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of this Board shall for- ward copies of this Resolution to: Harvey 0. Banks, Director of the Department of Water Resources -Senator Stanley Arnold - Assemblyman Pauline Davis -and Dr. Samuel Wood, of Harold F. Wise and Associates The foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Plumas, State of California, at a regular adjourned meeting of said Board held on the 22nd day of March, 1957^ by the following vote: A'/ES: Supervisors CLOMAN, FLANAGAN, BLACKMAN, HUMPHREY and DONNENWIRTH . NOES : NONE ABSENT : NONE A. C. Donnenwirth Chairman of said Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Seal) Lois Kehrer County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of said Board of Supervisors -29- COPY PLUMAS COUNTk" CHAMBER OP COMMERCE RESOLUTION Urging the Legislature, State of California, to establish legislation and to adopt policy for the full development of the Upper Feather Basin Service Area calling for the construction of five dams and reservoirs as the initial phase, found econom- ically feasible by the Department of Water Resources, State of California, Bulletin #59. WHEREAS, the 1956 session of the California Legislature included as Item 223.1 the following appropriation for completion of engineering and geological investigation, studies and reports, with recommendations for a construction program for multipurpose water development and flood control projects in the Upper Feather River Service Area, Division of Water Resources, Department of Public Works, $385,000.00, and WHEREAS, the Department of Water Resources, State of California, as a result of their investigations of the Upper Feather River Service Area did publish this report in February 1957 and is known as Bulletin #59, and WHEREAS, this report presents the results of studies to determine the engineering feasibility, economic justification, and financial feasibility of the initial units which are; three in the Indian Creek Recreation project, the Frenchman project and the Grizzly Valley project, and WHEREAS, these initial units described above and in accordance with paragraph 1 of the conclusions of Bulletin #59, would be both engineeringly feasible and economically justified, either jointly or individually, and WHEREAS, because of the rapidly expanding requirement for outdoor recreational opportunities in California, and the established use of existing outdoor recreational facilities in the Upper Feather River Basin by people throughout California, there is a general state-wide interest in and current need for the benefits to be derived from the general recreational features of the foregoing projects, and WHEREAS, evaluation of the proposed initial units as recreation assets has been made on the assumption that they will form part of a general development of the recreation resources of the Upper Feather River Basin, one of the most attractive and accessible recreation areas of the State of California, and WHEREAS, with the full development of the recreation resources of the Upper Feather River Basin as a most important part of the State's natural resources for meeting the recreational needs of an expanding population. -30- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Plumas County Chamber of Commerce, State of California, this 6th day of March, 1957, do hereby urge the California State Legislature, at this 1957 session, to establish legislation and appropriate funds for the full development of the Upper Ii'eather River Service Area and do whole-heartedly endorse Bulletin ■/r59j and do urgently request adequate funds for the purchase of sites, for design features and for construction of the initial units as described in Bulletin #59, Department of Water Resources, State of California. Also that additional funds be appropriated, at this session of the Legislature, for further engineering, economic and feasibility studies of the Meadow Valley-Nelson Point, Genesee and the Squaw Queen projects in the Upper Feather River Service Area for multi-purpose development - - ai;i as a unit of the Feather River Project, the initial phase of the California VJater Plan. /s/ K arl Tray lor Karl Trr.ylor, President Plumas County Chamber of Commerce /s/ Max Forbes Max Forbes, Manager Plumas County Chamber of Commerce -31- I COPY PLUMAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Qulncy^ California March l4, 1957 Mr. Harvey 0. Banks, Director Department of Water Resources 1120 N Street P.O. Box 1079 Sacramento t, California Dear Mr. Banks: Attached is the statement of the policy of The Plumas County Water Resources Board which we submit to you as testimony of our approval of the meeting held in Quincy February l4, 1957. We take this opportunity to thank you for your cooperation and for the understanding that the various members of the committee showed the people in Plumas County. Yours very truly, /s/ E. B. Bond E.B.BOND, Secretary Plumas County Water Resources Board -32- I THE PLUMAS COUNTS' WATER RESOURCES BOARD Quincy-j California February 28, 1957 Mr. Clair Donnenwirth, Chairman Board of Supervisors Plumas County Quincy, California Dear Mr, Donnenwirth: In reviewing statements that were made at a joint public hearing of the State Water Board and the Department of Water Resources, held in Quincy on February l4, 1957:, the Plumas County Water Resources Board would like to emphasize their policy with regard to the Upper Feather River Basin development on the following points : 1. We have recommended the adoption of Bulletin #59^ titled. Investigation of the Upper Feather River Basin Development and whole-heartedly concur with Mr. Donnenwirth' s statement made in behalf of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors at the above joint meeting. 2. By resolution we. The Plumas County Water Resources Board, have urged that monies be made available at the present session of the Legislature in amounts sufficient ;:or the acquisition of sites for design features, > nd for construction of the initial units, as described in said Bulletin No. 39, in the amount of $1,300,000.00 for the development of the five authorized projects, namely: Antelope Valley Reservoir, Dixie Refuge Reservoir, Abbey Bridge Reservoir, Grizzly Valley Reservoir and Frenchman Reservoir. 3. That additional monies be made available for further engineering studies pertinent to the full development of the Upper Feather Basin as set forth in the re- commendations dated April 1955^ titled Northeastern Counties Investigation Report on Upper Feather River Service Area, page 293j recommendation No. 4 as follows: "That the following projects on the North and Middle Forks of the Feather River be given further study as features of The California Water Plan: Squaw Queen Project, Indian Palls Project, Meadow Valley Project and Sheep Camp Project." -33- We, therefore, present for your endorsement the above recommendations and ask that. If this meets with your approval, the Chairman of said Board of Supervisors affix his signature hereto. Yours very truly. /s/ E.B. Bond E.B, BOND, Secretary Plumas County Water Resources Board /s/ Clair Donnenwlrth Clair Donnenwlrth, Chairman Plumas County Board of Supervisors -34- COPY CI1Y OF PORTOLA, PORTOLA, CALIFORNIA March 13, 1957 Mr. Harvey 0. Banks Director of Water Resources P. 0. Box 1079 Sacramento 5, California Dear Sir: re: Bulletin No. 59 I am ;\^rlting to state the position of the City of Portola with respect to the recommendations and assumptions made in Bulletin No. 59. The City concurs in the assumption of Bulletin 59 that if the State of California is to construct the Oroville Dam, it is a proper function for the State to build in connection therewith economically feasible up-stream projects leading to the fully integrated development of the Feather River Basin. The City also believes that the public interest requires that the State should assume responsibility for costs attributable to lands, easements, and rights of way. We believe that the Legislature should set policies of cost allocation under v;hich project construction costs would be divided between recreation, flood control, and v;ater supply purposes. Costs attributable to recreation and flood control vrould be expended in furtherance of a state-wide interest and should not be reimbursed. Costs attributable to water supply (either irrigation or municipal) should be reimbursed by the water users . The City of Portola is particularly interested in the pro- posed Frenchman and Grizzly Projects. Concerning both of these projects via suggest that Bulletin No. 59 has not sufficiently emphasized the local flood control benefits v;hich vjill be produced. The City of Portola has \':ithin recent years sustained substantial damage as a result of high water in the Middle Fork of the Feather River. We believe that these txvo projects would go a long vrays toward protecting this area from further damage from flooding. It is noted that alternative recommendations have been made with regard to the Grizzly Project. Bulletin No. 59 recommends that if prospective users of irrigation water from Grizzly Creek -35- indicate v/lllingness to pay for such water at appropriate prices, the project should be built in modified form for recreation and stream regulation alone. We agree that the Grizzly Creek Project is feasible on this alternative basis even if it is not to pro- duce irrigation water. However^ we hope that consideration should be given toward planning the Grizzly Creek Project in such a way as to make available a supply of municipal water for the City of Portola . The City Council is sufficiently interested in this project to request that studies be made of the cost of providing municipal ivater from this source. If such information is made available the City Council will desire to discuss the possibilities of purchase of Grizzly Creek Water by the City. Sincerely yours, /s/ Ira C. Baldwin IRA C. BALDWIN Mayor City of Portola -36- COPY RICHVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT RICHVALE, CALIFORNIA March 15, 1957 Mr, Hffrvey 0. Banks Director of the Department of VJater Resources 1120 N. Street SacramentO;, California Dear Sir: The Richvale Irrigation District submits the following comments with respect to the plan of development proposed by Bulletin 59 fo^^ the Upper Feather River Basin. The interest of the Richvale Irrigation District arises, of course, out of the fact that it is a present user of the flovj of the Feather River and has existing water rights developed at the expense of the District and for many years applied to beneficial use which must be protected, and in addition has proposed a development of the Middle Fork of the Feather River that vjill provide additional water needed by the District and others and also provide for maximum development of the power resources of the Middle Fork. The plan of development proposed by Richvale Irrigation District is referred to starting at page 33 of Bulletin 59:. and as you knov; the Federal Power Commission recently granted a preliminary permit for the development of the project and in doing so denied conflicting applications for the devel- opment of this fork of the river. The Federal Power Com- mission by its permit found that the plan of the Richvale Irrigation District provides comprehensive development of the Middle Fork of the Feather River. The proposed development as outlined in Bulletin 59 is in large measure not in conflict with the plan proposed by the Richvale Irrigation District. However, in certain respects there is a definite conflict. It is in connection with the foregoing that the following comments and suggestions are made respecting Bulletin 59- 1. The Richvale Irrigation District, together with other users of water from the systems in Butte County knovm as the Western Canal System and Sutter Butte -37- Canal System have vested rights to use and do use sub- stantially all the natural flow of the Feather River during the irrigation season in most years. In fact the natural flow is inadequate to supply the needs of the district and in dry years this shortage starts early in the irrigation season. Manifestly, the District as trustee for its landowners is obligated to protect their interests and therefore wishes to point out that in the operation of the Upper River Devel- opment proposed by Bulletin 59 it is essential that the natural flow of the Feather River must be allowed to con- tinue as it would in nature during the irrigation season. We believe that Bulletin 59 does not take this requirement into consideration in evaluating the economics and the desirability of the proposed development. 2. Three of the proposed reservoirs are tributary to the North Fork of the Feather River and as to those reser- voirs the Richvale Irrigation District has no criticism to make provided they are operated in such a manner as to not conflict with the existing v/ater rights of the District. 3. Frenchman Reservoir is on a tributary of the Middle Fork of the Feather and would affect the proposed develop- ment of the Upper Reaches of the Middle Fork contemplated by the Richvale Irrigation District. The Richvale Irrigation District held vrater applications #16340 and 16341 to vrater of Little Last Chance Creek for storage in a reservoir at approximately the same point proposed in Bulletin 59 for Frenchman Reservoir. However, it v;as realized that the water from Little Last Chance Creek would normally flow through Sierra Valley and logically should be used for the development of that area and conse- quently did not press those applications. The Richvale Irrigation District has decided not to proceed v/ith its original plan of developing Little Last Chance Creek and has no additional comment to make on the proposed development of that creek as set forth in Bulletin 59. 4. The fifth reservoir proposed in Bulletin 59 is Grizzley Valley Reservoir on Big Grizzley Creek. The Richvale Irrigation District plan also proposes a reservoir at that point, and the District has prior water filings for that purpose. -38- Bulletin 59 proposes an alternative use of the water of Grizzley Creek. One use is to supplement the v;ater available from Little Last Chance Creek to irrigate Sierra Valley, and the other use is for stream flow maintenance below the reservoir. The two uses are conflicting in view of the fact that the water available is not adequate to provide for both. First as to the use of the water for irrigation in Sierra Valley. The report indicates that the cost of water at the main canal would be $4.00 per acre foot, manifestly the cost of water delivered to the land would be much greater. We believe that the price mentioned is prohibitive and consequently, the proposal made in Bulletin 59 would not provide the irrigation desired. Furthermore, the use of water for that purpose would conflict with the vested rights of the Rlchvale Irrigation District, as pointed out in paragraph 1, and also with its proposed plan of development under prior applications. The net result is that the proposed Bulletin 59 development would not provide the benefits contemplated and would prohibit other economic devel- opment that could be made to the benefit of both Sierra Valley and Rlchvale Irrigation District. The proposed development of the Rlchvale Irrigation District is economically sound and can be financed from power revenues. Thus, the Grizzley Valley Reservoir would and could be built without any expense to the State of California , During the period of retirement of bonds water from Grizzley Valley Reservoir would of necessity be allocated to producing power revenues for repayment of bonds and during this period under our plans, the water needs of Sierra Valley would be satisfied from Frenchman Reservoir. However, after the retirement of the bonds used to construct the Rlchvale Project, and such period could not be longer than fifty years, and would probably be less, the Rlchvale Irrigation District would be willing to agree that whatever water is produced by the Grizzley Valley Reservoir could be available at the Reservoir to the extent needed by Sierra Valley at a cost equal to maintenance and -39- J operations charges of the Reservoir. This would provide water at a price the lands could afford to pay. 5. The other use proposed by Bulletin 59 of water from Grizzley Valley Reservoir is for stream flov; maintenance. The Richvale Irrigation District plan of development would provide comparable benefits and the Richvale Irrigation District would be willing to agree to a reasonable plan of operation that would provide stream flow maintenance. The advantage of the Richvale plan is that this benefit would be provided without cost to the State and with great benefit in the form of power production and availability of water for irrigation. 6. The Bulletin 59 proposal is largely justified by setting up a new principle that recreational bene- fits are a State obligation and non-reimbursable. The report points out that this is a question of policy that must be determined by the legislature. We wish to point out that the Richvale Proposal provides much greater recreational benefits in that reservoirs would also be constmacted at Clio and Nelson point. If funds for recreational benefits are to be allocated to the Bulletin 59 proposal they should also be allocated by the State as non-reimbursable donations to the Richvale Project, Very truly yours ^ RICHVAIE IRRIGATION DISTRICT B y /s/ Alvin L. Harry Secretary -40- COPY STA TEMENT 07 SIERRA COTOTY FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND THE STATE V/ATER BOARD f. -4- the joint hearing held in Quincy on February Ik, 1957j by the Department of V.'ater Resources and the State Water Boards, a brief oral statement v/as made on behalf of Sierra County by Winslow Chris- tian, the District Attorney of Sierra County. Follov/ing that state- ment, leave ivas given for the County to file a statement in writing setting forth in further detail its views upon Bulletin No. 59- The statement of policy set forth belovi represents the views of the Water Resources Board and the Board of Supervisors of Sierra County. Bulletin No. 59 recommends the construction hy the State of California of five v^ater conservation projects in the upper water- shed of the Feather River. None of these five projects would^ according to the proposals outlined in the bulletin, afford any direct benefit to Sierra County. However^ the basic assumptions underlying the bulletin and certain of the recommendations contained therein relate to basic policy v/hich will affect Sierra County when consideration is given at a future time to similar small projects more directly affecting this County which have been given preliminary consideration in the Division of Water Resources' Northeastern Counties Investigation: Report on Upper Feather River Service Area . ComiTient on the Conc e pt of Basin Development Bulletin No. 59 is basically a proposal that the State of California is properly concerned with integrated development of the V/ater Resources of the Feather River Basin, including both the export project at the Oroville Dam and smaller works in the upper basin. Sierra County concurs in that assumption of policy for the following reasons : 1. The proposed upstream projects would go a long ivays toward meeting the State's increased need for public recreational facilities. The meeting of these needs is a proper function of the State of California . 2. The needs of the upstream areas are similar to those of the areas in Central and Southern California which will directly benefit from the export project at the Oroville Dam. If it be assumed, there- fore, that "the Oroville Dam is a proper State project, it follov;s that less expensive projects in the upper watershed are also a proper State function v;here they can be justified by a comparison of cost and public benefit. Comment on Proposed Cost Allocation The County of Sierra agrees that basic policy regarding cost allocation needs to be established by the Legislature and believes that the assumptions of Bulletin No. 59 in this regard are sound. -41- The County in particular agrees that the State of California should assume the costs of provldng for lands, easements, and rights of way, and of relocating public utilities; that the costs apportioned, to recreation and flood control should not be reimbursable by v/ater users; and that the costs apportioned to irrigation should be reim- bursed by the water users with a reasonable rate of interest. Comment on Proposed Grizzly Valley Pro,1ect As was Indicated above, Bulletin No. 59 does not propose any direct benefit to Sierra County from any of the five projects out- lined. However., we note that the feasibility of the Grizzly Valley Project as an irrigation works depends on the willingness of land owners in the Northern portion of Sierra Valley to pay an appropriate price for irrigation water. The bulletin sets forth an alternative proposal to the effect that if there Is no effective demand for Irrigation water from this project, the irrigation features be deleted and the project be built for its recreation and stream flow benefits alone . In the event that landowners in Plumas County should in fact be unwilling to purchase water from this project. Sierra County requests that study be made of the cost of delivering such water from the Grizzly Valley Project to the portion of Sierra Valley which lies X'Jithin Sierra County. The purpose of this request is to allow potential vaster users in Sierra County to determine whether the cost of Grizzly Valley water would be within their ability to pay. Conclusion In conclusion. Sierra County, acting through its Water Resources Board and Board of Supervisors, desires to express its approbatior. of the work which has been done in preparation of Bulletin No. 59 and to request that similar work be completed as soon as possible as to other projects mentioned in the Report on Upper Feather River Service Area vjhich vrauld directly benefit Sierra County. DATED: March l4 , 1957- BY DIRECTION OF THE SIERRA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS /s/ Louis Genascl LOUIS GENASCI, Chairman, Water Resources Board, Sierra County -42- I THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW MaV2X f RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL Jim 1 7 -Brj ^^Hy ''UVll^ ^AN ^APR I '^^ 2 197B '^^ '^ 1 1973 ^^f^i^BD 'J Sciences '^ms vs ei(ci «23s4) 458 Call Number: California. Pept. of water resources. PHYSICAL SCIENCES LIB.'JARY LIBRARY UNrVERSITY OK CALIFORNfA DAVIS 24.0484 3 1175 00671 2007