LIBRARY IWIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS . .V »*%- 'Z2 4- 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING ^^Jf*- BULLETIN NO. 59-2 INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT EDMUND G. BROWN Governor HARVEY O. BANKS Director of Water Rcsovirces ^n; - URsirr of CALU-'on DAVIS OCTOBER 1960 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING BULLETIN NO. 59-2 INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT EDMUND G. BROWN SBC^Ql HARVEY O. BANKS Governor r\ ■t^Silpfr/ Director of Water Resources OCTOBER 1960 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS ...fa'i ■^ .S^«J -■»■ ■i'Ci'r^^^j^ -i» '^^^ -A 1-^ •. k-Ek' North Fork of the Feather River Near Belden TABLE OF CONTQITS Page LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL xLi ORGANIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES xiii ORGANIZATION, CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION xv ACKNOWLEDGMENT xvi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Authorization for Investigation • 3 Objective and Scope of the Investigation 3 Related Investigations and Reports 5 State-Wide Water Resources Investigation 5 Northeastern Counties Investigation 6 Area Under Investigation «.« 6 Drainage Basins 7 Natural Features 8 Climate «.... 9 Soils 10 Geology 12 Past and Present Development , 15 CHAPTHl II. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1^ Engineering Considerations 19 Water Supply 20 Natural Runoff at Dam Sites in the Middle Fork of the Feather River Basin 22 Impaired Runoff at Dam Sites in the Middle Fork of the Feather River Basin Downstream From Sierra Valley 2k Natural Runoff at Dam Sites in the North Foric of the Feather River Basin 25 1 Page Water Quality 26 Reservoir Operation Criteria 31 Operation for Irrigation 33 Operation for Hydroelectric Energy Production 35 Operation for Flood Control 36 Operation for Recreation, and Fish and Wildlife 36 Geologic Investigations 37 Designs and Cost Estimates of Structures 38 Appraisal of Lands 39 Surveys and Maps UO Economic Considerations UO Project Benefits 1;1 Irrigation Benefits Ul Hydroelectric Power Benefits k3 Flood Benefits U5 Recreation Benefits lj.6 Project Formulation and EJvaluation US Project Formulation I4.8 Economic Justification U8 Financial Feasibility h9 CHAPTER in. LEGAL ASPECTS $1 State Applications 53 County of Origin Law and Watershed Protection Act 56 State Applications for the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects . 59 Other Downstream Water Rights 65 Upper Basin Water Rights 66 ii Page Richvale Irrigation District 66 R. P. Wilson 75 Approved Applications 76 Adjudications 77 Federal Power Commission Preliminary Permits 77 CHAPTER IV. WATER SUPPLY 81 Precipitation 81 Precipitation Stations and Records 82 Precipitation Characteristics 91 Surface Water 93 Stream Gaging Stations and Records .... 93 Runoff Characteristics 99 Quantity of Runoff 101 Ground Water 103 Groxind Water Geology 103 Sierra Valley lOJi American Valley 106 Indian Valley 107 Mohawk Valley 108 Mountain Meadows Valley 109 Meadow Valley 109 Lake Almanor Valley 110 Grizzly Valley Ill Clover Valley 112 Little Last Chance Valley 112 Squaw Valley 112 iii 5£ Genesee Valley 113 Water Quality 113 CHAPTER V. WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS 117 Present Water Service Areas 118 Presently Irrigated Lands 3J.9 Urban and Suburban Lands 120 Principal Reservoirs 120 Probable Ultimate Pattern of Land Use 121 Irrigable Lands 122 Urban and Suburban Lands 131 Forest Lands and Uses 131 Recreational Lsmds and Uses 133 Reservoir Areas 135 Present and Ultimate Population 135 Water Requirements 137 Unit Values of Water Use lUO Consumptive Use of Applied Water Il|l | Present Use of Applied Water ihh Probable Ultimate Consumptive Use of Applied Water lU6 Probable Ultimate Water Requirements Ili8 CHAPTER VI. PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT l5l Plans for Water Development of the Middle Fork Basin 152 Sierra Valley Service Area 153 Authorized Projects 156 Frenchman Project 156 iv Page Grizzly Valley Project 158 Sheep Camp Project l59 Alternative Plans for Development of the Middle Fork of the Feather River Below Sierra Valley 169 Richvale Plan 170 Modified Richvale Plan 17U Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Plan 188 Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan 197 Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan 207 Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan 21$ Plans for Development of the North Fork of the Feather River 22li Indian Creek Recreation Project 221; Antelope Valley Reservoir 225 Dixie Refuge Reservoir 225 Abbey Bridge Reservoir 225 Squaw Queen Project 225 Genesee Recreation Project 232 Humbug Valley Dam and Reseirvoir 236 South Fork Project for Development of ;the South Fork of the Feather River 239 CHAPTER VII. SUI'MARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2li3 Summary 2lt3 Water Rights 2li7 South Fork of the Feather River 2li7 North Fork of the Feather River 2li8 Middle Fork of the Feather River 2l;8 Water Supply 2h9 Water Utilization and Requirements 2$! Plans for Water Developments 253 Plans for Development of the Upper Basin 25U Frenchman Project on Little Last Chance Creek 25U Grizzly Valley Project on Big Grizzly Creek 2$5 Indian Creek Recreation Project 2$6 Sheep Camp Project on Carman Creek 256 Squaw Queen Project on Last Chance Creek 257 Genesee Recreation Project 258 Plans for Hydroelectric Power Development 259 Alternative Middle Fork Projects 259 Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir on Yellow Creek, North Fork of the Feather River 260 South Fork of the Feather River Plan of Oroville-Wyandotte and Yuba County Districts 262 Conclusions 262 Recommendations 265 TABLES Table No. Page 1 Climatological Data from Selected Stations in or Adjacent to the Upper Feather River Basin 10 2 United States Public Health Service, Drinking Water Standards, 19U6 27 3 Degree of Hardness and Relative Classifications of Water Intended for Domestic or Industrial Use 28 h Classification of Irrigation Waters 29 5 State Applications for the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects 60 6 Major Applications to Appropriate Water on Feather River Stream System Above Oroville Dam Site 67 vi 4 Table No, Page 7 Precipitation Data and Stations in or Adjacent to the Upper Feather River Basin Qh 8 Snow Survey Data and Courses in or Adjacent to the Upper Feather River Basin 88 9 Monthly Distribution of Average Seasonal Precipitation at Bucks Lake and Quincy, 1930-31 through 1955-56 92 10 Recorded Seasonal Precipitation at Selected Stations in the Upper Feather River Basin 9h 11 Stream Gaging Stations in or Adjacent to the Upper Feather River Basin 95 12 Estimated Average Monthly Distribution of Natural Runoff at Selected Stations in the Upper Feather River Basin, 1911-12 through 1955-56 100 13 Estimated Seasonal Natural Rvinoff at Selected Stations in the Upper Feather River Basin 102 lU Present Water Service Areas (195U-1956) Within the Upper Feather River Basin 121 15 Land Classification Standards for Irrigable Lands 121; 16 Classification of Irrigable Lands in the Upper Feather River Basin 128 17 Probable Ultimate Pattern of Irrigated Land Use in the Upper Feather River Basin 132 18 Commercial Forest Area and Sustained Timber Yield Within the Upper Feather River Basin 13i; 19 Probable Ultimate Pattern of Urban, Suburban, Recreational Land Use and Reservoir Areas in the Upper Feather River Basin 136 20 Estimated Present (1956) Population by Hydrographic Units Within the Upper Feather River Basin 138 21 Estimated Ultimate Population by Hydrographic Units Within the Upper Feather River Basin 139 22 Estimated Mean Seasonal Unit Values of Consumptive Use of Applied Water on Irrigated Lands in the Upper Feather River Basin li^l 23 Estimated Unit Values of Consumptive Use and Water Requirement for Domestic Purposes in Urban, Suburban and Rural Areas lU2 vii Table No . Page 2k Estimated Unit Values of Consumptive Use and Water Requirement for the Forest Products Industry Within the Upper Feather River Basin Iii2 25 Estimated Unit Values of Consumptive Use of Water for Recreational Activities Within the Upper Feather River Basin 11^3 26 Estimated Present Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water in the Upper Feather River Basin Ili6 27 Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Water Within the Upper Feather River Basin IU8 28 Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Water Requirements Within the Upper Feather River Basin Iii9 29 Areas and Capacities of Sheep Camp Reservoir I6I 30 General Features of Sheep Camp Project I66 31 Summary of Estimated Costs of Sheep Camp Project 16? 32 Estimated Average Annual Net Benefits from Sheep Camp Project 168 33 General Features of the Modified Richvale Plan 185 3U Summary of Estimated Costs of Modified Richvale Plan I86 35 Estimated Average Annual Net Benefits for the Modified Richvale Plan 187 36 General Features of the Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Plan .... 19ii 37 Summary of Estimated Costs of Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Plan 195 38 Estimated Average Annual Net Benefits from Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Project 197 39 General Features of Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan 20li UO S\immary of Estimated Costs of Nelson Point-Meadow Valley- North Fork Plan 205 Ul Estimated Average Annual Net Benefits from the Nelson Point- Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan 206 I4.2 General Features of Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan 211 U3 Summary of Estimated Costs of Nelson Point-Meadow Valley- Bald Rock Plan 213 viii Table No . Page kh Estimated Average Annual Net Benefits for the Nelson Point-Meadow Valley- Bald Rock Plan . . . . • 211i h$ General Features of Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan . . . 220 14.6 S\inunary of Estimated Costs of Turntable-Meadow Valley- Swayne Plan 222 U? Estimated Average Annual Net Benefits for the Turntable- Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan 223 U8 Areas and Capacities of Squaw Queen Reservoir 227 h9 General Features of Squaw Queen Project 229 50 Summary of Estimated Costs of Squaw Queen Project 231 51 Estimated Average Annual Net Benefits from Squaw Queen Project 232 52 Areas and Capacities of Genesee Reservoir 233 53 General Features of Genesee Recreation Project 235 5U Summary of Estimated Costs of Genesee Recreation Project . . . 237 55 General Features of Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir 2U0 56 Summary of Estimated Costs of Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir 2Ul 57 Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water Within the Upper Feather River Basin 252 58 Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Water Requirements Within the Upper Feather River Basin 253 59 Summary of Estimated Accomplishments and Costs of Alternative Plans for Developing the Middle Fork of the Feather River 261 PLATES (Plates are bound at end of bulletin) Plate No . 1 Location of Upper Feather River Basin 2 Regional Geology of the Upper Feather River Basin ix Plate No . 3 Lines of Equal Mean Seasonal Precipitation, 1905-06 through 195U-55 U Estimated Natural Seasonal Runoff at Selected Stations in the Upper Feather River Basin 5 Present and Probable Ultimate Land Use 6 Projects for Supplying VJater to Upper Feather River Basin 7 Sheep Camp Dam on Carman Creek 8 Alternative Middle Fork Plans-Richvale Plan and Nelson Point- Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan 9 Alternative Middle Fork Planns — Modified Richvale Plan and Turntable-I-ieadow Valley-Swayne Plan 10 Alternative Middle Fork Plans — Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Plan and Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan 11 Alternative Middle Fork Plans — Tunneling Conditions 12 Clio Dam on Middle Fork Feather River 13 Swayne Dame on French Creek JU Spoon Diversion Dam on Little North Fork and Red Ridge Diversion Dam on Bear Creek 15 Turntable Dam on Middle Fork Feather River 16 Meadow Valley Dam on Spanish Creek 17 Squaw Queen Dam on Last Chance Creek 18 Genesee Dam on Indian Creek 19 Existing North Fork and Proposed Yellow Creek and South Fork Developments PHOTOGRAPHS Following page North Fork Feather River near Beldon Frontispiece Drilling Borrow Site i Livestock on Native Pasttire in Sierra Valley Ig Follow ing Page Haying near Quincy 120 Water Skiing on Bucks Lake 13^ Frenchman Dam Under Construction 156 Downstream from the Meeuiow Valley Dam Site 200 Genesee Valley 23^ FIGURES Figure No, Following Page 1 Historical ajid Estimated Future Population and per Capita and Total Energy Generation Northern and Central California Ml- APPENDIXES Appendix Page A Recreational Benefits from Upper Feather River Basin Development A-1 B Summary of Project Yield Studies B-1 C Summary of Estimates of Costs C-1 D Preliminary Evaluation of the Effect of Upper Feather River Basin Development on Fish and Wildlife D-1 xi EDMUND G. BROWN HARVEY O. BANKS Oovirnor ADDRESS REPLY to DmlCTOR ''■ ° ^OX ^" SACRAMEIJJ 1I20 N STREET HICKORYt7h STATE OF CALIFORNIA irpartm^ttt at Wixtn IS^tstonraB SACRAMENTO October 28, 196O Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Governor, and Members of the Legislatiire of the State of California Gentlemen: There is transauitted herewith Bulletin No. 59-2 of the Department of Water Resources, entitled "Investigation of the Upper Feather River Basin Development", This bulletin is a report of the investigation conducted as authorized by the Legislature in Item 223.1 of the Budget Act of 1956. Bulletin No. 59-2 presents a basin-wide master plan for multipurpose water development for all beneficial uses. This plan would serve to guide and coordinate the planning, construction, and operation of works required for the develop- ment and utilization of the water resources of the Upper Feather River Basin. Very truly yours. HARVEY/0. Director Enc, xii ORGANIZATION DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Harvey 0. Banks Director of Water Resources Ralph M. Brody Deputy Director of Water Resources James F. Wright Deputy Director of Water Resources Williajn L. Berry Chief Engineer, Division of Resources Planning John M. Haley Chief, Project Development Branch The Upper Feather River Basin Investigation was conducted under the supervision of William L. Horn Chief, Local Projects Section by M. Guy Fairchild Supervising Hydraulic Engineer Assisted by Robert E. Foley Supervising Hydraulic Engineer B. H. Hoffmaster Senior Hydraulic Engineer Richard E. Slyfield Senior Hydraulic Engineer Jean Jaquith Associate Hydraulic Engineer Stanley A. Feingold Assistant Hydraulic Engineer Special assisteince to phases of the investigation was furnished by Geology Robert T. Bean Supervising Engineering Geologist David M. Hill Senior Engineering Geologist Agricultural Economics Norman D. Sturm Supervising Economist Roderick Hill Senior Economist Land Classification John W. Shannon Supervising Land and Water Use Analyst Hydrology Lawrence A. Mullnix Senior Hydraulic Engineer xiii Meteorology Charles G. Wolfe Senior Hydraiilic Engineer Drafting John L. James Supervisor of Drafting Services - -0 Porter A. Towner Chief Counsel Paxil L. Barnes Chief, Division of Administration Isabel C Nessler Coordinator of Reports XIV ORGANIZATION CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION JAMES K. CARR, Chairman, Sacramento WILLIAM H. JENNINGS, Vice Chairman, La Mesa JOHN W. BRYANT, Riverside JOHN P. BUNKER, Gustine IRA J. CHRISMAN, Visalia GEORGE C. FLEHARTY, Redding JOHN J. KING, Petaliuna KENNETH Q. VOIK, Los Angeles MARION R. WALKER, Ventura -0- GEORGE B. GLEASON Chief Engineer WILLIAM M. CARAH Executive Secretary XV I ACKNOWLEDOffiNT Valuable assistance and data used in this investigation were contributed by agencies of the State and Federal Governments, Plumas Coixnty, public districts, and private companies and indi- viduals. This cooperation is gratefully acknowledged. Special mention also is made of the helpful cooperation of the following: California Department of Fish and Game CaJ-ifornia Division of Beaches ajid Parks Plumas County Water Resources Board Plumas County Board of Supervisors Plumas County Chamber of Commerce Last Chance Creek Water District Agriculture Commissioner and the Farm Advisor of Plumas ajid Sierra Coimties XVI CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION The rapid expansion of popvilation in California since World War II has resulted in increased interest in present and future water requirements axid in the need for water supply development. This is particularly evident in the southern and central portions of the State where the expansion of agricul- ture and industry is depleting local water supplies and has created an interest in the possibilities of obtaining supplemental water from northern regions of surplus. Realizing that the water reso\irces of the State must be developed to meet increasing water needs, the Legislature has provided funds for the planning of a coordinated statewide development of the water resources of the State. Also, as a part of authorizing legislation for the Central Valley Project, the Legislature established the policy that water in sufficient quan- tity to meet the fut\rre needs of a watershed or area wherein water originates must be reserved for use in such areas. The spirit and intent of this policy has governed all state planning for water resource development since 1933 • This policy applies specifically to the Feather Rtver and Delta Diversion Projects under construction by the State as the authorizing legislation made all provisions of the Water Code relating to the Central Valley Project appli- cable to the state project. However, with the initiation of planning for the conservation of the surplus waters of the north for conveyance southward to areas of need, the people of the northern part of the State have shown mounting concern over the disposition of IocelI water supplies. Local water demands in areas of origin are rising, and there is concern that continued appropriation of water for use in outside areas may jeopardize futvire water supplies to meet local require- ments. There has been an insistence, therefore, that the development of proj- ects to supply the needs of the areas of origin be advanced at the same time as projects are developed to export water to outside areas. To evaluate the water requirements of the northern part of the State, the Legislature, in 195^^ appropriated funds for the Northeastern Counties Investigation. An interim report on this investigation, entitled "Report on the Upper Feather River Service Area", was issued in April 1955, by the (then) Division of Water Resources. This report presented data on present and probable \iltimate water requirements eind set forth a preliminary plaji for the development of the water resources of the Upper Feather River Basin. Following the publication of the report and subsequent public hearings, the Legislature directed that the Department of Water Resources complete its investigation of the feasibility of constructing water conservation projects in the Upper Feather River Basin. In February 1957, the Department of Water Resources published Bulletin No. 59 j entitled "Investigation of Upper Feather River Basin Development, Interim Report on Engineering, Economic, and Finein- cial Feasibility of Initial Units". Bulletin No. 59 contains results of studies showing that the Frenchman Project, the Grizzly Valley Project, and the Indian Creek Recreation Project are engineerly feasible and economically justified. Following the publication of Biilletin No. 59 and authorization of these projects by the Legislature, stvidies of the development of the water resources of the Upper Feather River Basin were continued to completion. The results of these studies, together with the results contained in the 1955 report and Bulletin No. 59, axe reported herein. Authorization for Investigation In the Budget Act of 1956, Item 223-1, the Legislature provided: "For completion of engineering and geologic investigations, studies, and report with recommendations for a construction program for multipurpose water development and flood control projects in the Upper Feather River Service Area." Additional funds for the investigations were provided \inder Item 263 of the Budget Act of 1957- Objective and Scope of the Investigation The objective of this investigation was to develop a basin-wide master plan for multipvorpose water development for all beneficial uses in the Upper Feather River Basin. Beneficial uses of water given consideration included irrigation, domestic, recreation, fish and wildlife, and the production of hydroelectric energy. Each of the projects considered for development was analyzed separ- ately to determine its engineering feasibility and economic justification. The economically justified projects found feasible for construction in the immediate fut\ire were subjected to a more detailed analysis thsm those proj- ects planned for ultimate development. Six alternative plans were considered for developing the hydro- electric power emd water conservation potentisLL of the Middle Fork Feather River. These alternative plans were developed to a degree sufficient to compare their respective project accomplishments. Data presented in the interim report on the Northeastern Counties Investigation were reviewed and utilized in evaluating the plan for the Upper Feather River Basin development. Additional hydrologic studies were made to refine previous estimates of the amount of firm seasonal water yield and hydro- electric energy that could be realized from the Upper Feather River Basin development . Geologic exploration programs were conducted to determine dam site foundation conditions and the suitability of material for use in construction of dams. The exploration programs inclvided fovindation drilling of 15 dam sites. However, exploration of the dam sites proposed by the Richvale Irri- gation District in the canyon of the Middle Fork of the Feather River were limited to geologic reconnaissance studies. In addition to the drilling operations, the geologic investigation included location of borrow areas for material and sampling of these materials for construction purposes. For each project considered, engineering designs and estimates of cost were prepared for severeil capacities of reservoir storage. Economic studies were made to determine irrigation, power, and flood control benefits that would be attributable to projects regulating the waters of the Upper Feather River Basin. Pacific Planning and Research, a consulting economic and recreational planning firm, was retained by contractual agreement to determine the recreationeuL benefits that woiold result from the projects A report on the results of these studies is included as Appendix A to this bulletin and is entitled "Recreation Benefits from the Upper Feather River Basin Development" . Diiring 1958* "the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District and the Yuba County Water Agency, in cooperation with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, entered into an agreement on a plan for the development of the waters of the South Fork of the Feather River. Since the Federal Power Commission has issued a license and the State Water Rights Board has issued water rights permit for this development, no plans were evolved by the department for developing the South Fork of the Feather River. A brief description of the Oroville-Wyandotte-Yuba Coxmty Water Agency plan is presented in Chapter VI. Results of the Upper Feather River Basin Investigation are presented in the six ensuing chapters. In Chapter II, there are presented -k- r- r- • >• Drilling Borrow Site , y' .. ■ the criteria, methods of cmsuLysis, and basic procedures used in planning Eind evaluating the possibilities for water resoiorce development. Legal consider- ations pertaining to water development are presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV contains discussions of precipitation, surface water, ground water, and water quality. In Chapter V estimates of present and future land use patterns, and water requirements are presented. A basin-wide plan of water development, including alternative development possibilities, is presented in Chapter VI. A s\jmmary of the findings of the investigation, conclusions, and recommendations based thereon are presented in Chapter VII. Related Investigations and Reports Several prior investigations and reports of the Department of Water Resources, and its predecessor agency, the Division of Water Resources, Were reviewed in connection with this investigation. A brief summary of these investigations is presented in the following discussion. State-Wide Water Resources Investigation The Ceilifomia Legislature, in recognition of the growing state- wide water problem, directed the State Water Resoiirces Board, by Chapter 15^1, Statutes of 19^+7^ "to conduct an investigation of the water resources of California. This study was designated the "State-Wide Water Resources Inves- tigation". Funds were provided in the 19^*^7-^ budget for commencement of the investigation and additional funds were provided in the budget acts of sub- sequent years for the completion of the investigation. The State-Wide Water Resources Investigation was conducted under direction of the State Water Resources Board by the Division of Water Resources of the Department of Public Works. Three bulletins were published containing the resiilts of this investigation. Bulletin No. 1, "Water Resources of California", published in 1951^ contains a compilation of data on -5- precipitation, unimpaired stream nmoff, flood flows and frequencies, and qusLlity of water throughout the State. Bulletin No. 2, "Water Utilization smd Requirements of California", published in June 1955, includes estimates of the present use of water throughout the State for all consumptive purposes and presents forecasts of probable ultimate water requirements based, in genersil, on the capabilities of the land to support further development. The third, and concluding, phase of the State-Wide Water Resources Investigation was reported in Depaxtment of Water Resources Bulletin No. 3, "The California Water Plan" . This bxilletin, published in May 1957> presents a comprehensive master plan for the full practicable development of the water resources of the State to meet future needs for all beneficial purposes to the maximimi feasible extent. The Legislatiore in 1959 adopted the California Water Plan as a general guide for the orderly and coordinated development and utilization of the water resources of the State. Northeastern Counties Investigation The Northeastern Coimties Investigation, a detailed stiody of land and water uses euid requirements in the 15 northeastern counties of the State, was initiated in 195^- In April 1955^ an interim report on the Upper Feather River Basin portion of this investigation was published. This interim report is entitled, "Report on the Upper Feather River Service Area", A prelimi- nary report covering the entire investigational area. Bulletin No. 58, "Northeastern Counties Investigation", was published in December 1957- Data presented in these publications were utilized in the Upper Feather River Basin Investigation. Area Under Investigation The Upper Feather River Basin includes lands within the watershed boundary of the Feather River above the authorized Oroville Dam located -6. on the Feather River neax Oroville. It has an area of approximately 2,261,000 acres of which about 1,6^3^000 acres are in Plumas County. The remaining area is divided among three counties as follows: Butte County, 332,000 acres; Sierra County, 167,000 acres; and Lassen County, 119,000 acres. County boundaries and those of the basin are delineated on Plate 1, "Location of Upper Feather River Basin" . During the covirse of studies for the Northeastern Counties Inves- tigation, the Upper Feather River Basin was divided into five principal hydro- graphic units. The boundaries of these units were defined after giving con- sideration to factors of water supply, water utilization, and topography. These same hydrographic units were used in the Upper Feather River Basin Investigation and are delineated on Plate 5^ "Present and Probable Ultimate Land Use". Drainage Basins The Feather River drains the western slope of the Sierra Nevada by three main tributaries that join just a few miles above the point where the river enters the Sacramento Valley. Of these major tributaries, the North Fork is the largest, draining 2,090 square miles, or 59 percent of the total area. The Middle and South Forks of the Feather River drain the remainder of the mountainous area from the crest of the Sierra Nevada westward to their confluence near Bidwell Bar. The portion of the Sierra Nevsida located in the Feather River Basin has a long gentle slope southwestward to the floor of the Sacramento Valley, and a short steep slope northeastward to Honey Lake Valley. The northern portion of the Sierra Nevada splits into three parallel crests, each with a valley or valleys to its northeast. American Valley at Quincy and Mohawk / Valley at Blairsden lie to the northeast of the Clermont Hills, Indian Valley to the northeast of Grizzly Mo\antains, and Honey Lake Basin to the northeast of Diamond Movintains. Elevations above sea level range from 6,000 to 8,500 feet silong the crests of the moiintains and from U,000 to 5,500 feet on the valley floors. The effect of this configtiration in the natiiral drainage is to create streams of moderate gradient in the upper portion of the basin, some of which flow in a northwesterly direction, while some flow in a south- easterly direction. The grade increases as the tributaries flow into the main water courses which have cut deep and rugged canyons in a southwesterly direction down the slope of the Sierra Nevada. Natiiral Features Extensive areas of merchantable timber land, extremely rough and rocky terrain cut by precipitous canyons, and isolated mountain valleys in which grain and meadow hay are grown, characterize the Upper Feather River Basin. At lower elevations, dense oak groves are the dominant vegetative cover, but at elevations from about 1,500 to 2,000 feet the oaks merge with the coniferous forests that extend throughout the remainder of the basin. Ponderosa pine, Doioglas fii; and white fir are the most abimdant species. Forests of pine, fir, and cedar are broken by bare granitic peaks, deep suid rugged canyons, and irrigable valleys. Auriferous gravels occur throughout portions of the basin. A prominent feature of the eastern portion of the Upper Feather River Basin is Sierra Valley. This flat valley, sin old lake bed with bh area of approximately 155 square miles lying at an elevation of about 5,000 feet, is enclosed by mountains except for its drainage outlet, the Middle Fork of the Feather River. The valley is used extensively for raising meadow hay and as summer livestock rsinge. -8- ^ft. Lassen and the surrounding volcanic terrain dominate the northern part of the l^per Feather River Basin. Runoff from this area is regulated by Lake Almanor, from which releases are made to operate the hydro- electric power development of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company on the North Fork of the Feather River. Climate The western slope of the northern Sierra Nevada is a region of large climatic differences. Marked differences in temperature and precipi- tation occur within short distances where air movement is substantially affected by the topography. The mean seasonal depth of precipitation in the Upper Feather River Basin increases with elevation from about 27 inches at Oroville to over 80 inches in the vicinity of the Butte-Plumas County line, and decreases to about 20 inches on the crest of the Diamond Moimtains and to less than 10 inches in peirt of Sierra Valley. Most of the precipitation at higher eleva- tions occurs as snowfall and is retained in a heavy pack lontil the spring and summer snowmelt runoff period. Temperatures in the mountain valleys are moderately severe, with minimums below freezing during the period from November throxigh March. The summers are generally warm during the day, but cool dioring the night. Frosts may occur in any month of the yesj:. A sxammary of pertinent climatological data for eight selected stations in or adjacent to the Upper Feather River Basin is presented in Table 1. •9- ^ TABLE 1 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FROM SELECTED STATIONS IN OR ADJACENT TO THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN Station Elevation, in feet Maximum and minimum temperatirres for period of record, in degrees Fehrenheit Mean seasonal depth of precipita- tion. Maximum : Minimum in inches We stwood 5,065 9S -21 25.25 Sierraville i^,975 99 -23 2I+.22 Portola ^,83h 100 -21 18. lU Canyon Dam i^,555 102 -li^ 36.77 Greenville 3,560 105 -11+ 35.75 Quincy 3,^09 105 -19 39.05 De Sabla 2,713 lOU 12 60.98 Oroville 160 115 18 27.07 Soils Soils in the Upper Feather River Basin vary markedly in composition, depth, and other physicsil and. chemical properties. These variations result from differences in paj-ent material, mode of formation, degree of development, and climatic factors. In general, the soils can be divided into the follow- ing five broad groups : 1. Residual soils which have been formed in place by disintegration and weathering of underlying consolidated sedimentary and igneous rocks. 2. Old valley-filling soils which have lindergone marked changes in profile characteristics since their deposition. 3. Recent alluvial soils which occupy the flood plains and upland meadow valleys, and have been derived from sediments transported from the -10- immediate surrounding area. There has been little change in the physical and chemical properties of these soils since their deposition. k. Lacustrine soils, some of which have imdergone pronoiinced changes in profile characteristics since their deposition. 5. Organic soils which have been derived mainly from decomposi- tion of organic materials under marshy conditions. The residueO. soils occxor on hilly and mountainous lands throughout the area. These soils have been formed in place through the action of weathering upon the tmderlying material and vary in profile characteristics, according to the effect of differences in climatic factors and parent mate- rials. Depths of soil vary from very shallow soils with considerable rock present on the surface and throxjghout the profile, to very deep soils with little or no rock evident. The limitations associated with the utilization of most residual soils result from a combination of complex topographic con- ditions, shEillow soil depths, and excessive amounts of siirface rock. However, under certain conditions, these soils are capable of sustaining climatically adapted crops. Soils derived from old valley deposits and remnants of former alluvial fans, silthough not extensive in the upper basin, are found along the western side adjacent to the Sacramento Valley floor. Soil-forming processes have brought changes in profile characteristics during the period following deposition of the unconsolidated matericils. Leaching processes have resulted in formations of dense clay pans and, in some cases, cemented hardpans. These terrace soils axe generally suitable only for shallow- rooted crops. Recent silluvial soils occupy the flood plains and smaller meadows along streams and occijpy the greater part of the larger mountain meadows such as American Valley and Indian Valley. These soils, in general, have undergone -11- little or no change in their profile characteristics since deposition. Where properly drained, the recent Eilluvial soils have wide crop adaptabilities and are highly valued as agricultural lands. Soils derived from lacustrine depositions occupy the greater part of Sierra Valley. As is common with the deposition of sediments into a fresh-water lake, cosirser materials are found at the margins of the valley and the finer materials are found in the central portions of the valley. Thus, a wide textural range has been developed with a predominance of fine- or medium- textured soils. This soil condition creates drainage problems which are responsible in large part for much of the salinity and alkalinity conditions that are found in Sierra Valley. Many of these drainage problems could be alleviated by artificial drainage. In general, all of these lands are suitable for medium- and shallow- rooted, climatically adapted crops. Within Indian Valley there are small areas of soils that have been derived largely from the deposition of organic materials. In general, these organic soils have proven highly productive where reclamation has been brought about through drainage. They are normally deep, medium- to- fine tex- tiu-ed, and suited to a wide variety of climatically- adapted crops. Geology The Upper Feather River Basin is bounded on the northwest and north by volcanic ridges and mountains, including Mount Lassen, which are a pajrt of the Cascade Range geomorphic province. On the northeast and east, the basin is bounded by prominent, east-facing fault sceirpB located near Honey Lake and auLong the east margin of the Sierra Nevada. The northern and eastern boundsLries of the basin roughly correspond to the northern and eastern boxmdeirieB of the Sierra Nevada geomorphic province. On the south, the boundary of the Upper Feather River Bsisln follows a series of ridges -12- which are part of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Riinoff from the , entire drainage area of the Feather River is funneled through a single narrow channel at the Oroville dam site. The general coiirse of the meiin forks of the Feather River and its chief tributaries is southwest. However, some marked exceptions to the southwest drainage pattern occur where the structural feat\ires of the region have influenced the coiirse of the tributary streams. The Sierra Nevada is a complex mountain range composed of metamorphic and igneous rocks. Faialting, tilting and uplift of the Sierra Nevada formed the extremely steep, eastern escarpment and res\ilted in the carving of deep canyons by youthfvil streams on the otherwise gentle western slope. In the Upper Feather River Basin the Sierra Nevada has been modified by additioneil faulting which has produced several prominent scarps and has influenced the formation of all major valleys in the basin. The older rocks in the area are metamorphic. These rocks range in age from Silurian (about 350 million years old) to Jiorassic (about 150 million years old). Argillite, slate, mica schist, graywacke, quartzite, and occasionally limestone were derived from sedimentaury rocks, and green- stone, amphibolite, talc schist, and chlorite schist were derived from volcanic rocks. The bedding and schistosity of the metamorphic rocks are very steeply inclined; The major structures and lineation trend northwest, parallel to the crest of the Sierra Nevada. Masses and dikes of vaurious granular igneous rocks, such as granite and gabbro, irregularly intrude the older rocks. Metamorphism of the older rocks is attributed to this intrusion. Serpentine, which is a moderately soft, predominantly green altera- tion product of ultra-basic intrusive Igneous rocks, is prominent in the area. / An almost continuous broad band of serpentine crosses the entire drainage area from southeast to northwest. The band crosses the Middle Fork of the -13- Feather River four miles below Nelson Point, passes through Meadow VsQ-ley, and crosses U. S. Highway ko (Alternate), the east Breinch of the North Fork in Serpentine Canyon, and the North Fork of the Feather River about three miles above Belden. The band is about three miles wide where it crosses the Middle and North Forks of the Feather River. Younger deposits in the Upper Feather River Basin include auri- ferous gravels, volcanic rocks, lake sediments, and alluvixim. Areas of gravels, some richly auriferoiis, are found on the^cresis^jaf^geyeral interfluvial ridges. The gravels were deposited from Eocene to Miocene time (between about 70 million and 20 million years ago). Such isolated gravel deposits provide evidence of the difference between the ancient prevolcanic stream drainage pattern and the drainage pattern of the Feather River today. Many of the auriferous gravel deposits were buried by volcanic rocks (lava flows, tuffs, beds of volcanic boiilders and ash), which at one time probably blanketed the entire eastern two-thirds or more of the area. In the eastern part of the area around Sierra Valley much of the thick vol- canic cover remains today. In addition, erosional remnants of the great mass of pyroclastic debris still remain on many of the high ridges in the central part of the basin. These lava flows aind beds of pyroclastic debris were laid down d\iring late Miocene and early Pliocene time (about 10 to 15 million yeaxs ago). y Structural dislocations and depressions in small peurts of the Sierran block resulted in the formation of several valleys in the Upper Feather River Basin. Since the formation of the valleys, sediments have accumulated almost continuously. Lake sediments and stream deposits are predominant in most valleys; volcanic ash is abundant in some valleys; and glacial debris and wind-blown materieJ. have been noted in other vstlleys. .14- The larger of these complex alluviated valleys are: Sierra Valley, Mohawk Valley, Big Meadows Valley (now inundated by Lake Almanor), Moimtain Meadows Valley (partially inundated by Mountain Meadows Reservoir), Indian Valley, American Valley, Meadow Valley, Grizzly Valley, and Genesee Valley. Smaller alluviated areas are found also in such well-defined valleys as Squaw Valley, Clover Valley^ and Little Last Chance Valley. ^The youngest sediments in the Upper Feather River Basin are the Recent stream channel deposits. These consist of boxolders, gravel, sand, and silt. Channel and terrace gravels have yielded gold at many localities. No appreciable movement along major faults has been recorded within the Upper Feather River Basin. However, faults in adjacent areas are con- sidered active. Therefore, for purposes of design, the area was considered to be moderately active seismically. Regional geology is presented on Plate 2, "Regional Geology of the Upper Feather River Basin". Past and Present Development While gold was the original lure that brought immigrants into the Upper Feather River Basin, it was the vast timber stands, mo\antain meadows, hydroelectric power potentiality, and the location of a transcontinental railroad that were responsible for the present pattern of development. Gold was discovered at Bidwell Bar at the confluence of the Middle and South Forks of Feather River shortly after Marshall's strike at Coloma in 18*46, and within a few years numerous gold camps were scattered along the streams of the basin. For many years this industry held an important place in the economy of the region. However, in recent years economic conditions have forced mining into the background. Placer sind hydraulic methods were utilized in the mining -15- operations. Water for these operations was diverted and conveyed in flumes and canals, many of which now convey water for irrigated agriciilture and hydroelectric power generation. Most of the development of hydroelectric power in the Upper Feather River Basin has occiirred dviring two distinct periods. The first development occurred during the early 1900's, and the second occurred diiring the years following World Wair II. Investigations and studies that led to formation of the Great Western Power Company began in I9OI when Julius M. Howells, a civil engineer, became interested in hydroelectric development possibilities on the North Fork of the Feather River. He had noticed the exceptional storage possibilities at Big Meadows, now Lake Almanor, and the rapid fall of the Feather River below that point. His investigations initi- ated a series of negotiations for property and financial backing that culmi- nated in the construction of Big Meadows Dam, the Big Bend and Caxibou hydro- electric power plants, treinsmission lines to the San Francisco Bay eirea, and a number of avtxiliary steam electric power plants. By 192**^, approximately 131,000 kilowatts of hydroelectric power capacity had been installed on the North Fork. The system on the North Fork of the Feather River is now owned and operated by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. It consists of power plants with a total installed power capacity of 635^800 kilowatts. In addi- tion to the Big Bend and Caribou power developments, the system consists of the Cresta, Rock Creek, Bucks Creek, Poe, and Hamilton Branch hydroelectric power plants, and four major reservoirs- -Lake Almanor, Mountain Meadows, Butt Valley, nnrt Bucks--which provide regulatory storage for operation of the hydroelectric power plants. Early settlers of the mountainous regions of the Upper Feather River Basin were attracted by favorable conditions for livestock raising. ■i6. I Grasses grow abundantly during the spring months, and streams are easily diverted onto the flat valley floors to irrigate hay and summer pastures. The livestock activity grew rapidly to become, and has remained, one of the predominant industries of the basin. Present agricultural development in the mountain valleys is still limited by the vagaries of nat\iral stream flow. The ease of diversion of stream flow, and the small financial investments required, permitted irrigation development by individuals or small groups of individuals. This method of direct diversion of stream flow has prevailed to the present time. As the numbers of farmers increased and as the use of water inten- sified, questions arose among the diverters concerning rights to the use of water. Finally, a petition requesting determination of the rights of various claimants to waters of the Middle Fork of the Feather River above Beckwourth was filed in 1936 with the then Division of Water Resources. A petition for determination of rights to the waters of Indian Creek was similarly filed in 19^^. Following each petition, the division conducted investigations leading to determinations of all rights, which were thereafter established by court decrees. Watermasters presently distribute the water of these streams and their tributaries to the water users in accordance with the decrees. Present irrigation development in foothill gireas of the Upper Feather River Basin has in most instances evolved from privately developed water systems constructed for mining purposes. With the decline of mining, the systems were gradually converted into irrigation projects, and by reorga- nization and purchase, the private holdings were combined and t\imed into convenient forms of public districts. The Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, holding water rights to flows of the South Fork of the Feather River and its tributsoy. Lost Creek, presently provides a water supply for ■17- about 4,500 acres of irrigable land located in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada in Butte County. Transportation facilities in the Upper Feather. River Basin include the major transcontinental line of the Western Pacific and spur lines of the Southern Pacific Railroads, United States Highway kO (Alternate), State Highway Routes 36, ^9 a^ 31 : r mmkwi *'^»- "m - 1- CH^IPTER II. PLANNING CONSIDEEIATIONS In this chapter there are discussed the criteria, methods of analysis, and basic procedures used in planning and evaluating the possibil- ities for water resource development in the Upper Feather River Basin. Engineering Considerations The engineering studies conducted during this investigation were for the p\irpose of: (l) development of a basin-wide master plan for conserv- ing the water resources of the basin for all beneficial uses; and (2) detemi- nation of the engineering feasibility of each major feature of the basin-wide plan of development. The need for a basin-wide integrated plan for developing the water resources of a river basin arises from the relationship between the availa- bility of water, the uses to which it can be placed, and the need for water in various parts of the basin. It is a recognized planning principle that to obtain optimum benefits from the development of the water resources of a river basin, individual projects must fit the broad outlines of a plan for darelop- ing the water resources of the entire basin. This principle was used in plan- ning water conservation projects in the Upper Feather River Basin. Primary consideration was given to projects that would satisfy local water needs for agricultural, domestic, recreational, and fish and wildlife purposes. Second- ary consideration was given to projects that would conserve the waters of the basin for hydroelectric energy production and that would satisfy water demands of areas located outside the basin. A water project may have engineering feasibility if: (l) the water supply is adequate in quantity and quality; (2) sites for the dam, reservoir. -19- conduits, and other facilities are geologically and topographically suitable; (3) the project can be constructed with available materials and techniques at a reasonable costj (U) the climate and soils in a proposed service area are suitable for irrigated agriculture when this is a project fiinctionj and (5) the project is the best of the known alternatives. In the following sections, the procedures used in determing the engineering feasibility of the possibilities for water conservation in the Upper Feather River Basin are described. Water Supply The following terms relating to water supply are defined for use in the ensuing discussion. Aiuiual —'flie 12-month period from January 1 of a given year through December 31 of the same year, sometimes termed the calendar year. Seasonal— Any 12-inonth period other than the calendar year. Precipitation Season — The 12-month period from July 1 of a given year through June 30 of the following year. Runoff Season — The 12-month period from October 1 of a given year through September 30 of the folloiifing year. Mean Period — A period chosen to represent conditions of water supply and climate existing during a long period of years. As it relates to run- off, it is the 53-year period from 189U-95 through 19U6-lj7. As it relates to precipitation, it is the 50-year period from 1905-06 through 195ii-55. Base Period— A perdod for which reliable records are available, during which the conditions of water supply and climate are representative of those occurring during the mean period. For purposes of this bulletin, the base period chosen for irrigation studies was the U5-year period from 1911-12 throigh 1955-56. Average runoff during this period was about -20- 91 percent for that of the mean period. The base period chosen for hydro elec tide power studies was the 32-year period from 1920-21 through 1951-52. Mean — The arithmetical average of qiiantities occurring during the mean period. Average — The arithmetical average of qxiantities occxirring dviring other than the mean period. Natural Runoff — The flow of a stream as it would be if unaltered by upstream diversion, storage, import, export, or change in upstream consumptive use caused by man-made development. Natttral runoff is reconstructed frcan measured runoff by allowing for the quantitative effect of altera- tions in stream flow above the point where the flow is measured. Seasonal water supplies available for regulation for irrigation use at the reservoir sites selected in the Upper Feather River Basin were determined for the l45-year base period from 1911-12 through 1955-56. The use of this period was considered desirable for reservoir operation studies because: (1) precipitation and stream flow data were considered sufficiently complete to enable extrapolation of the existing records back to the 1911-12 season by corre- lation with records of comparable nearby stations having records for the desired period; (2) strean flow during the base period averaged about 91 percent of the flow for the 53-year mean period from 189U-95 through 19U6-U7; (3) a critically dry period froa 1928-29 through 1933-3U, during which average runoff was only about 5U percent of the runoff for the mean period, existed during the base period; and (U) other conditions of water supply and climate approximated mean coxxiitions. With regard to the sufficiency of precipitation and runoff data the following limitations are noted. Precipitation stations in, or adjacent to, the basin are not evenly distributed throughout the area. Only five of the 38 -21- known stations are located above an elevation of 5,000 feet, but more than 50 percent of the area of the basin is located above this elevation. Also, only a few of the stream gaging stations in, or adjacent to, the Upper Feather River Basin have records for the entire U5-year base period. Records for most of the stations are of short dxiration or are intermittent. These limitations are typical of mountainous areas. However, correlation techniques enabled water supply estimates to be made with acc\rracy sufficient for purposes of this bulletin. In compiling records of stream flow, the following procedure was used: (l) the natural runoff of the streams was estimated by correcting the existing records of runoff for historical upstream consumptive use, imports, exports, and storage; (2) where records for the entire U^-year base period were not available, they were extended by correlation with nearby streams having records for the full period; (3) where no stream flow records were available at a dam site being considered, natural flows were estimated by a multiple correlation of topographic, meteorologic, and hydrologic parameters; (U) separate correlations were made for each month of the year in order to establish the best estimate possible for intra-seasonal variations, and to make maximum use of records covering short periods or irrigation seasons only; and (5) the impaired flows available for storage d\iring a 50-year repayment period of a project were computed by reducing the estimated natural runoff by both the present and estimated future upstream use which woxild occur during the project repayment period. Natural Runoff at Dam Sites in the Middle Fork of the Feather River Basin . Following is a brief description of the methods used in estimating the natural runoff at each of the dam sites and points of diversion considered in the Middle Fork of the Feather River, ■22- The natural ininoff at the Grizzly Valley dam site on Big Grizzly Creek was determined to be substantially the same as that recorded at the gaging station on Big Grizzly Creek near Portola. It was necessary, however, to adjust the records for this station to account for the present consumptive use of water on lands that would be inundated by the proposed Grizzly Valley Reservoir. To obtain records for the entire U5-year period, the records for the Big Grizzly Creek gaging station were extended by direct correlation with the gaging station on the Middle Fork of the Feather River near Clio. The water supply available for storage at Sheep Camp dam site on Carman Creek consists of the natural flow of Carman Creek, plus the diverted runoff from nine small stream basins located in the southwestern portion of Sierra Valley. There are no records for four of these small streams. The flows of the five remaining small streams are measured by the department's Watermaster Service during the irrigation season only. Runoff of these five streams was estimated by direct correlation with the recorded flows of Big Grizzly Creek and/or the flows of the Middle Fork of the Feather River near Clio. The runoff of the four ungaged streams was estimated from a correla- tion of topographic, meteorologic, and hydrologic parameters. The natural runoff at Clio dam site is substantially the same a^ the runoff recorded at the gaging station near Clio. The records for this station, were extended by direct correlation with the gaging stations on the Middle- Fork of the Feather River near Nelson Point and at Sloat, The natural rimoff at Turntable dam site is substantially the same as the runoff recorded at the gaging station near Nelson Point, However, since this station had been in operation only from 1923 to 1932, it was necessary to extend the records by direct correlation with the records from stations at Sloat and near Clio, -23- The natural runoff at Nelson Point, Minerva Bar, Dogwood, Hartman Bar, and Bald Rock dam sites was estimated by a correlation of topographic, meteorologic, and hydrologic parameters of each subbasin. Monthly distribu- tion of the seasonal runoff was made by correlating the ininoff near Nelson Point with the recorded runoff at the gaging station on the Middle Fork of the Feather River near Merrimac. The runoff record near Merrimac had been previously extended by direct correlation with the recorded roinoff at the gaging station on the Middle Fork of the Feather River at Bidwell Bar. The natural runoff at the Red Ridge diversion dam site on Bear Creek, the Spoon diversion dam site on Little North Fork, and the Swayne dam site on French Creek, were computed from a correlation of topographic, meteor- ologic and hydrologic parameters. Monthly flows were then obtained by correla- tion with the flow recorded at the gaging station near Nelson Point. Impaired Runoff at Dam Sites in the Iflddle Fork of the Feather River Basin Downstream From Sierra Valley . In developing estimates of the water supply of the Middle Fork of the Feather River that would be available for regulation by reservoirs located downstream from Sierra Valley, adjustments were made to the estimated natural runoff to reflect present and future water use in the area upstream from Sloat. The difference between the estimated present and probable \iltimate seasonal consumptive water requirements in the Middle Fork Basin of the Feather River is about 167,000 acre-feet which will be reflected as depletion of natural runoff. This depletion of the available water supply would res\ilt from the development of Frenchman, Grizzly Valley and Sheep Camp Projects, plus addi- tional ground water development likely to occur in Sierra, Mohawk, and Long Valley. During the project repayment period of 50 years, it is expected that Frenchman and Grizzly Projects would cause an initial depletion of about 36,000 .2k- acre-feet per year. Some 25 years later when Sheep Camp Reservoir is completed, an additional depletion of 30,000 acre-feet a year would be probable. In addi- tion, ground water development would cause ftirther depletion but at a rate not now predictable. At the most, ground water depletion is not expected to exceed 50,000 acre-feet per season by the end of the repayment period. The average seasonal depletion at midpoint in time is estimated at 66,000 acre-feet. Natural Runoff at Dam Sites in the North Fork of the Feather River Basin . Following is a brief description of the methods used in estimating the natural runoff at each of the dam sites considered in the North Fork Basin of the Feather River. The natural runoff at the Abbey Bridge, Dixie Refuge, Antelope Valley^ and Squaw Queen dam sites was estimated from a correlation of topographic, meteorologic and hydrologic parameters. Monthly distribution of the estimated seasonal runoff at the Abbey Bridge dam site was made by direct correlation with the gaging station on Red Clover Creek near Genesee. Records for the Red Clover Creek gaging station had been previously extended by direct correlation with the gaging station on Indian Creek near Crescent Mills. Percentage monthly distribution of the estimated seasonal runoff at the Dixie Refuge and Antelope Valley dam sites was assumed to be identical with the estimated percentage monthly flow at the Frenchman dam site on Little Last Chance Creek. Percentage monthly distribution of the estimated seasonal minoff at the Squaw Queen dam site was made by direct correlation with the recorded flow at the gaging station on Indian Creek near Taylorsville . The record for this station was extended by direct correlation with the gaging station on Indian Creek near Crescent Mills. The runoff at the Humbug dam site was considered to be directly pro- portional to the ratio of the drainage area above the dam site to the drainage area above the gaging station on Butt Creek above Almanor-Butt Creek Tunnel. -25- The runoff at the Meadow Valley dam site is recorded by the gaging station on Spanish Creek near Qioincy. The records for this station were extended ty direct correlation with the gaging station on Spanish Creek at Keddie. Water Qtiality The objective of the water quality studies was to evaluate present and to predict future water quality conditions in the Upper Feather River Basin. In making these studies, sources of impairment to the quality of surface and ground waters were considered. Also, mineral analyses of water samples were made to detemiine the suitability of the water for domestic, irrigation, fish and wildlife preservation, recreation, and hydroelectric power generation purposes. Water quality analysis is a means of determining the characteristics of water which affect its use for beneficial purposes. The three types of analy- sis commonly made sire: (1) mineral, involving a determination of the major inorganic constituents of the waterj (2) physical, including determination of temperatiire, color, odor, and turbidityj and (3) sanitary, including biochemical, bacterial, and biological examinations. Consideration is given herein only to mineral quality. Criteria presented in the following discussion can be utilized in evaluating mineral quality of water relative to existing or anticipated bene- ficial uses. It should be noted that these criteria are merely guides to the appraisal of water quality. Except for those constituents vrtiich are considered toxic to human beings, the criteria should be considered as suggested limiting values, A water which exceeds one or more of these limiting values need not be eliminated from consideration as a source of supply, but other sources of better quality water should be investigated. Water quality standards for drinking water have been proposed by the United States Public Health Service and have been adopted by the State of California, These standards are shown in Table 2, which indicates the limiting concentrations of mineral constituents for drinking water. -26- TABLE 2 UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE DRINK DIG WATER STANDARDS 19U6 Mineral constituent Concentration in parts per ndllion Mandatojry Limits Lead (Pb) Fluoride (F) Arsenic (As) Selenium (Se) Hexavalent chromium (Cr* ) Nonmandatory, but Recommended, Limits Copper (Cu) Iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) together Magnesivim (Mg) Zinc (Zn) Chloride (Cl) Sulfate (SO^) Phenolic compounds in terms of phenol Total solids, desirable Total solids, permitted. 0.1 1.5 0.0$ 0.05 0.05 3.0 0.3 125 15 250 250 0.001 500 1,000 Although hardness of water is not included in the drinking water standards, it is of importance in domestic and industrial uses. Excessive hardness in water used for domestic purposes causes increased constimption of soap and formation of scale in pipes and fixtures. Hardness classifica- tions of water as suggested by the United States Geological Survey are pre- sented in Table 3» -27- TABLE 3 DEGREE OF HARDNESS AND RELATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS OF WATER INTENDED FOR DOMESTIC OR INDUSTRIAL USE Range of hardness, in : Relative parts per million : classification 0-55 Soft 56 - 100 Slightly hard 101 - 200 Moderately hard over 200 Very hard Criteria for mineral quality of irrigation water have been developed at the University of California at Davis and at the Rubidoux Regional Salinity Laboratory of the United States Department of Agriculture. Becaxise of diverse climatological conditions and the variation in crops and soils in California, only general limits of quality for irrigation waters can be suggested. The principal criteria for qiiality classification of irrigation waters are: totsil dissolved mineral solids, chloride concentration, percent- age of sodium, and boron concentration. Limits used for classification of irrigation water are presented in Table h» Class 1 irrigation water is suitable under most conditions for most crops. Class 2 irrigation water is of doubtful suitability, under certain conditions, for crops of low salt tolerance, including deciduous fruit, some vegetables and most clover grasses. Class 3 water is ordinarily unsatisfactory for all except the more tolerant plants, such as beets and salt-tolerant forage grasses. -26- TABLE h CLASSIFICATION OF IRRIGATION WATERS Class 2, good to injurious Chemical properties Class 1, excellent to good Class 3, injurious to unsatisfactory Total dissolved solids: In parts per million In conductance in micromhos/cra at 25°C Chloride, in parts per million Sodium, in percent of base constituents Boron, in parts per million Less than 700 700 - 2,000 More than 2,000 Less than 1,000 1,000 - 3,000 More than 3,000 Less than 17$ 175 - 350 More than 350 Less than 60 60 - 75 More than 75 Less than 0,5 0.5 - 2.0 More than 2,0 These criteria have limitations in actuaG. practice. In many instances a water may be wholly unsuitable for irrigation, under certain conditions of use, and yet be completely satisfactory under other circumstances. In irriga- tion use, soil permeability, drainage, temperatvire, humidity, rainfall and other conditions should be considered in addition to the qiiality classifica- tion of a water. A high degree of water quality is necessary for the existence of the majority of food and game fish, ffedntenance of a plentiful supply of food required by fish and wildlife is also dependent on a good quality water. Various state and federal agencies have ascertained that water used for fish an aquatic life propagation should be free of excessive turbidity and toxic or harmfiil concentrations of mineral and organic substances. Water quality criteria for the maintenance of fresh water fish life have been sug- gested by the State Department of Fish and Game as follows: -29- 1. Dissolved oxygen content not less than 85 percent saturation or five parts per million. 2. Hydrogen-ion concentration (pH) ranging between 7.0 and 8,5, 3. lonizable salts, as indicated by conductivity, between 1$0 and 500 microinhos per centimeter at 25°C and, in general, not exceeding 1,000 micromhos per centimeter, U, Ammonia not exceeding 1.5 parts per million. Also, the State Department of Fish and Game has stated that fish and aquatic life are particularly susceptible to the following: 1, Mineral salts of high toxicity, such as mercury, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, al\iminum, nickel, trivalent and hexavalent chromium, and iron, 2, Detergents, poisons, and insecticides employed in agriculture. 3, Unusual temperature conditions. The normal range of water temperature for coldwater fish lies between 32°F and 65°F, For warmwater species, a temperature range from Ii5°F and 85°F with an absolute maximum of 91 °F is generally considered accept- able. li. Waste discharges containing more than 15 parts per million of other soluble material. Since mineral content of water used for recreational purposes rarely presents a problem, there are at present no generally accepted criteria. Ssuii- tary and aesthetic factors are, however, of major importance. Problems of water quality of concern in the development of hydro- electric energy pertain chiefly to: (l) substances that accelerate corrosion; (2) debris, silt, and other suspended solids that block channels and intake devices or settle in reservoirs to reduce their useful storage; and (3) organic matter which decomposes and results in odors and the production of corrosive hydrogen-sulfide in reservoirs. ■30- In the evaluation of water quality, office studies were made to select sampling points and to obtain data from review of existing reports. These studies were followed by field collection and analyses of surface and ground water samples. In addition, data on springs and wells were reviewed and possible sources of water quality impairment were located. Since it was not feasible to sample every spring and surface supply, representative samples were sought for each area or watershed. Standard mineral analyses were made of all samples collected during the investigation. In addition, samples col- lected from surface and ground water sources suspected of containing excessive mineral constituents were tested for heavy metals. Reservoir Operation Criteria The criteria used in conducting the reservoir operation studies discussed herein are considered in the following discussion. Terms used in this discussion are defined as follows: Firm Irrigation Yield — The maxiraum sustained rate of draft from a reser- voir that could be maintained through a critically deficient water supply period to meet a given demand for water with a permissible deficiency. For purposes of the studies conducted for the Sierra Valley service area, the firm irrigation yield was considered acceptable with an average deficiency of two percent per season and a maxiraum deficiency of 50 percent during one season of the base period. For the purposes of the studies for a portion of the Feather River service area on the Sacramento Valley floor, the maxi- raum deficiency was limited to 35 percent during one season of the base period. Project Power Capacity — The sum of the nameplate ratings of all the generation equipment installed on the project, exclusive of any ■31- overload capacity) and of any station service generators supplying the internal power requirements of the power plant and appurtenant facilities. Other power capacities that are significant and may be specified are dependable power capacity and nondependable power capacity. Dependable Capacity — The load carrying ability that is always available for the time interval and period specified, when related to the characteristic of the load to be supplied. Dependable capacity is fixed primarily by the rate at which power can be produced under conditions of minimum head resulting from maximum reservoir draw- down, or maximum tailwater elevation, and the amounts of energy that can be produced during specified periods of time under the most adverse conditions. Certain and definite amounts of energy must be produced if the capacity is to be considered usable to sup- ply that portion of the load assigned to a particular power plant. Nondependable Capacity — The load carrying ability, over and above the dependable capacity, that is occasionally but not always available for certain specified time intervals and periods, and which is accompanied with sufficient energy to enable the capacity to be usable for limited applications such as for replacement of power that could otherwise be produced in steam-electric generating plants • Capacity Factor — The ratio of the average dependable power required to be produced by a power generating plant to the dependable generating capacity of the plant. This may also be thought of as, and is num- erically equivalent to, the proportion of the total time that the equipment would be operated at full dependable capacity to deliver the reqviired eqtiivalent energy. -32- Taxes Foregone — A terra used to designate the amount of taxes that would not be collected as a result of a public agency power development rather than the most likely alternative development. Taxes fore- gone are equivalent to an amount equal to the taxes included in the fixed charges on an alternative steam-electric plant, and is the economic cost that is added to the annual cost of a hydroelectric power project that is to be constructed by a public agency when the economic justification of the project is being determined. Estimates were made of average evaporation rates from free water surfaces to determine the monthly and seasonal net water losses from reser- voirs due to evaporation. The estimated monthly net losses due to evapora- tion utilized in all reservoir operation studies are as follows: October, 2,k inches; April, 2,U inches; May, 1^,8 inches; June, 6,0 inches; July, 8,14. inches; August, 7.2 inches; and September, Ii.8 inches. The esti- mated seasonal net loss due to evaporation is 36,0 inches. Reservoir sedimentation studies were cursory in nature and were limited to preliminary determinations of the amount of silt per square mile of drainage area that would be retained in reservoirs. Capacities were pro- vided in reseinroirs for the estimated accumulation of silt during the project life of the reservoirs. Operation for Irrigation , Where water for irrigation use was planned as a purpose of a project, reservoir operation studies were made to determine the firm seasonal water yield that would be available to satisfy irrigation requirements. As stated previously, the period of study for the Sierra Valley service area was the U$-year base period from 1911-12 through 1955-56. The period of study for the Feather River service area in the Sacramento Valley was the 32-year base period from 1920-21 through 1951-52. -33- Three reservoirs were planned which would be operated to supply irrigation water for use in Sierra Valley. Under present conditions in Sierra Valley, a large portion of the water available for regulation is being diverted for irrigation use on the meadow lands in the project service areas. However, the method of application and the unfavorable time of occurrence of the natural flow, results in an inefficient operation in that only a small percentage of the applied water is beneficially used by growing crops. Regu- lation of the stream flow, therefore, would make possible a substantial in- crease in the amount of water which could be put to beneficial use. The increase in the amount of water which could be put to beneficial use woiild be the new yield of the project. To determine this increase, the amount of water beneficially used under present conditions was estimated. For this purpose, stream flows were considered usable in areas presently irrigated, to the extent of consumptive requirements and irrecoverable losses. Present beneficial use was found to vary considerably from season to season, since it was dependent upon the available water supply. The monthly percentages of seasonal irrigation demand for Sierra Valley that were used for conducting reservoir operation studies are as follows: May, 3j J\ine, 21; July, 3U; August, 30j and September, 12. An evaluation was made to determine the new firm irrigation yield that would be realized from the operation of the alternative Middle Fork Projects, The alternative Middle Fork Projects were operated disregarding the probable existence of Oroville Reservoir. The yield of new water on a firm irrigation demand schedule wovild be the difference in stream flow at Oroville during the irrigation season, with and without an alternative Middle Fork Project. The yield of water that would be available from the alternative Middle Fork Projects on a firm irrigation yield basis was determined from -3h- analyses of reservoir operation studies of the alternative projects considered. The operation studies were conducted to determine the amounts of hydroelectric energy that could be realized from these projects and, therefore, the total yield of new irrigation water from these projects would be that which could meet an irrigation demand under a hydroelectric demand schedule. The month of June was shown to be the controlling month in determining the amount of new firm irrigation water that would be made available under a hydroelectric demand schedule. The estimated percentage of the total irrigation water needs that would be supplied in June was 19 percent. Therefore, the seasonal yield of new irrigation water would be about five times the yield available during the month of J\ine. An analysis of the operation studies showed that June 1921, would be the controlling month during the 32-year operation period from 1920-21 through 1951-52. As stated previously, a maximiun seasonal deficiency of 35 percent in any one season and an average seasonal deficiency of two percent diiring the 32-year period of operation, were allowed in determining the yield of new irrigation water. Operation for Hydroelectric Energy Production . Where production of hydroelectric energy was planned as a purpose of a project, operation studies were conducted to determine the installed and dependable capacities of the power plants, and the seasonal production of energy in kilowatt-hours. The period of study was the 32-year base period from 1920-21 through 1951-52. In the operation studies, it was assumed that all of the power plants would be operated as an integrated system, but the kilowatt-hour per kilowatt criteria, or monthly capacity factor, would be applied to each plant separately. Under this method of applying the criteria to each plant, the potential energy generation divided by the kilowatt-hours per kilowatt would •35- 1 be the capability of the plant, \inless either the installed capacity of the plant or the head on the turbine was the limiting factor. In supplying its portion of the project dependable capacity, an individual plant could be operated to supply a different capacity each month. However, the sum of the capabilities of all of the project power plants would be at least equal to the project dependable capacity. Hence, for each kilowatt of project depend- able capacity assigned to a plant, there would be sufficient energy genera- tion to fulfill the minimum requirement; otherwise, the plant would not operate for the duration of that portion of the power load to which it would be assigned. Therefore, each plant would be operated at a monthly capacity factor at least equal to the minimum requirement. The operation studies were conducted using a capacity factor of Ul.^ percent. Operation for Flood Control . The operation of the reseirvoirs in the Upper Feather River Basin for the primary purpose of production of hydro- electric energy or the delivery of firm irrigation supplies would provide incidental flood protection to downstream sireas. However, in these operation studies, no specific reservation of storage space was made for flood control purposes, but storage space above the ungated spillway crests would provide incidental protection by regulating the peak flows entering the reservoirs. Operation for Recreation, and Fish and Wildlife . The operation of the projects would provide recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. The authorized Indicin Creek and the Genesee Recreation Projects would be oper- ated for these pxurposes only. All other projects would be operated to provide multipurpoBe benefits and could thereby provide substantial recreational benefits. In the operation of the projects, provision was made for minimum reservoir pools which would be sufficient to protect fish life. Also, stream -36- flow maintenance releases were provided to maintain the existing fishery. In some cases, particularly the Indian Creek Recreation Project, stream flow releases were provided that would greatly enhance the existing fishery con- ditions. A discussion of the releases for stream flow maintenance purposes is presented in Chapter VI as a part of the description of each project, and is presented in detail in Appendix D, "Preliminary Evaluation of the Effect of the Upper Feather River Basin Development on Fish and Wildlife". Appendix D was prepared by the Department of Fish and Game. Geologic Investigations The geologic exploration program in the Upper Feather River Basin included: (l) geologic mapping of dam and reservoir sites, potential borrow areas, and conduit routes; (2) foundation test drilling and trenching; (3) petrographic analysis of foundation rocks; (U) seismic and resistivity exploration to determine the depths to water table and to bedrock; (5) col- lection of soil samples for testing to determine the construction properties of available materials; and (6) determination of quantities of available con- struction materials. In studying the sites, emphasis was placed on the determi- nation of rock types, degree of weathering, patterns of jointing, the nature and extent of shear zones, and the engineering properties of the foundations. The program varied from reconnaissance investigations of surficial geologic features at some sites to detailed subsurface investigations at other sites, in accordance with the size and significance of the proposed structures, and with the geologic problems encountered. Complete reports on the results of the geologic exploration of the various sites are available in the files of the Department of Water Resources. These reports include drill hole logs, test results, geologic maps and cross- sections, maps of locations of construction materials, and results of seismic and resistivity s\irveys, -37- Designs and Cost Estimates of Structures Engineering designs were made of several sizes and types of dams for each of the sites considered to determine estimates of capital and annual costs of the required structures. Structures were designed in accordance with standard engineering principles with the objective of obtaining the most eco- ncmical combination of dam embankment, spillway, and outlet works. The dams would be constructed with available natural material where possible. Stability characteristics of the earth embankments were based on laboratory tests of sampled materials. In general, design floods were routed through the reser- voirs and spillways were sized to safely pass peak outflows. Estimates of the capital costs of each project include constnaction costs of the dam and appurtenances, acquisition of land for reservoir and dam sites, and relocation of utilities. Capital costs are based on unit prices prevailing in 1959. Also included are allowances of 10 percent of the total cost for engineering and administration, and 15 percent of the total cost for contingencies in construction. Interest during constiniction was added to the capital cost in the amount of U.O percent per annum for one-half of the con- struction period. Annual costs include amortization of the capital invest- ment at an interest rate of U.O percent with a repayment period of 50 years and the annual outlay required for replacement, operation, and maintenance, and general expense. ' Jt is believed that the features of the projects as presented here- in reasonably represent those which would be selected for construction to meet the stated accomplishments. Changes in design would probably be made after further exploration of the sites and more thorough design analysis. It is noted, however, that because of the present limited knowledge of the geologic conditions at the dam sites in the Middle Fork of the Feather River, •38- i substantial changes in design and estimates of cost for developing the Middle Fork might occiir when additional information is made available. Appraisal of Lands Preliminary estimates were made of the value of lands, improvements, and utilities within the reservoir sites under consideration. Real estate was evaluated by the market analysis method in which each tract of land is appraised by comparison with recent transactions of similar property. Data on land ownership and descriptions of properties were obtained from the covinty assessor. Data on recent sales and costs of properties, in and adjacent to the areas, were obtained from county recorders ajid from local real estate agencies. Estimates of the value of improvements and utilities were based upon replacement costs. Improvements include buildings, structures, private water systems, and private irrigation works. Utilities include highways, roads, telephone and electric power lines, municipal water works, and irri- gation service agency works. Replacement costs were estimated as the expendi- ture required under existing conditions to replace a structxire with a similar one of compsirable utility. It was assumed that the market value of Isinds represents the present worth of future productivity on lands flooded by resejrvoir development. Estimates also were made of damage that might accrue to a property owner because of construction of a project. These estimates of damage include costs for severance of property, reduction of area of operation, loss of, or obstruction to, communications, loss of arable lands by reason of flooding, and other elements. -39- Siirveys and Maps Topographic maps of the Frenchman, Grizzly Valley, and Nelson Point reservoir sites were obtained from the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Topographic maps of the dam sites in the Middle Fork of the Feather River below Nelson Point were obtained from the Richvale Irrigation District. All other topographic maps of reservoir and dam sites were prepared by the Depart- ment of Water Resources during the course of the investigation. Reservoir site maps were prepared at a scale of one inch equals UOO feet, with a contour interval of 20 feet. Dam site maps were prepared at a scale of one inch equals 100 feet, with a contour interval of five feet. Other maps used in the investigation were United States Geological Siirvey quadrangles at a scale of 1:62,500, The contour intervals for these maps vary from quadrangle to quadrangle. Economic Considerations The principal economic studies conducted to evaluate the possibili- ties for developing the water resources of the Upper Feather River Basin were: (1) determination of project benefits that would accrue from the construction of the potential projects; (2) project formulation and evaluation studies to determine the size and the economic justification of the potential projects; and (3) financial feasibility studies of the initial units proposed for con- struction. The latter studies were conducted only for Frenchman and Grizzly Valley Projects and Indian Creek Recreation Project. Results of these studies were published in Bulletin No, 59, "Investigation of Upper Feather River Basin Development, Interim Report on Engineering, Economic, and Financial Feasibility of Initial Units" (February 1957). ■ kO- Project Benefits Benefits from the projects considered would accrue primarily from new and reregulated irrigation water supplies, flood control, production of hydroelectric energy, and new recreational opportunities. Irrigation Benefits . By means of irrigation it is possible to obtain a greater crop yield in the agricultural areas of the Upper Feather River Basin than is possible under dry-farm operations. Present irrigation development in this area reflects maximum use of the unregulated surface water supply and limited use of the groimd water supply. Under project devel- opment, water made available for irrigation purposes would comprise regula- tion of natural flows plus new project water. Both regulated and new water released to project service areas would provide a basis for increased agri- cultural income to local ranchers. The increased retirrns to land made pos- sible by the new and reregulated water supply would represent the measure of benefit to the water users, and wo\ild provide the source of fiinds for repayment of costs allocated to the irrigation function of projects considered. In connection with earlier investigations of the Upper Feather River, preliminary estimates of the benefit to be derived from the provision of new or reregulated water were made. This investigation indicated that there would be a continuation of the livestock economy in the area. This original conclusion is believed to be correct in the light of further investigation of the area. However, the intensity of future land use under a livestock economy is believed to be somewhat less than earlier studies had indicated. Discussion of farming practices with ranchers in the area, together with an examination of the ownership pattern, have led to the conclusion that the intensity of land use will more closely resemble the present -production of meadow pasture and meadow hay. .1+1- These earlier studies, particularly for the Frenchman and Grizzly Valley service areas, indicated an aversige net benefit of about $9.00 per acre-foot of water. This value was derived by use of price and cost data for the 10-year period from 19U6-56 when the parity ratio was about 100, Recently, in connection with other studies being made by the department, re- analysis of the probable benefits of water service in Sierra Valley has been completed. This analysis was done on the basis of price and cost data for the period from 1952-56, when the parity ratio was about 88 and was made in accordance with current procedures of the Department of Water Resources and of land use plans currently being considered by the water users. This analy- sis indicates irrigation benefits of about $6.50 per acre-foot. The Sheep Camp service area, vrtiich was not evaluated in the previ- ous study, can be expected to provide irrigation benefits of about the same magnitude as other portions of the Upper Feather River . service area or about $6,50 per acre-foot for new water, assuming that water can be provided for a price which is within the financial capacity of the water users. Benefits attributable to the reregulation of the 23*000 acre-feet of water from the Sheep Camp Project, presently being put to beneficial use, were estimated to be $2,00 per acre-foot. Irrigation benefits from the alternative Middle Fork Projects would be realized from the new water supplies that could be made available on a firm irrigation demand schedule to the Feather River service area on the Sac- ramento Valley floor. Agricultural economic studies conducted in connection with the evailuation of Oroville Reservoir have shown that new firm irrigation water supplies in the Feather River seiwlce area would have an average net benefit of about $11,00 per acre-foot. However, it appears probable that water from any of the alternative Middle Fork Projects wovild be used on lands having somewhat lower than average productive capabilities. On the premise -k2- that 65-70 percent of the lands to be supplied vri.th water from any of the Middle Fork Projects would be used for rice and the remaining 30-35 percent for various field crops, irrigation benefits of the general magnitude of $8.00 per acre-foot could be expected. This again assumes that water could be pro- vided within the ability of the water users to meet water costs. For the pur- poses of this investigation, irrigation benefits were estimated to be $8.00 per acre-foot of water. Hydroelectric Power Benefits . Hydroelectric power benefits were measured in terms of the cost of producing power by the most likely alterna- tive source; in this case, a privately financed, steam -electric plant. Empha- sis was placed on estimating the market for, and the value of, hydroelectric power since these factors are of primary importance in forecasting futvire revenues attributable to any power project. A general description of the factors considered and the results obtained are presented in the following discussion. Northern and Central California were selected as the power market area. The anticipated magnitude and characteristics of future power demand in this area were related to the estimated generating resources available to meet this demand. The area load and resource projections were analyzed to ascertain the proper relationship between dependable generating capacity and the average annual energy generated for the power plants to be added by the projects considered herein. Power revenues were estimated after the magnitudes of the dependable capacity and average annual energy generation were determined. It was concluded from detailed technical studies that futui-e power requirements of Northern and Central California, based on anticipated popula- tion growth and annual energy use per capita, would provide a ready market .k3- for hydroelectric power generated by the projects considered herein. Figure 1 illustrates the historical and estimated future population, energy use per capita, and total energy requirement for Northern and Central California. The interconnected power systems of Northern and Central California comprise an integrated power supply system of hydroelectric sind steam-electric generating capacity. The hydroelectric plants are generally used for peaking service, whereas the continuous base load is largely supplied by steam-electric plants. The present dependable generating capacity of the system for the month of August in an adverse water year totals about 5» 700, 000 kilowatts. Of this amount, 2,600,000 kilowatts are generated by hydroelectric plants and 3,100,000 are generated by steam-electric plants. It is anticipated that approximately 2,000,000 kilowatts of dependable hydroelectric capacity and 3,000,000 kilowatts of steam-electric capacity will be added to the system by 1970. Although estimating additions to hydroelectric generating capacity after 1970 is highly speculative, it is anticipated that another 2,000,000 kilowatts of dependable hydroelectric capacity will be added to the system between 1970 and I98O. Additional steam-electric capacity of 6,500,000 kilo- watts would be added to meet the system load. With the power requirement increasing at the rate indicated above, a market for the energy output of hydroelectric plants is assured. Of primary importance to the amount of revenue that can be realized from a hydroelectric plant, however, is the degree of peaking that can be absorbed into the system. The ratio of steam-electric power to hydroelectric power will steadily increase as sites for hydroelectric plants become scarce. As a consequence, hydroelectric power will be utilized for peaJdng purposes to a greater degree than is the case today. However, for purposes of this investigation, hydroelectric plants were designed for a moderate degree of peaking, as would be the case if they were constructed for near future market conditions. -kk- FIGURE I 1 1 4 y^ y / iT) A V 1 O^Jl 1 ^/ ^y 1 .^y 1 4"/ 1 f / \ «• .^i>'^^ / / .^ * / 1 . y .^,v • / 1 y / 1 y ^0^' ^ f U' ^ .^^>■r y^ ^Ua / /^ r 1 ^y / / y\ /> "" ^ 1 1 / U 1 STORICA 1 L — -p- "1 ■ ESTlMi f\Trn / Ml 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 HISTORICAL AND ESTIMATED FUTURE POPULATION AND PER CAPITA AND TOTAL ENERGY GENERATION NORTHERN AND CENTRAL CALIFORNIA It was assumed that power generated from the projects considered herein would be sold at the 230 kilovolt bus at the Oroville switchyard. Based on the estimated cost of publicly financed transmission facilities from Oroville to the load center, and the cost of producing equivalent power in a modern steam-electric plant, the value of hydroelectric power at the Oroville switchyard was estimated as follows: capacity component, $22.80 per year per kilowatt of dependable capacity; and energy component, 3.0 mills per kilowatt- hour. The power output from the system of plants for each plan was reduced by three precent to allow for transmission losses from power plant sites to the Oroville switchyard. Flood Control Benefits . Although some degree of incidental flood control to downstream areas probably would be realized from each of the projects considered herein, the annual benefits would be small in most cases. The limi- tation would result from the small proportion of the total nmoff which could be controlled and from the relatively small amount of damage that occurs -under present conditions. The principal exception to this would be Frenchman Reser- voir currently under construction. This reservoir would provide flood control to the lands along Little Last Chance Creek in Sierra Valley. Flood control benefits to this area were evaluated as described in Bulletin No. 59. The value of incidental flood control benefits achieved from reser- voir storage would be the difference between the losses from damages under present conditions and the losses from damages \inder project conditions. Damage to agricultural lands accounts for the major portion of the losses and occurs mainly in the form of stream bank and sheet erosion; from deposi- tion of debris in channels, ditches, and fields; from loss of irrigation struc- txires and fences; and from inundation of meadow lands. -1+5- Probable flood flows under project conditions were estimated 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 routing inflow through the reservoir, the resultant esti- mated flood flows were applied to the previously established flow-damage rela- tionship to estimate damage under project conditions. Recreation Benefits . Because of the importance of recreation to the economy of the upper basin, certain projects were planned that would be almost entirely recreationsuL in nature. For these projects, and for others in which significant recreational use was forecast, recreational benefits were estimated in monetary terms to facilitate comparison of alternative pro- posals and to make benefit-cost analyses. Recreational benefits attributable to the facilities studied were estimated by applying a monetary value per day of recreational use to the days of public recreational use forecast over the economic life of the project. In the evaluation of recreational benefits, consideration was given to the recreational potential of streams below reservoir sites, and the recreational potential of the reservoir sites and land adjacent thereto. The recreational potential of streams affected by the various pro- jects considered was evsuLuated by the Department of Fish and Game in terms of present and future angler-days of use. Present use was determined by sampling surveys, interviews, and by counts of angling intensity and distribution. Future use of streams eiffected by project development was projected to an estimated saturation in the year 20^0. The development trend allowed reasonable time for growth of facilities, for improvements in transportation and access, ajid for an increase in leisiire time. Separate forecasts were .1^6- made for conditions with and without each project. The difference in the forecasts represented the use of visitor-days creditable to the potential water project. A report containing recommendations regarding stream flows and pre- pared by the Department of Fish and Game, is included herein as Appendix D. The firm of Pacific Planning and Research, consviltants in planning and urban economics, was retained by the department to determine the recreational bene- fits from the Upper Feather River Basin that could be realized from possible water projects. This determination was made by estimating the visitor-days of recreational use that woxild accrue to each project and then converting these visitor-days of use into monetary terms. Although it is anticipated that both public and private recrea- tional facilities would surround the proposed reservoirs, it was considered that the justification for public investment shoiild be restricted only to those benefits derived from public facilities. It was further considered that to encourage and aid full recreational development, initial basic facili- ties, such as access roads, sanitary facilities, drinking water, and public camp grounds, would be provided by public funds. Likewise, to control devel- opment for the greatest public use, it was considered that all potential recreational lands adjacent to the reservoir sites would be zoned in the pub- lic interest. This could be accomplished either by purchase of the land, or by use-permit if the land is in federal ownership. Later operational policies would decide the allocation of land for private and public use, and the administrative procedure to be followed, A report on the studies of the firm of Pacific Planning and Research was published in July 1959, as Appendix A, "Recreational Benefits from Upper Feather River Basin Development", ■hi- Project Formttlation and Evaluation Project formulation and evaluation studies were conducted to deter- mine the proper size and economic justification of the potential projects in the Upper Feather River Basin, Project Formulation . Each project was selected and sized to pro- vide the most economical method of accomplishing its purpose and to provide maximum net benefits. The optimum level of development for the projects con- sidered in this bvilletin is that size of project at which the incremental benefits equal the incremental costs. The value of the benefits utilized in the sizing studies was limited to the primary irrigation, power, and flood control benefits. The costs used in the sizing studies included all project costs, and costs for operation, maintenance, and replacement. Recreational benefits from potential multipurpose projects, although considered to be primary in nature, were not used in sizing studies due to the difficulty in determining modifications in recreational benefits for dif- ferent reservoir sizes. For this reason, economic sizing studies of poten- tial reservoirs that wo\zld be operated primsirily for recreational p\irposes were not made. The size of these projects was based on considerations of reservoir water depths necessary to maintain optimum water temperatures for fish and plant life, water yields for stream flow enhancement releases, mini- mum cost per acre of reservoir water siirface, length and preservation of shore- line features, and location of natural features affecting placement of structures Economic Justification , A project may be considered to be economi- cally justified when the benefits that accrue therefrom are in excess of the costs incurred in its design, construction, operation and maintenance. Also, each separate segment or purpose of a miJ-tipurpose project must provide benefits .U8- at lesist equal to its cost. The comparison of the benefits and costs of a project is commonly expressed as a benefit-cost ratio. This should not be the only criterion, since such a ratio does not adequately reflect many project intsmgible benefits or detriments which may be of substantial signifi- cance. In making justification analyses of potential projects in the Upper Feather River Basin, only tangible primary benefits were utilized, A tangible benefit is one that can be adequately expressed in monetary terras, whereas an intangible benefit, although real, cannot be so measured. A primary bene- fit is the net gain or value realized directly from the project. A secondary benefit is the net gain or value added, over and above the values of the pri- mary benefit, due to processing or other activities over and above those of the primary benef icaries . In determining the economic justification of potential hydroelectric power projects, taxes foregone were included as an economic cost. Financial Feasibility Financial feasibility studies were conducted for the initial \mits of the Upper Feather River Basin development. Determination of financial feasibility of projects included: (l) allocation of costs among the various project purposes; (2) consideration as to what organization or agency sho\ild bear the allocated costs; and (3) consideration of the ability and the will- ingness of the organization or agency to repay such costs. These studies were described in Bulletin No, 59. -49- CHAPTER III. LEGAL ASPECTS Adequate water rights are a necessary prereqiiisite to the construc- tion of any water development project, whether large or small, which involves storage or direct diversion of surface water for use on nonriparian land. Prior to December 19, 19lJ^, the effective date of the Water Commission Act, a water right could be initiated simply by using the water and the right could be made a matter of record by filing a notice with the county recorder. Since that date, initiation of appropriative rights must be made by filing an application with the State Water Rights Board, or one of its predecessor agencies. If unappropriated water is available and other requirements are met, a permit is issued, and after use of water is complete, the rights are confirmed by a license. The priority of the rights is as of the date on which the application is filed. The following definitions are included to aid in understanding the discussion of water rights: State Applications — A state application is an application filed by the Department of Water Resources or its predecessor pursuant to Water Code Section 10^00. This section authorizes the department to file an application for any water which, in its judgment, may be required in the development and the completion of the whole or any part of a general or coordinated plan looking toward the development, utili- zation, and conservation of the State's water resources. These applications have been filed periodically since 1927 for projects which involve the water of streams of the State of California, both for export projects and local development. The effect of such state -51- applications is to hold rights to the use of water in public trust for future use. Release From Priority of State Applications — Under Water Code Section I050U, the California Water Commission is authorized to release from priority any portion of a state application in favor of appli- cations of a junior priority. In general, a release from priority may be made to an agency contanplating a water development project on a stream on which a state application has been filed, where the agency's project contemplates different works or envisions either a pxjrpose of use or a service area not covered by the state application. Assignment of State Applications — In general, an assignment of a state application is made pursuant to a request by an agency contemplating a water development project on the same stream system on which a state application has been made. Such assignment is authorized by Water Code Section 1050U, and is made in the case where the construc- ing agency proposes to construct the project along the lines of that set forth in the state application. Requirements of Diligence — Any application (except state applications which have not been assigned) and permits that have been issued p\rr- suant to approved applications are subject to the requirements of diligence as set forth in Part 2 of Division 2 of the Water Code, and the rules and regulations of the State Water Rights Board. These provisions require the applicant to complete an application on file with the State Water Rights Board diligently, the permittee to com- plete construction of the physical works required to apply the water to beneficial use with due diligence, and the licensee to continually apply the water to the uses in accordance with the terms and conditions -52- of the license. Failure to comply with the requironents of diligence can result in the cancellation of an application or the revocation of a permit or license. All unassigned applications filed by the State pursuant to Section 10^00 of the Water Code including those for the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects have been relieved from the regular requirements of diligence over the years by peri- odic exemptions by the Legislature. The present exemption expires on October 1, 19 63. State Applications The Legislature, diiring its 192? session, enacted Chapter 286, Statutes of 1927, which is now codified in Part 2 of Division 6 of the Water Code. Section 10500 of this part of the Water Code reads, in part, as follows: "IO50O. The department shall make and file applications for any water wnich in its judgment is or may be required in the devel- opment and conpletion of the whole or any part of a genersil or coordinated plan looking toward the development, utilization, or conservation of the water resources of the State ..." Under the authority vested in it by the preceding section, the Department of Water Resources has filed six water rights applications in furtherance of the Upper Feather River Basin development. ApplJ-cations Nos. 16950 through 1695U were filed on March 20, 1956, and Application No. I88UU was filed on July 6, 1959. Applications filed by the State may be assigned or may be released from prioidty in favor of jiinior applications. This authority is vested in the California Water Commission by Section 1050U of the Water Code which reads as follows : -53- '•1050U. The commission may release from priority or assign any portion of any appropriation filed under this part when the release or assignment is for the purpose of development not in conflict with such general or coordinated plan. The assignee of any such application, whether heretofore or hereafter assigned, is subject to all the requirenents of diligence as provided in Part 2 of Division 2 of this code. 'Assignee' as used herein includes, but is not limited to, state agencies,, commissions and departments, and the United States of America or any of its departments or agencies." An assignment or release from priority does not give the recipient perfected water rights. After an assignment has been made, the recipient will generally have to complete the application before the State Water Rights Board so as to .include the details of the proposed project. The application is then advertised by the board and an opportunity provided for protests. A hearing is then held by the State Water Rights Board concerning the issuance of a per- mit on the application. Protestants and other interested parties can present evidence. The Department of Water Resources under Section 18U and 12^6 of the Water Code usually appears at such a hearing to present information it deems pertinent. Subsequent to the hearing, the State Water Rights Board determines whether a permit should be issued and generally includes in siny pentnit various conditions concerning the project. Following the issuance of the permit, the permittee proceeds with constmction and application of the water to beneficial use. Releases from priority of state applications in favor of the applications of one proposing to build a project may be made before or after permits have been issued on his applications, but otherwise the procedure is the same. Pursuant to provisions of Chapter 2099 and 2101, California Statutes of 19$9, the California Water Commission is required to hold hearings on any request for an assignment or release from priority of any state application. The Commission must give a 60-day notice to all counties affected by the proj- ect. In order to obtain the assignment of a state application in the capacity -$h- of constructor of a water project, the depajrtraent is required to proceed in the same manner as any other agency. A hearing must be held to determine whether an assignment should be made and what conditions should be included in it. After an assignment is made, the department must proceed to perfect the application before the State Water Rights Board and to put water to bene- ficial use under it. In the event of amendments to applications for assignment or release. Section lO^OU.^ of the Water Code provides as follows: "1050U.5« In order to insure that projects will be constructed in accordance with a general or co-ordinated plan for the develop- ment of water: "(a) The recipient of a release from priority or assigrment under this part shall, before making any changes determined by the California Water Ccmmission to be substantial in the project in furtherance of which the release or assignment was made, submit such changes to the California Water Commission for its approval. The ccmimission shall approve any such change only if it determines that such change will not conflict with the general or co-ordinated plan. All permits and licenses issued pursuant to applications so released or assigned shsill contain terras conditioning such permits and licenses upon compliance with this subdivision. "(b) The holder of applications that have been assigned, or in favor of which a release from priority has been made, shall submit any proposed amendments to such applications to the ccnmiission before their submission to the State Water Rights Board. The commission shall approve such amendments only if it determines that the amend- ments will not conflict with the general or co-ordinated plan. The commission shall notify the holder of the application and the State Water Rights Board of its approval or disapproval. No amendments to any such application shall be authorized by the State Water Rights Board unless th^ are first approved by the commission. (Added by Stats. 1958, Ch. 2101)" -55- County of Origin Lav and Watershed Protection Act The Coimty of Origin Law eind Watershed Protection Act can best be \inderstood in the light of the physical situation with which they were designed to deal. The physical problem is relatively simple and readily understaindable. It is brought about by the maldistribution of the State's water supplies, both as to area and time of occurrence. Approximately 70 percent of the State's water supplies originate in the area north of the latitude of Sacremento. Conversely, approximately 70 percent of the ulti- mate need for water will occur south of that latitude. Hence, water must be transferred from north to south. In addition, practically all of the rain and snowfall occurs in the winter and spring months and must be stored in reservoirs in order to meike it available for use during the summer and fall months, either in the local areas or in areas to which water is exported. Furthermore, there are wet years and series of wet years during which water must be stored for use during dry years . From an engineering standpoint, these physical difficulties caxi be overcome by constructing dams and reservoirs to conserve the winter and wet year flows, ajid by constructing aqueducts, pumping plsints, eind distribution systems to convey the water, and to meike it available for use both in areas of origin and in areas of deficiency. There are, however, additional practical considerations which make the problem more complex. These are the legal, financial and other considerations, which are part of the interplay of interests in our democratic-type of government. Plans for taking large quantities of water from one area to another have resulted in the fear on the part of the areas of surplus that there will not be adeqiiate water remaining for their future needs. In 1931^ the Co\uity -56- of Origin Law was enacted to offer protection to the counties of water surplus. This law, now Section 1050$ of the Water Code, placed a restriction on the State in assigning or releasing any water rights application filed by the State in furtherance of a general plan to develop the State's water supplies. Section 10505 of the Water Code provides as follows: "10$05. No priority under this psirt shall be released nor assigment made of any appropriation that will, in the judgment of the commission, deprive the county in which the appropriated water originates of any such water necessary for the development of the county." This protection has three principal limitations: first, it is only effective as to applications of tJie State; second, it is dependent upon peri- odic relief by the Legislature from the usual reqiiirements of diligence which apply to all other applications; and third, it applies only to water origina- ting within a county. Subsequently, the Legislature passed the Watershed Protection Act as part of the Central Valley Project Act. These provisions restrict the operators of the Central Valley Project by requiring that no watershed where- in the water originates, or no area immediately adjacent thereto which could be conveniently served with water therefrom, shall be deprived of necessary water by the project. These provisions constitute Sections im60-llU63 of the Water Code, supplemented by Section 11128, Section llJ|60, the most important of these sections, reads as follows: "nJ)60. In the construction and operation by the department of any project under the provisions of this part a watershed or area wherein water originates, or an area immediately adjacent thereto which can conveniently be supplied with water therefrom, shall not be deprived by the department directly or indirectly of the prior right to all of the water reasonably required to adequately supply the beneficial needs of the watershed, area, or ary of the inhabitants or property owners therein," -57- While in one sense broader than the Coimty of Origin Law, the watershed sections are also restrictive in their protection in that they apply only to the oper- ators of the Central Valley Project. In 1955; the Attorney General of California issued two opinions construing the County of Origin Law and Watershed Protection Act (25 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 8; 25 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 32). Among the conclusions reached were the following: (1) "Water Code Sections IO505, llkSO, and 11^63, properly construed and applied, do not violate article XIV, section 3^ of the California Constitution." (2) "In the circumstances specified in the statute. Water Code Sections IO505 and llk60 would require that water which had been put to use in the operation of the Central Valley Project in areas outside the county of origin, or the watershed of origin and areas immediately adjacent thereto, be withdrawn from such outside areas and made available for use in the specified area of origin." (3) "An assignment of the Feather River applications con- ditioned by a general reservation of eill the water originating in any county of origin which is necessary for developnent of that coiinty would not constitute a delegation of any mandatory statutory duty ..." The several releases from priority and assignments executed since 1927 have usually contained a cla\ise reserving a specified amovint of water for the coimty of origin or a general reservation without attempting to specify a definite quantity. Releases and assignments granted recently have, in nearly all ca^es, contained % general reservation of water for the future development of the counties of origin. The Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects are subject to both the County of Origin Law and Watershed Protection Act. Since these projects will rely on state applications, it will be necessary to include appropriate conditions in the assignments of applications made to the Department of Water Resources as constructor of these projects that will reserve for the -58- coiinties of origin water that may be necessary for their development. As provided in Water Code Sections II26O and 11270, the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects are part of the Central Valley Project. They are, therefore, also subject to the limitations of Water Code Sections ll460 and 11463, the area of origin provisions. As a result, these projects cannot be operated so that any watershed in which water originates, or any area immediately eidjacent to such a watershed that can conveniently be served with water, is deprived of water required to supply its needs • Any release from priority or assignment of state applications for a project to be constructed in the Upper Feather River Basin must be such that it will not deprive the counties of origin of water that they require for their development. Where the intended use is outside the covmty of origin, adequate protection can usual .ly be furnished by including in the release or assignment either a general or specific reservation of water for use within such county. Developnents contemplated by others than the State in the Upper Feather River Basin are not subject to the Watershed Protection Act, since they are not tinits of the Central Valley Project. These appli- cations are discussed in detail later in this chapter. State Applications for the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects Since I927, the State of California, pursuant to Water Code Section 10500, has filed 15 water rights applications In furtherance of the author- ized Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects. These applications are now on record with the State Water Rights Board. The first two of the appli- cations were filed by the State in I927 and were numbered 5629 and 563O. These applications were made in furtherance of the Feather River Unit of the State Water Plan. In 1951, three additional applications, numbered 14443, -59- l) | ) | ) |)[j and lliiUi5, were filed in furtherance of the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects as described in the 1951 report on these projects. The next group of applications, numbered 16950 liirough 1695U, was filed in 1956 in furtherance of the plans for water development as set forth in the "Report on the Upper Feather River Service Area", April 1955* Four applications for the Delta Diversion Projects were filed in 1957 and are numbered 17512 through 17515 • Applications Nos. 17512 and 17513 propose diversions from the ItaLLian Slough in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, and Applications Nos. 175lii and 17515 propose diversions from LLndsey Slough in the Ssuiramento- San Joaquin River Delta. In 1959, Application No. l88Uli was filed for addi- tional storage in Frenchman Reservoir. The essential features of these 15 applications are summarized in Table 5* TABLE NO. 5 STATE APPLICATIONS FOR THE FEATHiiiR RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS : Soiirce of water :and name of facility Date • filed t Amount of application Appli- cation No. tDirect di- ; :version, in: : second-feet : Storage, in acre-feet : Purpose 5629 Feather River (Oroville Resei^roir) 7-30-27 7,600 380,000 Power 5630 Feather River (Oroville Reservoir) 7-30-27 1,U00 380,000 Irrigation, done s tic, salinity control, flood control, navi- gation, and fish and wildlife enhancement mih3 1) Feather River 2)Delta Channels (Oroville Reservoir and Delta DLversioi 8-2U-51 is) 1,360 6,185 * 3,500,000 ii2,100 Irrigation, domestic, miudc- ipal, industrial, recreational, flood control, salinity control, navigation, and fish and wildlife enhancement -60- TABLE NO. 5 (continued) STATE APPLICATIONS FOR THE FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Amount of application: Appli- cation No. Source of water : Date ;and name of facility: filed : Direct di- : : version, in: : second-feet: Storage, in acre-feet: Purpose ikkkk Feather River 8-2i<-51 (Oroville Reseiw^oir) ikkh^ l)Feather River 8-25-51 2)ltalian Slough (Oroville Reservoir and Delta Diversions) 16950 Big Grizzly Creek 3-20-56 (Grizzly Valley Reservoir) 16951 Indian Creek 3-20-56 (Antelope Valley Reservoir) 16952 Little Last Chance 3-20-56 Creek (Frenchman Reservoir) 16953 Last Chance Creek 3-20-56 (Dixie Refuge Reservoir) l695i»- Red Clover Creek 3-20-56 (Abbey Bridge Reservoir) 17512 1) Italian Slough or 3-15-57 2)San Luis Creek (Saja Lviis Reservoir) 17513 Italian Slough (South Bay Aqueduct) 3-15-57 11,000 3,500,000 Power 2,1^40 600,000 Irrigation, domes- 8,000 tic, mxmicipal, industrial, recrea- tional, flood con- trol, saline con- trol, navigation, and fish and wild- life enhancement 49,000 Irrigation, munici- pal, streain mainte- nance, amd recrea- tional 18,200 Stream maintenance and recreational 30,000 Irrigation and recreational llf,300 Recreational and stream maintenance 8,1400 Recreational and stream maintenance 1,100,000 Irrigation, domes- tic, recreational, municipal, indus- trial, and fish and wildlife enhance- ment 26,500 Irrigation, domes- tic, municipal, industrial , and recreational -61- TABLE NO. 5 (continued) STATE APPLICATIONS FOR THE FEATHER RIVER AND DELTA DIVERSION PROJECTS Appli- cation No. Source of water and name of facility: : Amount of application Date : Direct di- : Storage, filed : version, in: in : second- feet: acre-feet 1751'+ Lindsey Slough 3-15-57 (North Bay Aqueduct) 17515 Lindsey Slough 3-15-57 (North Bay Aqueduct) 900 900 iBQkk Little Last Chance Creek (Frenchman Reservoir) 7-6-59 Municipal and domestic Irrigation and domesti c 20,000 Domestic, irriga- tion, stockwater- Ing and recrea- tional Applications Nos. 1695O throvigh iS^'^k, as indicated, were filed in furtherance of the plans for the development of the Upper Feather lUver Basin as envisioned in the 1955 report of the Division of Water Resources on the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects. The projects covered under these five applications are Grizzly Valley, Antelope Valley, Frenchman, Dixie Ref\ige, and Ahhey Bridge Dams and Reservoirs. In addition to these appli- cations, Application No. I88H was filed for 20,000 acre-feet of additional storage at Frenchman Reservoir. The essential features of the six appli- cations are described in the following paragraphs. Application No. 16950 proposes the appropriation of ^+9,000 acre-feet per annum from Big Grizzly Creek. Water sought under this application woiad he stored in Grizzly Valley Reservoir and utilized for recreational purposes at that reservoir, for stream maintenance in the channels of Big Grizzly Creek and the Middle Fork of the Feather River between Grizzly Valley Reservoir and Nelson Point Reservoir sites, for municipal purposes at -62- Portola and urban areas in the Middle Fork service area, and for irrigation purposes in Mohawk and Long Valleys. Application No. 16951 proposes the appropriation of 18,200 acre- feet per annum from Indian Creek, Water sought under this application would be stored in Antelope Valley Reseiwoir and utilized for recreational purposes at that reservoir and for stream maintenance along the reach of Indian Creek below Antelope Valley Reservoir to Indian Valley. Applications Nos. 169$2 and I88UU are for appropriation of 30,000 and 20,000 acre-feet per annum, respectively, from Little Last Chance Creek. Water sought under these applications will be stored in Frenchman Reservoir and utilized for irrigation and other purposes in Sierra Valley. These appli- cations were assigned, upon the reccMimendation of the California Water Commission, to the department as the constructor of the project on July 30, 19$9. These applications were subsequently conpleted, advertised, and pro- tests were received from the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Negotiations are now in progress concern- ing these protests. Application No. 16953 proposes the appropriation of 1U,300 acre-feet per annum frcm Last Chance Creek. Water sought under this application would be stored in Dixie Refuge Reservoir and utilized for recreational purposes at that reservoir and for stream flow maintenance of Last Chance Creek frcm Dixie Refuge Dam to Indian Valley. Application No. 1695U proposes the appropriation of 8,U00 acre- feet per anntm fron Red Clover Creek. Water sought under this application would be stored in Abbey Bridge Reservoir, and utilized for recreational puiTJOses at that reservoir and stream maintenance of Red Clover Creek below Dixie Refuge Reservoir to Indian Valley. -63- On February 26, I960, tne department requested the California Water Commission to assign to it Applications Nos. 5629, 5630, lJii4ll3j lJii|)|)|, 17512, 1751U, 17515, and a portion of Application No. DilOiS- These applications are necessary for the conpletion of the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects as authorized by Chapter 1762, Statutes of 1959 (Burns-Porter Act). At the same time, the department proposed amendments for the consideration of the commission to bring the applications into line with present plans for the projects. On June 2 and July 1, I960, the ccanmission held hearings on the request of the department. As a restilt of comments received at these hearings, the applications were amended to include the Airpoint Reservoir in Santa Clara County. The ccanmission held a further hearing on September 16. A decision on the request is awaiting action of the commission (October 1, I960). The department has consistently followed the policy that the counties of origin should be allowed to use such water as may be necessary for their future development. The department has recommended that the assignment of these applications be made subject to the following general reservation for the coxinties of origin: "Subject to the prior rights of any county in which the water sou^t to be appropriated originates to use such water as may be necessary for the development of the county, as provided in Section 105C^ of the Water Code of California." -6U- other DovnBtream Water Rights In addition to ai)plications held by the State of California for diversion from the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta for the Feather River suid Delta Diversion Projects, there are many other rights to water originat- ing in the Feather River. These include rights to divert vater from the Feather River helow Oroville, from the Sacramento River below its confluence with the Feather River, and from the Delta- They consist of riparian rights, appropriative rig^hts initiated both before and after the Water CoBimission Act, and other rights. They also include five state applications. Applications Nos. 9363, 93614-, 9366, 9367, and 9368 were filed by the State on Axogust 2, 1938, and were assigned to the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the operation of the Federal Central Valley Project. These applj. cations propose the appropriation of water from the Sacramento River and in the Delta. Application No. 93614-, which includes a direct diversion of 9,000 second-feet from the Sacramento River and the Delta, was assigned to the United States on September 3, I938. The assignment contained a reservation of a specific quantity of water for coiinties of origin above Shasta Dam, but no reservation was included that wovild benefit the coimties of origin in the Feather River watershed. Applications Nos. 9363, 9366, 9367, and 9368 were assigned to the United States on March 26, 1952. The assignments were made subject to a general reservation for the counties of origin a^ follows: "Subject, however, in conformity with Section IO505 of the Water Code of the State of California, to any and all rights of any covin ty in which the water sought to be appix>priated originates to the extent that any such water may be necessary for the develop- ment of such coxmty" . -65- This reservation should fully protect the counties of the Upper Feather River Basin as to water originating within their boundaries from deprivation of such water by export under these fair applications. As mentioned previously, there are many downstream water rights not based on state applications. In the Delta, these include a number of appli- cations by public agencies for the export of large quantities of water. Since the County of Origin Law applies only to state applications, the counties of origin are not protected by it in relation to other downstream applications, likewise, little protection is afforded to them by the Watershed Protection Act, since these applications are not, in most cases, for projects that are part of the Central Valley Project. Upper Basin Water Rights Table 6 lists all applications in the Upper Feather River Basin on file with the State Water Rights Board in excess of three second-feet of direct diversion and 200 acre-feet of storage. The table includes both approved and pending applications and also applications filed by the State of California above the Oroville dam site, which were described in detail earlier in this chapter. The applications of Richvale Irrigation District and R. P. Wilson are discussed in the following paragraphs. Richvale Irrigation District Application No. I368I was filed by Richvale Irrigation District 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 C3J.o and Nelson Point Reservoirs, respectively, and then diverted through downstream power plants. -66« ^^ aJ 3 CO 4h O +> O o Vl I o a) 8 U o a o o o +> 0) I o o a> oa on o a oa V o d ea a o •H 3 +> CO I +> (V U V a Cm 2 I fl +> O 0) u a> O 4-1 B u ■p o o s o ■P H a! -H I d Pi-p cm I as d (30 O u M o o o 0) I ed d bO o t 0) I 05 d to O ■H tH M 0) V m d 0) o s o 1 0) d tiO o ^^ »4 •H -H 0) V H +" > > £ <2 o I I ^ (U bO O •H "H »H +> Vl o ID dl I (d d bO O 00 u Vl _i^ h 1*^ U 2 (U j3 V {3 0) d ^— ^ ja ^ XI /jj ja -p U »H •p -p -p (d ■P 4) O si ea 03 CO d r® a >• d V M Q) ^ (U P^ V ^ O (^ (i. ■s •g H •H ^ fi ^ S -g •s Sm s ^ V s R M g (h g^. 2 2 ^ <1> pq ■P M I o 0) 0) (1) o o ja > oJ ^gj > ^ > xi > ^S +3 to 4J oa ■{^ •H t^ •H tS •p oa ■p 5 S 3 l§ a § 3 3 • 1 4 o o o 4 1 OS ri ^ •H •H •H t t-t ■H ^ (U fc ^^ Fh Vl Vt (h g -p +» +J Vl Vl M M o t) o M H d 0) U (U V TJ o (U r^ H d V 0) +> s ■H +> w W -P +> +> -P ■P -P 4i Q -P 0) ^ ■P 1 •d -cf o ■p O -P -B o d to y s s •vi t) tj o C 1-1 ■3 t 9 i: aJ t; >.+> ■p U P^ +J o oa ca pL +> » as 1 -H M ■p o 1 oa •H 5 j^ 5 ^ ^S* > 1 oa •H IS OB 1 -H 4) Q 1:1 d S •H -P 4) d o •H 1 o •H 1 u a •H Pi 4) H H P d « Q ^ d ■^5 H oa •H •^ o •H u V a 8 CVJ u o d o •H CO > p oa a o o p V (U O 9) O 0) CO f4 p o 0) o o to p d o 0} o P H • d P

4 3 I u I OS a bO o »4 o 8 o ^1 d-xJ «o 52 S O a VO vo 8 irv en u o O ^^ ^ ■^ 3 fc •3 u u p o ,Q ^ u vt 0) 5 o > a >J » 03 V ^ TJ 1^ 9> > 2 •g ■H 0) (D (U 2 E^ f^^S. -p O •H o o ^ K H O -H -ss j; >j 3 •H a K >4 d fH :x Pi X^ CO -p oS M w •s t t^i53 a> CQ ^ ^ o OS o S s a S H o o o U P 1 u a> TJ t •^ •a H o H g •p p +> P w o o o o o O d (U (U > as s ^ M p o 5 s, •d d 3 -H ^ ^ SSS 0) ■a ■p c H •H o s. o 3 •H P( a (Q •H o •H p. 5c d ^ (U rH to Vh tH a tH a 1 ca c o o MD O +J CO Cm O ■P 0) I u o a o o CM o d o •H m (U I a d o o +> V V 4h I o o CO "in O a V o 10 d o •H +J OS u I as +> CO I d >-i 0) I d +> d o H I d •H O 0) CO +> -p S d 1 a o d o d d •H 1 tH o •H •H o 0) i H -H rH •H rH -H o 6 P.-P P.-P »+> •H 0) 0) p< P< A ij PL. p4 < < < H ■5 s O •H Jh 1 •H ■P +i cd d +J to t^ oo Ih u hO o (0 u h 0) d :3 0) 4) ■H -H s s St § '^ d > •j h +^ > P H s fi f-l H s s £ o ^ 5 CO I I H O o 8 ca 0) C3 O 8 X! ~ o -P (I> t crt H d) -P ^ 09 u 10 ID K >s (0 t o >» H CO & o ITS en H c\j CO 8 o u o I CO H Q U H V rH I o •H o s I 8 o cu H 8 00 CO § I I 1 o I o H I J- VO CO H -69- -p c o o o 9 § rt ti o -p (0 o 0) 0) u «H -p 1 nJ 0) K n O 3 S +i o c o •H M > -P C o o ■p (U (U Vh I TJ C O o 0) (0 r^ «H O w m 0) o X 0) c •H CD C O •H -P (fl O n -p CO -P w <1> m o I 0) +5 C fn 0) H O OJ I C -P O Q) O Q) Q) tM m u o o o CO -p § o ;d eu CO o a) 5 0) rt -rl 0.-P p. CO I CO o C H ^ a-p o s o •H -p CO o +> o C o •H ■P (0 o I CO c-H I r^ -P •H a> (4 (4 (U (D > » o o Oh cu bO O •H -H U -P O o •Lf\ [>- q (NJ r- -^ 8 o o H iH CNJ r rass r) rvoir) h « 0) to CO H f4 QJ 0) a> reek t Cr •S rk F (Lit Res ek reek O J3 p 0) p t>> Q) o &o Pn b ^ U^ U o > no o ^ •^ -p (0 +s .rt CO +5 W o to 3 Si I CO tuO CO •H ^ (D -P -P O O o -p o •H ■P m u 0) +3 CO o bO CO U H T3 -P g -P O -p -s o •H CO ^ :^ ■P CO 1 ^ +> o •H +» HI •H Q CO •p o o o \A I CO CJ I bO O "fl to OS bO •d o CM u G Tt O O 0U lA rH CD CO f*\ c»> 8 8 a 1 t rH H (^ Q) Vi ^""^ U '"^^ « © C m © C CO ^ <§ X! +3 8.^ 5 ^■H U h CO H O CO rH O Sax © © !> ,® :!& S > © EiK S U ^ •H O -P ^4 O -P "1^^ © ?1.S © © > :^^ •P © O 23 o o S o o to fcv^ T3 v_x{l^ T3 •— 'O. © i^ ^ tiD © rH CO O ■P o t -p m •H Q CM IS CM I o CM -70- a> •H -P c o o o g 0) u o -p CO o -p Q) 0) «H i a> o nj O O CVJ u o c o •H (0 u > -P CO C o o -p (D 0) -H o o 0) CO o CO CO 0) e c •H CO c o •H +5 03 o ?1 CO CO -P CO 0) (0 o CO •H I XA CM I On ■LA •Lr\ ■LTN g •rl M 43 O "re -p O Q ii^ I CM O O r^ fA H 0) M -P c^:? 4.^ f^ H re o re ij'-^ 0) >-— . 0) 0) >,^ Q) 0) fc >^ fn aj ^ N r-r O O 1-^ rH >5-H tH 13 « r-f O O M ■g-S N « > •H N fn fn "O N N {» « o ^1 1^ u tH -H Q) CU H U -ri 0> 0) r-i o (U CD ^H CO .H Q C5 fH CO ^ O O -p -p • o o o •p •H O \A I I Yi 55 1 1 re re o C o a ■;^ O •H O H H -H CX-P a+» d Q* «3! «< H H (d cfl P4 1 •> ft t •H re c -H re d o 0) O O "^ bO O ■d o -p 3 re •H -H a fn +J 3 Q) 9 ;4 S cd s M o o 8 •k •> H 5 0) 0) O J«! (U C CD re ^< s o 0) ^ (D 0) 0) H o re N •H N CJ Jh •H m o > u CO tH O CO -p 0) ns C O H 0) U o e s ■p -P o Vi ^s o (^ ftCti Q) «H n tn O 0) >» ^1^ -P flj :2 •H O ^ ■LA vO UN \A 1 1 (3n O iH CNI 1 1 CO cr\ fA O lA I o CSJ CN .1, i> c!. a G a ;^^ 7^.?i ■A.^ a-p a-p a-p a (X a, «aJ < < 1 _ 1 i 1 c to c CO C g 0) a> a c E 0) W) tt> •^ a -p (U t3 rt -p r^ § 0) -p s U -ri -p C to (DSC t< -3 -P H to M Cc! CO «H S CO ch e o «H tH CO n "bment ource t^ 1^ ■p U m u to cd 0} CO V a« a« a> (D Q ^1 Q U j 1;! CO 0) 0} 0) « v X! « ^ bO 0) 03 U fn XI "cS (ulT -P S •H'^ U U 1 Cre elop rvoi 10 0«.H 3 fn pa -rl 0) > >> > •S G- '■^V x: -H ^< 0) ^ C -P to v^ oc! to ^ UN I O CM UN -72- a ^ a> o ■p CO o -p 0) 0) Vh I 0) u o o o CM u o c o •H n > •H t3 -P CO C o o ■p tl-t I Tl C O O a> m r^ o CO CO 0) o B •H to c o •H -p ctS o a a < 0) -p o ID ni (0 o p. I 0) +3 a fh 0) MOO) rt tH I -o C +3 COO) MOO) 0) Ch CO u 0) ■p CO » tH o o o CO -p ;:] a CO Ch O X) 0) 0) -P H CO -H Q tH I B a-p « ■P 5 1 (U (U 1 CO H H CO o B a, Q- O B ;i o o ;:1.S 0.-P o O a-p a B B a < M M B •> o ^ 1 S 1 13 O -H •H +) ■e: H 1 CO CO B -P CO c 4J lo 1 0) CO B u W) o 10 ^4 0) o 10 bO Jrf -P t3 0) O £ •H •H O 0) Sh •H 0) -H o g§ fn -H 1 fc ■P g g o 0) ■P it o 4^ 8^ (X. M " Ou, « Q M CO « 8 g g 8 Q o o o o o *t •» •N •t •k r^ o CM r^ 8 o CO 8 S !3 ^ +J o i-s >5 •H Q) 5 'o ^ ^ -P o 5^ V CO -3 Q) -ss (4 g:^ O ^ > . s fn CO m -p -P CO 0) r-i B • ao; •H ^ •d PLI (U :s Q R h +> -P V • to u -P P-. CO ■H 0) -P CO JQ Q x> CO ^ • CO c§ 35 c^ UN VA 1 OS a\ 1 r^ lA \r> OD H i vi CM ^ 1 r-l 1 1 vO rH r^ r- C^ C^ ~; 00 rH vO J u^ CO r^ CO CO 00. -73- Application No. 13682 was filed by Richvale Irrigation District on April 10, 1950, and seeks to appropriate 300 second-feet from the Middle Foric of the Feather River for power purposes. Under this application, water would be stored behind Clio Dam and diverted through downstream power plants. Applications Nos. 1U919 and 1U920 were filed by Richvale Irrigation District on July 21, 1952, and seek to appropriate a maximum of 1,300 second- feet direct diversion at Sutter Butte Dam and a total of 381,000 acre-feet per annum by storage frcm the Middle Fork of the Feather River for irrigation and power purposes, respectively. The storage will be in various resejrvoirs throughout the system. Applications Nos. 15551 and 15552, filed by Richvale Irrigation District on September 25, 1953, are for irrigation and power purposes, respec- tively. Each application seeks to appropriate U0,000 acre-feet per annum from Big Grizzly Creek for storage in Grizzly Valley Reservoir and 16,000 acre-feet per annum from Frazier Creek for storage in Gold Lake. The general plan under these two applications is to release the stored water into the natural channels of Grizzly Creek and Frazier Creek for storage in Clio and Nelson Point Reservoirs. From these reservoirs, the water would be diverted through the chain of power plants contemplated under the project, thence down the Feather River to Sutter Butte diversion dam, where the water woxild be diverted for irrigation purposes within the district. All of the applications of the Richvale Irrigation District have been cranpleted and advertised. Numerous protests have been filed, and the first day of hearing was conducted by the State Water Rights Board on September 22, 1959. This hearing was then continued for an indefinite period to allow time for the completion of studies and investigations then being -7U- conducted by several of the interested parties. Recently, the Richvale Irri- gation District has petitioned the State Water Rights Board for permission to change the place of use under its applications. The proposed place of use would embrace land within the Richvale IrirLgation District, the Biggs-West Gridley Water District, the Butte Water District, and the Sutter Extension Water District, The Richvale Irrigation District has petitioned the California Water Commission for a release from priority of Applications Nos. 5629, 5630, 1)|Ji/i3, 1J|J|)|J|, and lliltii5 in favor of its applications. On June 3, July 7, and September 15 the commission held hearings on the petition. Considerable testimony was received from the Richvale Irrigation District and Plumas County. A decision on the petition is awaiting the action of the commission (October 1, I960). Details of the project of the Richvale Irrigation District are included in Chapter VI, A comparison of the applications filed by the State and the Richvale Irrigation District shows that both are proposing appropriations at Grizzly Valley Reservoir. Under Application No, 16950, filed by the State, the water would be used primarily for irrigation within Sierra Valley, Under Applications Nos. 15551 and 15552, the Richvale Irrigation District seeks to appropriate water impounded in Grizzly Valley Reservoir for the generation of hydroelectric energy at various power plants along the Middle Fork of the Feather River and for irrigation of land within the four districts comprising the proposed place of use. R. P. Wilson Mr. R. P. Wilson has four applications pending before the State Water Rights Board covering projects on tributaries of the North Fork of the Feather River, At one time, Mr. Wilson had other applications for a comprehensive -75- development on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, which was similar to that proposed by the Richvale Irrigation District. However, these applications were not completed and were cancelled. The active applications are Nos. 1369U and l^lUh, which are currently in the name of the National Youth Foundation of which Mr. Wilson is President, and Applications Nos^. 17687 and 18567, which are in Mr. Wilson's name. Numerous protests have been received against Applications Nos. I369I1, 137Ui| and 17687. The protests were heard before the State Water Rights Board on February 10, I96O, and are currently under con- sideration by that body. Application No. 18^67 is incomplete. Approved Applications Water rights permits or licenses have been issued to the Pacific Gas and Electric Ccmpany, Paradise Irrigation District, Table Motintain and Thermalito Irrigation Districts, Graeagle Lumber Company (now Placerville Lumber Company), Anna W. Shotte and Marion T. Higgins, and jointly to the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District and the Yuba County Water District. The power development of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company on the North Fork of the Feather River is Hearing completion, and Mosquito Junction Dam of the Paradise Irrigation District has been built. Further work is required by the district to put the full amount of water to beneficial use. The project planned on the South Fork of the Feather River by the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District and the Yuba County Water District is described in Chapter VI. On December 12, 1958, the State executed a release from priority of State Applications Nos. 5629 through 5632, in favor of Appli- cations Nos. 13676, 13956, 13957, mil2, and UW.13, held jointly by these districts. The release included a reservation for reasonable domestic use for that portion of the watershed of the South Fork of the Feather River located in Plumas County. -76- The South Fork Project, to be constructed by the Oroville-Vfyandotte Irrigation District under the applications held jointly by that district and the Yuba County Water District, will also divert water from Slate Creek (trib- utary to the Yuba River) into the South Fork Project system. When constructed, the South Fork Project will operate principally for generation of power until the bond issue sold to construct the project has been repaid, after which it is planned to operate it mainly for the irrigation of land in both districts. Many of the applications held exclusively by the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, shown in Table 6, duplicate quantities of water named in the joint applications. Adjudications Water rights have been determined on a comprehensive basis by adjudi- cation proceedings on the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the Feather River in Sierra Valley and on the headwaters of the North Fork in Indian Valley and are set forth in judgments and decrees of the Superior Court of Plumas County, No. 3095, dated January 19, 19U0, and No. hlSS, dated December 19, 1950, respectively. Land irrigated under ri^ts established by the Sierra Valley decree totals about 39,000 acres and by the Indian Valley decree, about 1U,000 acres. Both of these areas have been formed into watermaster service areas, and water is distributed in accordance with the provisions of the decrees during each irrigation season by a state watermaster. Federal Power Commission Preliminary Permits The Richvale Irrigation District, the Pacific Gas and Electric Conpany, and R. P. Wilson all applied for Federal Power Commission preliminary -77- power permits in 1953 for their respective power development proposals. The Richvale Irrigation District application is designated as Project No. 213U. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company application, designated as Project No. 2136, was similar to the proposal of the Richvale Irrigation District, R. P. Wilson filed three applications for preliminary power permits — Projects Nos. 2121;, 2125, and 2126. On February 11, 1957, the Federal Power Commission issued an order granting a preliminary permit to the Richvale Irrigation District for the purpose of maintaining the priority of its application for a license for Project No. 213U. This order also denied permits on Project No, 212U of R. P. Wilson, and on Project No. 2136 of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. These three projects propose development on the same reach of stream, and it would not be possible to construct more than one project. The permit was issued to the Richvale Irrigation District p\irsuant to Section 7(a) of the Federal Power Commission Act ^1 Stat. 1063, 1067 (1920), as amended, 16 U.S.C. sec. 800 (a) (1958 ed.J7, which req\iires the ccmmission to give preference to appli- cations by states or districts over others, provided the plans of the state or district are equally well adapted to conserve in the public interest the water resources of the region. The district has now filed an application with the commission for a license for Project No, 213U, and petitions to intervene by the State, on behalf of the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Fish and Game, and by Plumas County have been granted. On June 17, 1957, the commission issued an order granting preliminary permits to R. P. Wilson (National Youth Foundation) for Projects Nos. 2125 and -78- 2126 for power development of the North Fork of the Feather River and tribu- taries, which developments are not in conflict with the Richvale Irrigation District project on the Middle Fork of the Feather River. The Federal Power Commission on August 10, I960, issued a notice of application for license on Project Nos. 2125 and 2126 by the above applicant. These applications are pending before the commission (October 1, I960) , A license must be obtained before construction can begin. -79- CHAPTER 17. WATER SUPPLY The sources of water supply to lands of the Upper Feather River Basin are direct precipitation on the overlying lands, and surface and sub- surface flows. Melting snow produces the major portion of the seasonal runoff which occurs in the late spring and early sumner Months. By late sugmer, the streams of the basin have reached their seasonal minimuB and are sustained only by springs and areas of seepage. The resulting seasonal runoff pattern is one of concentrated spring floods and low summer flows. In addition to these intraseasonal cyclic fluctuations, runoff varies from season to season depending upon the amount of seasonal precipitation. Although some water is imported and exported across the basin boundaries, the amount is negligible in relation to the total water supply. Direct diversion of unregulated sti*eam flows is the chief source of water for irrigation and domestic purposes. Ground water exists in the allvtvlal basins, and in many places water supplies are obtained from individual wells for domestic, stockwatering, and irriga- tion pxirposes. In this chapter, the water supply of the Upper Feather River Basin is considered and evaluated under the general headings, "Precipitation", "Surface Water", "Ground Water", and "Water Quality", Precipitation The Upper Feather River Basin lies within the area traversed by the southern portion of storms which sweep inland fran the north Pacific Ocean during winter and spring months. The precipitation from these storms is moderately heavy and, except for the eastern portion of the basin, generally increases with land elevation. Pronounced and abrupt changes in altitude and -81- topography have marked effects on the ainoimt of precipitation and on its occur- irence as rain or snow in the basin. Precipitation Stations and Records There are 35 known precipitation stations in or adjacent to the Upper Feather River Basin with continuous records of 12 years duration or longer. However, these stations are not well distributed areally in that there are no stations located in considerable portions of the upper drainage basins of the North and Middle Forks of the Feather River. About 53 percent of the basin is above an elevation of 5,000 feet and only five precipitation stations are at or above this elevation, the highest being at 5,200 feet. There are 2k snow courses located in or adjacent to the Upper Feather River Basin which are measured and maintained as a part of the California Cooperative Snow Surveys program. All except one of these courses are located at or above an elevation of 5,000 feet, eight are above 6,000 feet, and one is above 8,000 feet. Since the highest precipitation gage is located at an eleva- tion of 5,200 feet, measurements at these snow courses are the only jrecords of precipitation available for approximately one-half of the area. Records of precipitation utilized in this investigation have been published in bulletins of the United States Weather Bureau and the Department of Water Resources, Locations of the precipitation stations and snow courses are shown on Plate 3, "Lines of Equal Mean Seasonal Precipitation, 1905-06 through 195U-55". Map reference numbers for precipitation stations shown on this plate designate the major drainage basin in which the stations are located and the United States Weatter Bureau identification number. Also, the reference numbers for snow survey courses are those assigned by the Department of Water Resources, -82- The known precipitation stations with continuous records of 12 years duration or ■oi'e are listed in Table 7, together with their elevations, periods and sources of record, and values of nean, maximum, and minimum seasonal precip- itation. In those instances wheire it was necessary, precipitation records were extended to cover the 50-year mean period by direct correlation with records of nearby stations covering the longer period. Snow survey courses are listed in Table 8, together with elevations, periods of records and values of average, maximxai and mlnimtaa depth of water content of the snow on April 1. In plotting the lines of equal mean seasonal precipitation, or isohyets, as shown on Plate 3, the estimated 50-year mean seasonal depths of precipitation at stations with 12 years or more of record in or adjacent to the area, were plotted on a map at a scale of 1:2$0,000. The isohyets were then drawn taking into consideration these precipitation data, as well as local variations in topography, data obtained from snow sxrrvey courses, short-period precipitation records and isohyetal maps prepared by other agencies. In utilizing the data presented on Plate 3 for hydrologic studies, the isohyets were taken only as an indication of the general precipitation trend. The relatively small number of precipitation stations, particularly throughout iqjper portions of the basin, limits the usefulness of the isohyets. -83- a 3 ^ c o u o m u o n o 2 n o 3 o o Si 43 § 1 •H B J3 1 a •H '3 • • •• u c 2 " a 1 C fH o •Q n CD x: CO 0) +> X CO a « ^ rH UN « s c^ii O rt H S 1 c * "^ w to S c H Ti t« •• •• •• ^1 8^*2 ^'Sg O ffi CO ^ fc •S "S •H Vi O t. O O 0) a> PL, u C o •rl ■P 4* eg c 0) > -H 0) 0) «H rH .. *?. " a) ** ^ T) T3 P 3 43 (Q bb ..^.1 h. +3 c 3 c •H +3 rt +J CO 4> c u 2^ tlH P 0) c aj 1 1^ 00 -=t I I rr\ CM H H CM CM 00 H CO O CM O c^ o o. O H -d CM. +3 CM I XA < Oco CM r- ?^iK s. CM cr\M\ ^CV. r>^ <^CM 00 fn O CM H H C^^^^ 0\ CM -^ CM I I O r^ -;J CM 0\ 0\ U\vO CM cr\ t— 00 ^ OS H rH 0\ vO o o t^ CM O rr\ -3^ CM H H CTs CJ\ 00 CM OXTi I I O VTv rH CNJ xno\ -^co O u> 0\0s r^ CM vO CMl Q tr\ I I O Vf\ CJ\ OS •LA CM CM \A 0\ rHUN I I -400 H XA CJ\ Ov O CM lA C~- CM H_d -^ CM I I O CM -:* CM CJ\ Os CM • 00 r- CM 00 -^ f»^ CM I I P- r^ en CM a\ OS gCM c\ I I CJs OS ^ 00 VA OS rH lA I I -if 00 ^ XA cys o\ so CM 00 CM cr\ I I H p- CM rr\ Os OS O CM OS Os PQ i CMl 3 <>- 97 43 c 0) o iH Os -^ CM O O Os H fA CM 43 n at (X. (AOO -d CM O O Os H fA CM rH 4S 5 H O -:JCM O O CN rH fACM a> 43 43 & Oh CM sO CM r-i OO I XA 43 c XA O 2 o • CO a; g PQ O fA I XA XACM QO -W m 4> fH pH U " ^ " ^ 3 3 -P TJ -P •H C iH rr H >» ■P § O O •• •• •• ** a o •H ■P « +5 CO • • •• M •• e o C h » © SI ^ ^ 1 Os fTN sO r^ CSJ O CO <>> sO CM CM CM 351 CM CM CNOO ^ Os 3l^ S^ O Os O CM 13 H ^ OO Os CM O CM VA H CM CM \A iH I I rH rH U\ rH Os CN CN • CM CN Os O UN I I CO CO O UN Os Os o CM CM O r-\ CJS rr\ I I Os O OO r-^ OO Os HsO O 1A CN Os CM CO_^ r^ CM I I r^ CM " Os CM \A OS OO UN I I -:too CO XA CO Os H H s CM PQ i rH Os -;JUN I I O CO ^UN Os 0\ UN sO CM ^i GO sO 5 •H H OO CM cr\ -d^ CM I I o tn -d^ CM Os CTv H i-t a OS Os 8 OO CM ^ Os CM m I H CN CM UN O OO CM u^ Os OS H r-i O UN Os'R I I CTs Os CO -:d CO Os H H OO CM CO UN r^UN I I r>-\UN Os OS rH H so UN UNIA I t UN_^ UN UN Os Os r-i rH O CM Os OO \6 o\ opus XAOO OO lA CO Os UN Os ^ Os CM XA I I r^oo CM UN Os OS sO sO CM rH CO ^^ Os Os CO sO-::^ UN CM I I UN rr\ lA CM Os Os O B r-i Os iH lA I I O OO r-H UN Os CTs H t-i O (^ UN r-i^ 0-:t CM_=f CM r- SO Os U\ Os CM sO S' rH ¥?? C^Cf\ r^N r^ (*N <*N r^N rH CM CM CM rrv O O ^ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OS rH OsH 0\H OsH Os H o o o o o g O H (TNCM roCM rr\ CM fncM rr\ CM -dCM ^CM -3 ^?1 r^ H H H H H r-i H c c c « 5 $ $ 5 a> ■p 0) 00 s 00 i +3 -P ■P +> to 00 m 3 s ,S • CO • 04 - CM ?^ H O ■3 <*N CM 8 UN UN UN H lA t- UN ^ r- sO sO sO «*> SO OO CM UN rH 1 3 i ^ i^ 1 1 1 i 1 UN -85- s -p c o o & u o n> n CM rH O n o u a 3 O g •ri O O ■P c o ■H -P CO +^ H a o 4) ft o aT T3 n 0) o c c o n <« 0) CO UN ID UN © OS - C rH a) I « UN Os rH J2 O c •rl o , u 3 o o O 0) CO ^^ o , ^< •H • -H .a) rH w •• «• •« +> TS -P c o •s 5 ■p o o c o •H -p « •p CO 0) o u x> c ^ OsCM UNVfN sO H r^N CM rr\ CM Os Os t*M SO I OO o\ I I t^UN O UN UN UN O 1-n H O O O O rH r-"^ -SUN CO u> -Sun CM cr\ O sO -SsO oo C^N UN-S r-i O S^ ^^ t^ CM vO CM CM ^ UNH sO_S UN CM 1 1 lA rr\ UN CM C^^ Os rH r-i 1937-38 1923-2U r- CM O H oo^ rr\ CM 1 I 1906- 1911- 1937- 1923- rr\ oo ^ ^ Os cr» UN OO r-i O rr^ r-{ OO CN I I C^OO (r\ rr\ C?\ c^ CM rr> sO OO CO O CM CM <-{ U\ rr\ rH O XA rrv CN c^ Ov CM o oo OS CTs I I CN r^ OO Os CO OO CM OO so CM ^Os CM UN I I rr^OO CM UN CK Os rH rH er\ CJs CMITN I I CM OO CM UN Os Ov 8 rr\ IfN CA CJs UN I I -Soo OS UN OO Os O r-i CM CM U\ I I O rH CM \rv CJs Os rH rH O a, O CJs rrvu\ I I CJsOO CM UN CJs Crs O SO rH Os mUN I I O OO CJs Os cr\ rr\ CM UN CM C5 OO UN r- O I I t-- o CO CJs O UN p: ?J°H -S3 CM UNCJs O O O O O r-i OO nO O 1-A °0°rH Oh sO O O 1A O O O H _S ' ^ o o OS rH rr> CM (0 eg n (0 r^ sOsO Os t- O UN UN r^i rH r^ I I rr\ O r-i rrj CJs CJs -^ rr\ rr\ CM r-f \A I I CM rH iH UN CJs CJs rH r-i O OO -S O O OS r^ cr\ CM \AO O O OsH 0-\ CM OO sO UN UN O O CJs O r<-\ CM cd CL, U U 0) p M ► fc § ^ 4> (D 5 •rl OS • Q rH ■P P ^ C tM C fe 3 O t . § • O ■p 1-3 O c ^ C CO n CD K 0} g >, CO •H 0) • Jd • J»i o -P o s M iii »)« u 0> o cu o 1 o < O CD > OQ H Ix. t>- OO sO UN en H CJS 99 CJs j:^ CM CM Os U\ so OO Os _:j UN sO CM ^ rH sO Os H o rH c^ CJs H CM CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 UN UN UN UN UN UN UN UN UN < c o u o «i. o m o 0) n 3 o p c •H O O x: •H c ° i m rt -H Z 4J C u •H -d c a e M •rH O X) Q) C • • •• ^ 01 p. c Cm P o O g m to -c; 8 xi u u poo O -H (1) ^H H W V 0) TD "O P P -P 13 -P ■H C -rH ■P a) bO ^ § H >. -P C P o o c o •H ■p ca -p CO 0} u C p. 0) Q> Jh ^ .2 1 0) c Q i 1 CJ "l-f\ lA CO O r^ iH -U CTSOD O t^ CMCM OXA rHrH r'~\1A 0OC-- OOCM C^ CO O rH I I rH ^ CN C7\ rH rH UN O UN CN vO CVJ rH CO I I O (^ i-f CO OS C3\ r-{ H vO O CO .Ji U\ C\J I I r-i rr\ lA CM Os 0\ H r-i sO C?N OS UN I I UNCO CJsUN OO OS tn U\UN OS O r^CNJ U\ CTs UN m OS CO I I ^ C\J CTs r^ OO CJs rH H 1 rH CO t5 vnsO H UN I I UN UN r-i UN CTs OS H H Os r- rHUN UN UN I I O-^ lAUN Os Os H H sO o g CO CTs -^UN I I r-i CO -^UN tjs CTS rH OO -^UN O O C3S O f^ CO rH OO OO -=f CO o o cys o m CO (0 to OS r-i o o OS O C^ CO rH ou CO • OS 0) ^ t u o c PLi 5 r^ -:3- I lA < a rH O +» U O UN OO O t>- I o UN Os I UN < CO CM sO_^ UN CM I I UN cr\ UNCO Os C^ CO m CO Os c^^ 0\A I I OO OO O UN CJs <3s r^NOO 1h CO I I r-i CM CTs Os CM CM CJ Os UN CO UN UN O r~ C^N -J Os ^ CTs t30 Os OO CM O O Os O (▼N CM u u a> CO 3 V CO S CM sO O CTs rH UN I t OscO O XA CTs (7s H H UN CTs VACM c-\CM O O CTs O rr\ CO rH •H CO ^ P-XA UN p- -3 ON OO CM OO OS rr\ r<-\ I I P- OO CTs Os UN Os CO OO H CO tc I UN < O Os r-i UN I I CJSOO O UN Os Os iH H O lA OO rH sO CM ro O O O rH Eh ^ H to • t« U CO ^ tl • % 0) oi c CTs sO UN 5 -P c p O » t. rH c «o (D -H •^ f O fn U CO CO a, coital 4) i8 ■p (0 O o o u •rl -P o p -p to w 3^ m CO ^ '^ CO 13 v -p •H c c o •H -P CO +5 CO t i u 0) CO -d •as O CO o -p CO u o I I I I l>l -87- OO a m E-< -P tH o, o Q 0) r-i -P C r-l O H U ^ f^ < I c o 01 CO 0) CO On W MOs £ CO r-( O h I C g) O -H <; On C H -H -8 ^ •H tH O (4 O U a, u c o •H ^ -p 3 -g +> cd w) C O •H -P ■P O o m o o CM-3^ -U CM H rH rH O H r- S:5 OO On 0\ On rH H OJ CO UN 00 -:t On On CNJ On U\VA On On H rH ^- CM On VfNH ?R3 00 Htf\ On On rH HUN CM _:* OnQO \A On lAI \r\vo tn ^. Ov CM r^ CM f- CM r- u\_3 XAIA ^-^ c^. o\ C>\ On 0\ CTn rH H rH r-\ H rH s • On CM • -a CM ♦ • H On • H • On • 00 CM * • CM ^ ^ 1931 1959 On On 0\ rH rH rr\u\ 35^ vO On CM lA 0\ C^ H rH vO On CM \rv On On rrvU\ CM On u^u^ 0\ On H rH 8 •> 00 8 8 NO 8 CD NO 1 so 8 CM NO C^J vO nO o o\ -=tu\ C^N On H H O s lA _;j_d^ vo 00 o ^A mcM o lA VTN o r-oo uncm -a^oo OO o CM cr\ o o OH ca ■p (0 cd Xi CO o o O <-i c a> CO m 5 r- On O O CJn O CO U 0) •H CO -^-^ O O 0\ O ro CVJ H rH r-t UN NO UN CM CMlA CM rH -=t-:* H On -=t CM -d^CM rr\ CM r-t r-i i-i c n m 5 i n CD UN CM H O o o O rH c DQ H Uv Uv H O O . On H cnCNJ n fc 1 u n 5 1 03 a (d ^ u m m k 1 Oh Id fj Cd U (4 -P ^ J«! -p 0) C 1 0) •o 0) c ■p P 1 1 1 ^ H 3 p NO 03 _:t On a rH CM C?\ «n -^ t— C^ U\ U\ On -^ r^ CM CM -88- o u CO Eh «5 E o Eh CO 2 CO ^H C -H o ^ >4 I'M o x: ch ■p o a a o ^5 c o to ta CO CJs W \A 0) I c O -H o\ c ^ O O 0) o c o > _ -P H ® 'X3 3 T3 -P ■P C -H s c o o « n o o U h O 0) «H ^ (0 c o CVJ CM ^S vO O sO f^ t-^O OH CM O -a^ O H O r^ O r-O (vjo j::^ Os O O-^ Os O -^ O CN CD -^ H vO t^ lf\ r^ n-\ CM •.OS •. -:JU\ -^\t\ vr\ •» ^ •«[>- sO 0» CVJ H CV) r>^\A CVJ r~ CM C^ CM t^ CM H CM H CM o CM -^ •> VA fY-^ \AVf\ •« UN^ \AU\ u\_:t U\rA Uvn-v u\J!5 ■lJ^ •.r^ CN 0\ a\ o\\A Ov OS Os Os Os Os Os C^s Os OS C>s Os CTS-it^A <-< rH H r-tU\ H H H rH H H r-i H H H H H rH r^ •> •4A iHirv SO * Osri^ HXA SO s H ^ oo OO H -;t o to •H O ^ ^ rH •H fc Oi (0 u c CO 3 s: :s a: o UN H sO C^ t«- UN CJs CM lA CM U\ OO lA Os U\ o so sO -89- c o o CO eg 3 m M § o V -P o -P c o to (d a> to OS m OS x: rt H o (h I B 0) O tH -a; Os C •H Vh O Jh O O o -p ^ -p (0 C > -H ,0) a> -P "O •H c -p c3 c •El. a I o o o o OsOO • • r^ Q CSJ rH OS Os r-i H f^sO • • \t\rH Csl r-l UN rr\ Os Os -St O sO O Os Os O O CO p- Os Os sO O • • sO r^ oo cvj-rj Os Os P- C>- Os csj H Os Os sO vO sO \A \A sO VfNoo Os_:J oo OJ Ov-::J 1A OO 8 9^° o o CO CO o r- o o Os o r^ cvj H Oh pL, Os Os CSJ O oo Q CM O vO H \A i-i O O O O o o O r~i O H OsH ^f^ ■^3 c^^ c 0) S OQ n CO 09 u ^ .3 PL. CO O CVJ t— UN_^ Os Os • CO rH • o • CVJ oo • oo CVJ • Os O Os UNVfN I-i Os fnUN S5^ 55^ O Ov O Os oo 8 8 8 oo § 8 \r» tn I OO rr\ r-so U\ r-i ro r^N O O O O Os iH Os o rfNCSJ r^CVJ 00 cfl U g u 3 0) H •H O. to ,-y. ■p M ra 9> g.5 +» 3 ■P 9 TJ « n Tl s 0) g"^ e! 0) ■a 2 4^ O X ■sg; rH 2 O 73 x: « rH rH o B *ri § o x: •H e to % H 0) ■p m rH O ^ ^-^ o H •H ^ e3 « 01 o z X E-" to 5 (0 '' •H O vr\ UN sO ^ rf\ C\J t OO r- -:* -^ \A oo cd CVJ PL. -90- Precipitation Characteristics Precipitation on the Upper Feather River Basin varies between wide limits from season to season and generally increases abruptly with increase in elevation. Due to the orographic effect of the Sierra Nevada, however, the eastern half of the upper basin, although higher in elevation, receives less precipitation than the western half. Winter storms deposit relatively light precipitation in crossing the floor of the Sacramento Valley but drop moisture at increasing rates as these storms are lifted by the Sierra Nevada, A maximum rate of precipitation is reached along the intermittently defined first crest of the Sierra. Precipitation then decreases rapidly until the effects of local barriers such as Grizzly Mountain, Dixie Mountain and Kettle Peak reverse the trend slightly. There is a sharp contrast in the amount of precipitation be- tween the relatively dry easterly watersheds of Sierra and Red Clover Valleys and those of the highly water-productive downstream tributary areas. Mean seasonal depth of precipitation reaches a maximum along the ridge southwest of Bucks Lake, being in excess of 80 inches. Minimum mean seasonal depth of precipitation is less than 10 inches and occurs in Sierra Valley. The maximum recorded seasonal depth of precipitation in the Upper Feather River Basin occTirred at La Porte in the season of 1910-11 and was 165.05 inches. The minimum recorded seasonal precipitation occurred at Portola in the season of 1923-2[i and was 6.17 inches. The maximum water con- tent of any snow pack recorded in California occiirred within the Upper Feather River Basin at the Upper Lassen Peak snow coiirse on April 1, 1938, when a water content of l60.2 inches was measured. The average monthly distribution of precipitation at the United States Weather Bureau stations at Bucks Lake and Quincy is shown in Table 9, Over 75 percent of the seasonal precipitation at each of these stations occurs during the 5Hnonth period from November 1 to March 31, The variation in precipitation -91- TABIE 9 MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE SEASONAL PRECIPITATION AT BUCKS LAKE AND QUINCY 1930-31 THROUGH 1955-56 Bucks Lake Qui) icy Month : In inches : In percent of : In inches : In percent of : of depth : seasonal total : of depth : seasonal total July .12 .17 .10 .25 August .12 .17 .11 .27 September .51 .73 .ko 1.00 October 3.95 5.69 2.1i3 6.09 November 7.25 10. U5 h.U9 11.25 December 13.27 19.12 7.30 18.29 January- 13 .U5 19.39 7.18 17.99 February 11.15 16.07 6.70 16.78 March 9.60 13.83 5.20 13.03 April 5.39 7.77 3.29 8.2ii May 3.30 i;.76 1.9it li.86 June 1.28 1.85 .78 1.95 TOTALS 69.39 100.00 39.92 100.00 -92- from season to season is shovm in Table 10, which lists the historical seasonal precipitation at De Sabla, Quincy and Portola. Data for the foregoing stations are considered representative of precipitation characteristics in the Upper Feather River Basin. Sttrface Water Runoff from rainfall and snowmelt constitutes by far the most important source of water supply available for development in the Upper Feather River Basin. Runoff from the basin is also extensively used for irrigation purposes in the Sacramento Valley, A substantial portion of this runoff, how- ever, is unregulated and undeveloped and is a potential source of water to meet future requirements in the basin as well as in water-deficient areas in other parts of California, Stream Gaging Stations and Records Available records of runoff of the principal streams of the Upper Feather River Basin were sufficient in number, length and reliability to form the basis of estimates of runoff required for hydrologic studies for the investigation. Ten stream gaging stations were established by the (then) Division of Water Resources in 1951i for the purpose of suppljdng additional hydrographic data. Other measurements were made by the department's Water- master Service but these were limited to those obtained during the irrigation season. In Table 11 there are presented those stream gaging stations per- tinent to the h3rclrography of the Upper Feather River Basin, together with their reference numbers, drainage areas, and periods and sources of records. Locations of the stream gaging stations are shown on Plate 3. The reference numbers for all stations listed in Table 11 are those assigned by the Department of Water Resources, The numbers designate the major -93- TABIE 10 RECORDED SEASONAL PRECIPITATION AT SEIECTED STATIONS IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN (In inches of depth) Season :De Sabla:Quincy: Portola : Season :De SablarQuincy: Portola 1911-1912 U3.95 20.25 1935-1936 65.87 38.26 15.28 13 59.75 26.01 37 50.86 29.66 17.19 lb 97.88 51.U5 38 91.31 65.58 29.U1 15 86.33 2U.21 39 33.99 21.U2 11. U3 UO 81.55 52.51 27.02 1915-1916 70.96 ii7.l8 19.86 17 62.19 3i;.93 11.38 19hO-19lil 99.06 53.76 26.ii8 18 39.37 22. OU 9.27 U2 88.18 53.59 28.00 19 57.72 36.06 13.72 k3 6U.ii6 hh.hl 25.2ii 20 36.97 28.83 10.79 kh U7.5U 26.77 17.68 1+5 60. U2 39.21 22.22 1920-1921 81.33 1^9.53 16.33 22 50.93 iil.38 21.11 19ii5-19ii6 59.97 36.18 2I.I1O 23 ii7.30 33.15 18.10 hi U8.96 31.52* 17.13 2li 26M 20.U1 6.17 hb 68.20 iil.27 16.33 25 55.81 35.98 13.82 U9 i;3. 35 25.61 17.50 50 52 .U2 ii2.93 20.U2 1925-1926 51.90 U.09 15.37 27 70.76 51.02 22. hh 1950-1951 7U.87 53.15 26.55 28 59.25 38.67 13.00 52 83.51 60.21 36.10 29 36.96 20.75 9.82 53 68.17 U2.1;5 19.70 30 57.59 38.12 m.5o 5U 66.53 U;.20 16.79 55 hi. 01 26.90 13.71 1930-1931 30.55 26.88 8.71 32 50.69 31.01 17.32 1955-1956 88.58 60.11 28. 7U 33 33.70 21.63 10.98 3U U6.22 27.73 15.63 35 62.31 i;0.65 22.hh Average for ii5 year period, 1911-12 through 1955-56 59.98 37.75 18.17 ■»■ Station moved to Quincy Ranger Station. -9h- TABIE 11 STREAM GAGING STATIONS IN OR ADJACENT TO THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN Reference n\imber Station : Drainage: tarea, in: : square : : miles ; Periods of record ! Source* : of : record A-5-3675 Mountain Meadows Reservoir A-5-3690 North Fork Feather River A-5-3600 North Fork Feather River A-5-3660 Hamilton Branch A-5-3530 Butt Creek A-5-3500 Butt Creek A_5_3960 Caribou Penstock A-5-3ii75 A-5-3U55 A-5-i;320 Butt Creek Butt Creek Indian Creek A-5-ii370 Indian Creek A-5-Uii50 Red Clover Creek A-5-U570^*Lights Creek A-5-U200 Spanish Creek A-$-U070 East Branch of North Fork Feather River A-5-l;250 Spanish Creek near Pratt vi lie above Prattville near Prattville near Prattville above Almanor-Butt Creek Tunnel below Almanor-Butt Creek Tunnel at Butt Valley- Reservoir at Butt Valley- near Caribou near Crescent Mills near Taylorsville near Genesee near Taylorsville at Keddie near Rich Bar near Quincy 507 67 67 1931-59 1905-07' 1905-59 1905-07 1936-59 1939 PG&E USGS USGS USGS USGS 1938-59 USGS PG&E 1905-21 USGS — 1937-59 PG&R 7U6 1906-09 1911-18 1930-59 USGS 532 195U-59 EWR 120 195U-59 DWR 58 195U-59 EWR iBli 1911-59 USGS 1,035 1950-59 USGS 68 195U-59 EWR -9'^- TABIE 11 (continued) STKKAM GAGING STATIONS IN OR ADJACENT TO THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN Reference nvimber Stream Station [Drainage area, in square miles : Periods : of : record : Source* : of : record A-5-U630-x-^ '- Wolf Creek at Greenville Uo I95I4-59 DWR A-5-3922 Grizzly Forebay near Storrie 5 1930-59 PG&E A-5-3300 Bucks Lake near Bucks Lodge 28 1928-59 USGS A-5-32l;8 Grizzly Creek at Diversion Dam 1932-38 19liO-59 PPi^K A-5-3920 Bucks Creek Powerhouse at Storrie 1935-59 PGfrK A-5-3250 Grizzly Creek near Storrie 5 1929-32 1933-Ui USGS A-5-3930 Bucks Creek Tunnel at outlet — 193i;-36 1937-59 PWK A-5-3iiiO North Fork Feather River at Big Bar 1,9W 1911-30 1931-37 1939-59 USGS A-5-2910 Wilenor Canal A-5-3100 North Fork Feather River A-5-2950 Hendricks Canal A-5-2939 Miocene Canal A-5-2928 Miocene Canal A-5-2170 Concc3W Creek A-5-2920 Spring Valley Ditch A-5-2100 West Branch Feather River near Yankee Hill at Big Bend near Nimshew at head near Yankee Hill near Yankee Hill near Yankee Hill neso" Yankee Hill 1929-59 PG&E 15 lii5 1905-10 USGS 1936-59 PO&K 1929-59 PWK 1930 PCAF 1927-52 USGS 1927-52 USGS 1930-59 USGS -96- TABI£ 11 (continued) STREAM GAGING STATIONS IN OR ADJACENT TO THE UPPER FEATIiER RIVER BASIN Reference number Station r Drainage; tarea, in: : square ; : milfis ! Periods of record rSource* : of : record A-5-5620 A-5-5619 G-7-2930 A-5-5800** A-5-57UO** A-5-5720 A-5-5380 A-5-5520 A-5-5360 A-5-5U20 A-5-5310 A-5-5250 A-5-5230 A-5-5200 A-5-5100 A-5-6300 A-5-6210 Smithneck Creek Smithneck Creek Little Truckee Ditch Webber Creek Hamlin Creek Miller Creek Big Grizzly Creek little Last Chance Creek Big Grizzly Creek Middle Fork Feather River Middle Fork Feather River Middle Fork Feather River Middle Fork Feather River Middle Fork Feather River Middle Fork Feather River South Fork Feather River Lost Creek near Loyalton near Loyalton at Summit near Sierraville near Sierraville near Sattley near Porto la near Chile oot near Beckwourth near Portola near Clio at Sloat below Sloat near Nelson Point near Merrimac near La Porte below Lost Creek Dam 20 1937 -5U IWR 32 195ii-59 DWR 1937-56 DWR 37 1937-59 DWR 11 1937 -ii3 DWR 8 1937-59 DWR kS 1925-32 1950-59 USGS 85 195U-59 DWR 50 1906 USGS — 1955-59 DWR 698 1925-59 USGS 793 1910-28 USGS 836 I9UO-59 USGS 898 1923-32 USGS 1,078 1951-59 USGS — 1927-33 USGS ••— 19U7-59 US BR -97- TABIE 11 (continued) STREAM GAGING STATIONS IN OR ADJACENT TO THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN Reference number : Drainage: : :area, in: Periods : Source* Station square miles of record ! of ; record A-5-6200 Lost Creek near Clipper Mills 30 1927 -iil 19ii8-59 USGS A-5-69UO Orovllle -Wyandotte Canal near Clipper Mills 1927 -111 1958-59 USGS A-5-6920 Palermo Canal at Enterprise 1911-59 USGS A-$-6o5o South Fork Feather River at Enterprise 131; 1911-59 USGS A-5-5020 Feather River at Bi dwell Bar 1,353 1911-59 USGS A-5-lliiO Feather River near Oroville 3,611 193I1-59 USGS A-5-iiUo Feather River at Oroville 3,611 1902-31; USGS A-0-$775 South Honcut Creek near Bangor 31 1950-59 USGS A-O-5763 South Honcut Creek at La Porte Road 69 19l;7-l;9 DWR * PG&E - Pacific Gas and Electric Company USGS - United States Geological Survey DWR - Department of Water Resources USBR - United States Bureau of Reclamation ** Earlier records of flow during irrigation season are available for stations at or near these locations. -98- drainage and tributary basins in which the gaging station is located. Also, most of the runoff records for the stations listed in Table 11 have been published by the United States Geological Survey in its Water Supply Papers; or by the Department of Water Resources in its reports on Sacramento-San Joaquin Water Supervision, in its annual reports on Watermaster Sei-vice, or in Bulletin No. 58, "Northeastern Counties Investigation". Runoff Characteristics Runoff from streams in the Upper Feather River Basin is derived for the most part from snowmelt. As a result, stream flow is maintained in the larger tributaries throughout the spring and early summer months. Tributaries of the North Fork of the Feather River, particularly those above Lake Almanor, have relatively uniform monthly flow characteristics. This is due to the fact that the predominantly volcanic soils readily absorb and store precipitation and snowmelt, and then yield runoff at a comparatively even rate of flow. The broad flat meadows in the Upper Indian Creek Basin, as well as those in Sierra and American Valleys, have a pronounced effect on downstream ininoff character- istics. These meadows cause reduction in the flood peaks downstream when flood flows leave the natural channels and are stored by flooding over the adjoining flat lands. Also, in the early spring months water is delayed in transit, because it is diverted over these meadows by irrigation check dams. Estimates of average monthly distribution of natural runoff at three stream gaging stations located in the upper reaches of the basin are presented in Table 12, The seasonal flow of the Feather River is highly variable as indicated by records obtained at the gaging station near Oroville, The maximum seasonal runoff recorded at this station occurred in 1906-07, and amounted to 9,3i40,000 acre-feet, or 236 percent of the li5-ysar average. The BLinimum seasonal nmoff -99- 9 ^ rH tM CO O -P O -P -P C Q) rH M O CO 0) V. c Oi (0 Q) O a. to CO C*^T^ T3 C 0) x: XI « O (D jg CO ffi c M H «H CO O P o ■p -p p c « 0) rH ^^ O CO i^ C r-t Q) O >i -H IX m V s: CO a> c a> ^. +3 M m o c e •• •• c o (d o •^ 2 1 2^ C O M O 0) CO a> «M c M JC ■p c o £ vO UN C\J oo UN - r— vO CM OO UN r-i r^ oo Os P ^ ^ 7^ vO cr\ H rH o o H O O Q Q O Q O O O Q O vO CO CNJ NO rH s 8 8 8 H UN oo vO UN CO r-{ CM o QO CM CM \0 ro CM UN H CM t— C?v rH 0\ OO ^ \A O \f\ t-- H CM UN t^ rH r-i S CM » C^ -=i CM H o 5 S O OO ^ O o CM O 8 o O o O s 8 l/N CM -d- MD O -:3 0\ o vO -d- (>> (^ rr> •« 9K •\ •* 9s •V WK •% •* •* •% «\ 00 UN p OO r-i vO CM ^ UN UN CM C^ r-i Os \A en UN CM H -3^ CM CM -^ C^v r^ O CO r>^ rH CO H CM vO C- s ^ UN CM U vO ro CM rH CM C7\ CM CM On rr\ NO UN On NO UN CM QO J8 o ■p o o & e £ t 3 x: rH (U 0) u c •H > o o >-3 ^ fl> •-3 ■P ra CO 0) 0) CU CO O o OO •\ \A r— 0^ O -100- V recorded at this station occtirred in 1923-2U, and was 1,190,000 acre-feet, or about 30 percent of the li5-year average, Qnantity of Runoff Runoff of Spanish Creek was measured at the station at Keddie through- out the 32-year base period. Runoff of the Middle Fork of the Feather River was measured at stations near Clio, Sloat and Nelson Point for a substantial portion of the base period. Estimates of flow for the portion of the period not covered by records near Clio and Nelson Point were aade trcm correlations with the natural flows of the Middle Fork of the Feather River at Sloat, The runoff of Indian Creek was measxired at the station near Crescent Mills for a substantial portion of the 32-year period, and estimates for the portion of the period not covered by records were derived fron correlation with the natural flow of Spanish Creek at Keddie, Estimates of seasonal zninoff at dam sites within the Indian Creek stream system above Crescent Mills, the Spanish Creek stream system abovs Keddie, and the Middle Fork of the Feather River stream system above Bidwell Bar were based on estimated and gaged flows at the respective dam sites. For this purpose, an areal distribution of runoff was derived troa linear correla- tions of area, elevation and precipitation. Although the drainage basins of these tributaries of the Feather River comprise about U5 percent of the area of the basin above the gaging station near Oroville, these tributaries produce only about 19 percent of the natural flow in Feather River near Oroville, Estimates of the seasonal natural flow at selected stations on the Feather River and its tributaries above Oroville are presented in Table 13. Estimated natural seasonal runoff at selected stations in the Upper Feather River Basin is shown on Plate h* -101- a *> ^ a fc. 0, cSa ^?ii •D rH g ^ H « » ^ U o Ct. rH (U r-i -a c o X) £ _ ~ - Ji: u ©ial ^ ?fc g ^ •••••« ■s o L, O (D r^ 75 *■»••• ID ^ d £ -g L5 s ^s c: a> o M M •• iJ o 2.a t. « O ^1 s a. > > ~ M OJ Iv t. J5 -P t, -p OJ (1) 3 ■!-■ r8 :13 ~ " " ^ k. S.I fe S a « ?! S a; ^..^ 0} CQ o £ » •P T) a -H Sk i > (.3-1-1 (0 « V £ c o 1J ^ ^ (3 O C0 t!^ > O 1 !8! O O ( 88! CM OJ cvi ^ Onm5<*>jcj \A CM OD CVJ OD CM CM (M rH <^ vO OO XA H f^ Q -:J CN Ov t^ ON 03 - — -, - - ^ t^ m C7N OS O Os CO fnoo r- CM -J ' O O ( ;8 8i ) o o S88 if\ CM m CM _;» oof^iAf^CM • o < 18i CO O XA C^ 0\ CM 0\ O rHIA ?M C^ CM CO nO '^ -^nO xah cm _ 3CMi-ICMH CMf^CM Q lAvO CO ■^ CO -d'^ r-r- r^ CM iH H r— rH t^lA CM I-) nO C^ m;i; CO f^ C^\A C \A H -3U% ( r^ K CM cH f ;8888 l_:SaD CO J H cj o CM. <^ f*y f'^ c'\^ CO OD r^^OD f^ o H (13 -=J .3 S sO 00 CM On On 1— ( Os ffi M n~\ CM CO CM cnCK_rJ .J C^ P~> f~- 00 n^CNJ rH H CJ CM H r-\ AJ _:J -d- U\ ,:3^ odcOIACMOn t^co C- O -^ nOnOnOnCOn lA-dCOr^CO lAf^CMr— lA H CM rH t~i H r-i i-l H _=t CM ^ nO CO C^GO t^ O. C<\ r-\ \f\ eg CM CM H rH t^^-=X^-0 \AaD_;J\ACM cDOr^HP- -IJOnCAOnO rHr-*rHr-|»-* CMr^CMHiH !8g8 81 rAMD-^rH ■LA H OJ OD rH CM CO CA 3 -U CM CA r-) CM CO t^ p^ rH XACMfA_;Ja\ JrHvO^Ov COr-CMOcO AJsOoDCMrA CM rH rH CA fA CM CK rH 1-A 3 CO lACO ) \A CM CM \ArH-:J_3NO CO lA O ^ O CNOn-:3cO rH (D _J^ ^ rH ^0 a o < _ _ o o ( ' o o o o < o o ( 88! O T-ACO O \ArH.^_:J XAnO O On O C--"LO O nO C^-:^- C>^ P- O On3D NO vO T-A On O CO OnnO CO CO XA cr\\c\ !8881 -:JCMn001-A CMrHONCOO NOOCOr^'LA CMIAIACACO IACOnO-^^ -^IA-^-^nO 'At- O CN CM ^o CN r^ o -^ nO \a cm\aco OSGO O CA C CJN On H H n; On On OnnO n COCAOl-At- lAr-rHCMlA CM-d'rH'tAr^ CNO\rHCMt— t— lAt^lA-O r-OC^COXA P-nO rH no -^ ■O CC fA \A . _ , , ^ _ r^r-IAC- CO CO _rj rH nC rHrH-ljrA fA CM H f rACO - COCMrHrHfA CMf— NprHCM NOrH-^-rHCO CNCNOr-it^ C^rHOCM\ACOOrHO-3 rHrACMrHCM CMrHrHCO CMCMXArHfA IA_31A-^ O CM CO CM \J^_3 -^ r^CArH OJ I CM H CO ^A_^r'*^cMH -^ i-H \A r r- CA- CAIA- rH CO CO ON _:3 rHtIA -SONfn CO'LAt--aD'LA P^OnHOO ONvOCvtrHo Cj'p^fAOON _3\A0n>O<>v CMJJjr-lIzJO d60iii<*S-:3 O COUNIAP—TD ONOfAr-r* rAP^P-OfTN -Zj-JXAXAfA P^fAfACOtA _:JfA< CM^o■u^_J^^ fAO^CNiaouNXj^OP-mON r^-^ONONNO noiacoxa-J^ cm_3C-.- r— CKrHOO ONvOCvtrHO CJP-rAOON -3\ACN-OOn CM_^r-|^0 iXt CkXD f^~=S r-i ftt^C^ ) O O O !888 n% u XA lA I ® O. Cy\ XA > H H -^ -< -102- Flood flows in the upper basin occur in the winter and spring months. Although a warm rainstorm on an existing snowpack or snowmelt runoff is generally responsible for these floods, high intensity- long duration rainfall has also caused severe floods as evidenced by the December 1955 floods. Also, occasional spring thundershowers have caused high flood flows in localized areas. As part of this investigation, studies were made on the frequency of flood occurrences. In these studies, a common base period was used for all stations considered and, where necessary, records were extended, A regional flood frequency diagram was constructed which enabled the determination of peak flows for various recurrence intervals at pertinent locations in the basin. Ground Water Studies of the underground hydrology of the valley fills in the Upper Feather River Basin were limited to brief geologic field reconnaissance, review of published geologic literature, and interpretation of logs of water wells. At the present time, a more detailed ground water investigation of two valleys. Sierra and Mohawk, is being conducted under the Northeastern Counties Ground Water Investigation, Presented below is a brief discussion of gromid water geology and conditions in the major upper basin valleys. Ground Water Geology Exploitable ground water is confined mainly to the valley areas. The valleys in the Upper Feather River Basin were originally formed as structxiral dislocations and depressions of small parts of the huge mass of granitic and metamorphic rocks known as the Sierra Nevada block. The favilting and other structviral dislocations probably began as early as 16 million years ago during late Miocene time. Since the formation of the structural depressions, erosion and sedimentation have modified the valleys into their present forms. With relation to the occurrence of ground water, the formations in each of the -103- ▼allejrs may be divided into two groups, a water-bearing series and a nonwater- bearing series. The water-bearing aeries in each valley includes alluvial fans, flood plain deposits, stream-channel deposits, stream-terrace deposits, and lake beds. All of these, with variations in volume and areal extent, occur in each of the valleys in the Upper Feather River Basin. In addition, wind-blown sand deposits, glacial deposits and lake terrace deposits occur in some of the valleys. Permeability of the unconsolidated deposits is extremely variable, ranging from very low values for the lake sediments to very high values for stream-channel gravels. Also included in the water-b3aring series are the permeable portions of the younger volcanics. The massive basaltic and andesitic lavas are unjointed and, therefore are relatively impermeable as are the andesitic mudflows. The thin lava flows are characteristically fractured and jointed, and may be extremely permeable. The nonwater-bearing series includes all of the granitic and meta- morphic rocks which underlie the entire area and which are exposed over most of the ai?ea. Permeability of these rocks is generally low, but some ground water is recoverable from joints, fractures, and weathered zones. Sierra 7alley Sierra Valley is one of the larger valleys in the Sierra Nevada and is a structural depression formed by faulting but modified by erosion and sedimentation. Although its outline is somewhat irregular, the valley is about 20 miles long from northeast to southwest, and about 12 miles wide, and includes an area of approximately 155 square miles. The valley is drained by the Middle Fork of the Feather River. Sierra Valley is almost completely surrounded by volcanic flows and breccias erupted from ancient vents and fissures in the vicinity. The volcanic -lOli- rocks probably extend under much of the valley. Granitic rocks outcrop along the valley margins in three general areas, west of Sierraville and Calpine, near Chilcoot, and near Beckwourth. Most of the sediments that fill the valley were deposited in a lake which occupied the area almost continuously until it was drained by the Feather River during the Recent geologic past. The remainder of the sediments are stream deposits. The sediments are very thick — a well drilled near the center of the valley prior to 1911 penetrated over 1,200 feet of unconsolidated deposits predominantly "blue clay" without encountering bedrock. Hot water flowed from the well. Ground water is confined under extensive, thick, lake sediments, and flows under artesian pressure from many deep wells located in various por- tions of the valley. The permeable sand and gravel found around a large portion of the margin of the valley act as forebay areas for the deep aquifers. Well logs indicate that the deep aquifers are thin and that ground water production from them would be limited. The free ground water table is at the surface over portions of the valley and is only a few feet below the sxrrface over the remainder of the valley. Evidence of the high ground water table is found in the marshy areas along the west side of the valley and in standing water in drainage ditches. Several major faults have been mapped to the margins of Sierra Valley and have been projected beneath the alluvium in the valley. No move- ment on any of these faults has been recorded. The effect which the faults may have on ground water movement could not be determined. However, degrada- tion of the waters in the deeper aquifers in the western and central portions of the valley has been attributed to movement of hot mineralized waters into the ground water basin along one of the projected faults. -105- The Sierra Valley ground water basin is rimmed by bedrock which may allow subsurface inflow, but probably prevents subsurface outflow from the basin. The only losses of ground water from the basin, therefore, probably result from consun^jtive use and from discharge to the surface followed by out- flow in the Middle Fork of the Feather River. Under present conditions of development, extraction of water fl*ojn the ground water basin could be increased. Such increase in draft would undoubtedly be accompanied by recession of ground water levels in areas of pumping thereby increasing percolation rates and thus conserving more of the runoff. Additional ground water development could, therefore, increase the water supply available to Sierra Valley. American Valley American Valley (including Thompson Valley) is an irregularly shaped, structural depression with a maximton length of about eight miles and a maximum width of three miles. The alluviated part of the valley covers an area of about seven square miles. Slate, phyllite, graywacke, quartzite, and lenses of sandy limestone, all part of the Calaveras formation, underlie the valley and outcrop in the hills which border the valley. These are considered to be nonwate r-be aring • The water-bearing series includes unconsolidated gravel, sand, sind silt deposited in stream channels and on flood plains. Interbedded with these are silts and clays deposited in an ancient lake which was periodically filled and drained from the time of its structural origin. Permeability of the sedi- ments varies over the area. The specific yield for the water-bearing series in the valley is estimated to vary between 5 and 10 percent, with possibly some- what higher values near Spanish Creek. The ground water is apparently of good quality; no highly mineralized ground water have been reported. -106- Reports of well drillers indicate partial confinement under pressxire of water in the deeper water-bearing zones of American Valley, Recharge to the ground water is supplied by Spanish Creek in the western part of the valley. Mill Creek in the central part, and Greenhorn Creek at the east end. Additional recharge may result from underflow through joints in the bedrock around and under the valley. Some ground water returns to the surface in Spanish Creek at the outlet of the valley. Increased pumping of ground water in Amen.can Valley would lower the water table and thus allow additional recharge to the ground water basin. Such development could increase the supply of water available to the valley. Indian Valley Indian Valley is a deep, irregularly shaped, structural depression filled with alluvial sediments. The maximim width of the valley is a little more than two miles, yet the valley extends about nine miles from Taylorsville northwest to Greenville, and about eight miles from the outlet near Crescent Mills northeast to the upper end of North Arm, The area of the valley floor is about 20 square miles. A thick section of metamorphic rocks, ranging in age from pre-Silurian to Jurassic, underlies the valley and is exposed in the surrounding mountains. These rocks are considered to be nonwater-bearing. The water-bearing sediments in the valley include unconsolidated, interbedded, and intermixed deposits of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The more abundant silt and clay deposits were laid down in an ancient lake which occupied the valley intermittently. The gravel, sand, and silt were deposited by streams which flowed through the valley during the inter-lacustrine intervals. Analyses of logs of wells indicate relatively low permeability and consequently very low specific yield for the bulk of sediments. The overall -107- specific yield is estimated at approximately four percent. Higher specific yields are encountered in the North Arm and along Indian Creek above Taylorsville, The amovint of recharge to the ground water basin is limited by the high-water table. The water table is sufficiently high to cause swampy ground in parts of the valley. Some ground water rises in Indian Creek near the valley outlet and flows down the creek, but most remains trapped within the basin. Further development of ground water supplies in the valley would lower the water table thereby increasing percolation of streams and thus con- serving more of the runoff. Additional ground water developnent could, there- fore, increase the water supply available to Indian Valley. Mohawk Valley Mohawk Valley is a long, northwest-trending, structural trough associated with a major fault system which slices through the area from Lake Tahoe to American Valley, The water-bearing series in Mohawk Valley includes Recent alluvium. Pliocene and Pleistocene lake beds, and Pleistocene glacial deposits. The alluvium consists of gravel, sand, and silt deposited on the flood plain and along the channel of the Middle Fork of the Feather River, Available information indicates that the area covered by alluvium is about eight square miles. An additional 12 or more square miles of the valley and adjacent hills have been mapped as Pliocene and Pleistocene beds deposited in an ancient lake called Mohawk Lake. These deposits include beds of silt and clay at lower levels, and terraces of sand and gravel around the margins. Glacial deposits, consisting of poorly sorted angular boulders, gravel, sand, and silt, have been mapped along the southwest margin of the valley. These are the most extensive of the glacial deposits in Plumas County and are hundreds of feet thick near Johnsville. Mohawk Lake had a surface area of about 35 square miles during the glacial epoch. The deposits at the highest lake stage were -108- largely rather fine material — andesitic and morainal detritus. The higher lake beds and the glacial deposits have subsequently been deeply eroded. Granitic and metamorphic rocks, classified as nonwater-bearing, are exposed to the south and southwest of the valley. The northeast margin of the valley is formed predominantly of volcanic rocks (principally andesites) with occasional outcrops of granitic and metamorphic rocks. Mountain Meadows Valley Mountain Meadows Valley is located in Lassen County south of Westwood, The alluviated portion of the valley, not covered by Mountain Meadows Reservoir, has an areal extent of about 10 square miles. The alluvium consists of detritus from the complex of igneous and metamorphic rocks which outcrop around the valley, as well as some reworked auriferous gravels, A variety of rock units is exposed around the valley, including meta- andesite of Carboniferous age; hornfels, slate, limestone, graywacke, quartzite, and granite of Jurassic age; rhyolite, andesite, and basalt of Tertiary and Quaternary age, and Tertiary auriferous gravels. No logs of water wells nor any other data on the ground water of Mountain Meadows Valley are available. This lack of information precludes making any estimate of specific yield or storage capacity of the water-bearing sediments. Meadow Valley Meadow Valley is an irregularly shaped, structural depression located six miles west of Quincy, The structural deformation which formed the depression occurred along a major fault between Meadow Valley and Spanish Peak, The vertical displacement along this fault is estimated to be 2,000 to 3,000 feet. Evidence indicates that a lake was formed in the depression in early Pleistocene -109- time (about one million years ago). Auriferous gravels accumxilated on the shores of the lake until an outlet to American Valley was finally formed through Spanish Creek, The matrix of the gravels contains numerous shairds of volcanic glass. Tertiary auto-brecciated andesite flows (sometimes referred to as volcanic mudflows or tuff -breccias) form the hills on the north and south margins of Meadow Valley, Underlying these volcanic rocks and exposed in the mountains both east and west of the valley, are massive serpentines, meta-sedimentary rocks of the Calaveras formation, and amphibolites ( a tough, green meta- volcanic rock). Recent alluvium and Pleistocene lake deposits are the only water- bearing formations found in the area. The alluvium covers an area of about three square miles, and the lake beds probably add another three square miles or so to the areal extent of the water-bearing sediments. The average specific yield for the water-bearing sediments is estimated at approximately five per- cent. Well logs indicate occasional clean water-bearing sand and gravel; clay and silt make up the bulk of the deposits. Recharge of the ground water is by percolation from streams and infiltration of rainfall. Ground water movement appears to be toward the two valley outlets where Spanish Creek and Meadow Valley Creek leave the valley. Lake Almanor Valley Lake Almanor Valley is enclosed on three sides by Tertiary volcanic rocks, Metamoirphic rocks outcrop along the east margin of the lake. The area covered by discontinuous segments of allriviiun along the shores of Lake Almanor is approximately seven square miles. The town of Chester is located within the largest alluvial segnent at the north end of the lake. The water-bearing series in this area includes both alluvial deposits smd some of the volcanic rocks. The alluvial sediments are gravel, sand, silt, and clay, which are interbedded -110- and intermixed. The proportion of each varies widely throughout the area, but clay and silt are predominant. The specific yield is estimated at about five percent. Logs of wells in the valley indicate that layers of pyroclastic debris are interbedded with the alluvial sediments and that alluvial deposits are interbedded with the lava flows and ash beds. Well drillers have indicated that brown porous lavas form the water-bearing horizons in the predominantly volcanic areas. Ground water recharge to the area comes frcm percolation of surface waters, both rainfall and stream flow, and subsurface underflow from the volcanic rocks. Normally, the slope of the water table and the flow of ground water is toward Lake Almanor, but subsurface flow of water frcxn the lake may occ\ir toward areas of heavy pumping. Grizzly Valley Grizzly Valley, located six miles north of Portola, rates third in area of alluvium among the valleys in the Upper Feather River Basin but ranks low in all forms of development including use of its ground water. The valley parallels the northwesterly trend common to the major structural fea- tures at the north end of the Sierra Nevada, The adjacent hills consist of Tertiary volcanic rocks. Granitic and metamorphic rocks outcrop near the valley floor at the upper end of the valley. These rocks form the low terraced hills and gorge at the valley outlet, and probably underlie the entire valley. The alluvium and terrace deposits in the valley consist of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. These deposits are probably relatively thin. No data are available on which to base estimates of specific yield and ground water storage capacity of Grizzly Valley, However, the permeability and yield of the sediments are probably low. A significant portion of the valley would be inundated by the proposed Grizzly Valley Reseirvoir, -111- Clover Valley Clover Valley is a large, shallow valley in an area of volcanic rocks, about 12 miles northwest of Beckwourth. Even though the valley itself appears to be quite large, its alluviated portion is limited to about six square miles. The remainder of the floor of the valley is covered with lava flows. No logs of wells are available. However, the alluvium in the valley is probably quite thin, and permeability is probably moderate to low. Small quantities of ground water probably could be produced from the alluvium and some of the Jointed lava flows which underlie and surround the valley. Little Last Chance Valley Little Last Chance Valley is a shallow, somewhat irregular valley which is apparently the product of erosion. Bedrock in the area consists of Tertiary volcanic rocks and Jurassic granitic rocks. The alluviated portions of the valley are divided topographically into four segments, the total area of which is about five square miles. The climate is semiarid, but, in spite of this, a small amount of stream flow is maintained in Little Last Chance Creek through the late summer and fall by effluent ground water from the volcanic rocks. Logs of wells and hydrologic data are not available, but geologic evidence indicates that the alluvium in each of the four segments is relatively thin and that ground water production would be limited. Squaw Valley Squaw Valley is a broad, shallow valley near the crest of the Sierra Nevada, The valley was formed and is drained by Squaw Queen Creek, Basaltic and andesitic lava flews outcrop over much of the floor of the valley. The alluviated portion of the valley is a narrow strip near Squaw Queen Creek, The alluvium has an area of approximately three square miles and consists of gravel. -112- sand, and silt. Ground water occurs in the alluvium and in joints and fractures in the tinderlying volcanic rocks. Lack of logs of wells or other data on ground water in Squaw Valley precludes estimation of specific yield and storage capacity of the water- bearing formations. Genesee Valley Genesee Valley is a long, narrow valley having an alluviated area of approximately three square miles. The alluvixan consists predominantly of sand and gravel deposited on the flood plain of Indian Creek, Interbedded with the sand and gravel are silt and clay lenses which were deposited in a lake which occupied the valley intermittently in the past. The valley is underlain and surrounded by a complex of metamorphic and igneous rocks which range in age from Carboniferous to Jurassic, and are considered to be nonwater-bearing. Recharge to the ground water is by percolation of stream flow and rainfall. Ground water discharge occurs as stream flow and evapotranspiration. Subsurface outflow pres\mably is negligible due to underlying, nonwater- bearing, metamorphic rocks. The depth, specific yield, and storage capacity of the alluvial deposits cannot be estimated because adequate data are not available. Based on geologic reconnaissance, the alltrvium is probably quite deep and permeable, and yield of wells should be hi^. Water Qtiality Information pertinent to the quality of waters in the Upper Feather River Basin indicates that water supplies developed by the proposed projects would be of good to excellent quality and suitable for most beneficial uses. -113- Results of water quality studies are discussed belofw. More detailed information is available in the files of the Department of Water Resources. Mineral analyses of water samples from Indian Creek, Last Chance Creek, Squaw Queen Creek, and Red Clover Creek indicate that the water is of excellent quality and suitable for most beneficial uses. Reservoirs would store water from these creeks and would yield water of similar quality. Since these reservoirs would be located above anticipated industrial and agricultural development, it is improbable that future development would impair the quality of the water. Sodium-type water from a few springs found within the reservoir sites should have little influence on the quality of water in storage* A similar situation exists at the Meadow Valley site, and a water supply of excellent quality is anticipated. Diversion of Middle Fork of the Feather River water fl-cm Nelson Point Reservoir to Meadow Valley Reservoir should have little effect on the quality of water. The water in Yellow Creek in Humbug Valley is of excellent quality. However, the presence of mineralized springs which drain into the valley may cause a slight impairment of the quality of the water available for storage during periods of low flow. Flows from these mineralized springs normally decrease along with reduced stream flows. Therefore, while 6,0 parts per million of boron were found in one such spring, dilution of this water by relatively larger stream flows should reduce the boron to harmless concent- t rations , Water of excellent quality is anticipated for storage in the proposed Swayne Reservoir on French Creek, even during periods of low flow. Water released from the proposed Frenchman and Grizzly Reservoirs shoiild be of a calcium bicarbonate -type and of excellent quality. Good quality water from springs constitutes a large portion of the water supply at -im- both of these reservoir sites. Since these reservoirs would be located iipstream from Sierra Valley, there is little or no possibility of degradation due to future developnent in the valley. Sheep Camp Reservoir will be supplied by water of high quality and the quality of water released from the reservoir should closely approocimate the quality of inflow. Unless the water of the streams supplying the reservoir is degraded by mining and limbering wastes, the reservoir releases should remain excellent in quality. Mixing of the excellent quality surface water with the poorer quality grovind water in the west central portion of Sierra Valley would enhance the quality of the ground water. The Middle Fork of the Feather River at Nelson Point and Clio dam sites has, at present, water of excellent quality. Storage of this water in Clio Reservoir should not affect the quality, provided upstream degradation does not occur. At present, irrigation retxim flows and runoff from highly mineral- ized hot springs and artesian wells in Sierra Valley are not of sufficient quantity to cause quality impairment of the Middle Fork of the Feather River, However, following construction of Frenchman, Grizzly Valley, and Sheep Camp Projects, it is believed that agricultural activity will expand and increase the quantity of irrigation return flows. Although the quality of water to be stored in Clio and Nelson Point Reservoirs may be degraded by increased return flow from Sierra Valley, it should be suitable for most beneficial uses. Runoff from the upper watersheds of the North and Middle Forks of the Feather River is of excellent quality and suitable for most beneficial uses. However, there are several highly mineralized hot springs. Because of the small flows from the springs, they cause only localized and minor impairment of the quality of the major supplies. Sierra Valley, the largest ground water basin in the area of investigation also produces sane ground water of poor -115- quality. Warm mineralized ground waters are produced from wells in the west central portion of the valley near the highly mineralized Marble Hot Springs, This water, probably originating in faults which occur throughout this area, is a sodium chloride-type water and generally contains excessive concentrations of boron and an excessive percent sodium. Analyses of samples fron wells throughout the valley indicate that a zone of poor quality water exists in the central portion of the valley. The quality of ground waters in the rest of Sierra Valley appears to improve as the distance from the west central area increases. The quality becomes excellent at the periphery of the valley. This suggests that a mixing of the highly mineralized ground water occurs in the central section of the valley. In summairy, water delivered from the proposed reservoirs in the Upper Feather River Basin would be of good to excellent quality and suitable for most beneficial uses. This prediction is based on the location of reservoir sites which, in general, are in isolated areas above possible sotirces of exist- ing or anticipated degradation. In addition, the water available for storage at these reservoir sites is of excellent quality. -116- CHAPTER V. WATER UTILIZATION AND REQUIREMENTS Extensive studies of the use of water within the Upper Feather River Basin under present and future conditions of development were made for the Northeastern Counties Investigation. The results of these studies have previously been published in detail in the publication, "Report on Upper Feather River Service Area", April 1955, and in Bulletin No. 58, "Northeastern Counties Investigation", The basic data, methods of obtaining and evaluating the data, and the estimates derived primarily from information developed during the Northeastern Counties Investigation are presented in this chapter. Con- tained herein, and considered necessary for proper evciluation of the estimates of present and ultimate water requirements, are results of an inventory of present land use, a land classification survey, estimates of unit values of water use and a pattern of ultimate land use. In connection with the discussion of the nature and extent of water utilization and requirements, both at the present time and under probable conditions of ultimate development, the following terms are used as defined. Water Utilization — ^The employment of water by nature or by man, whether consumptive or nonconsumptive, as well as irrecoverable losses of water incidental to such employment. It is synonymous with the term water use. Consumptive Use of V/ater — ^The water consumed by vegetative growth in transpiration and building of plant tissue, and water evaporated frcm adjacent soil and frcsn foliage. Also, water consumed and evaporated by urban and nonvegetative types of land use. -117- Applied Water — 'V/ater delivered to a farmer' s headgate in the case of irrigation use, or to an individual's meter or its equivalent, in case of urban use. It does not include direct precipitation. Water Requirement — ^Water needed for all beneficial uses and for unavoid- able losses incidental to such use. Demands for Water — Those factors pertaining to specific rates, times, and places of delivery of water, losses of water, quality of water, etc., imposed by the control, developments and use of water for beneficial purposes, Effective Precipitation — The portion of direct precipitation which is consumptively used and which does not run off or percolate to ground water. Irrigation Efficiency — The ratio of consumptive use of applied water to the total amount of applied water for a specific area, commonly expressed as a percentage. Water Service Area Efficiency — The ratio of consumptive use of applied water in a given service area, with re-use of water where possible, to the gross amoiint of water delivered to the area, expressed as a percentage. Present — Land use and water supply conditions prevailing during the period from 1954 to 1956. Ultimate — Conditions after an unspecified but long period of years in the future, when land use and water supply development will be at a maximum and essentially stabilized. Present VJater Service Areas The initial step in evaluating water requirements of the Upper Feather River Basin was to determine by surveys the nature and extent of -118- present land as related to use of water. As irrigated agriculture is by far the greatest user of applied water, a complete survey was made of the present pattern of irrigated land. Present water service areas include areas of urbaji and suburbcin lands, and areas of principal reservoir surfaces, since these, in addition to irrigated agriculture, constitute significant uses of water. A description of the procedures used to determine present water service areas, as well as presentation of results, follows. Presently Irrigated Lands Presently irrigated lands comprise all agricultural lands that receive water applied from surface or ground water sources. Lands utilizing water directly from a high-water table, either naturally or induced, are also considered as irrigated. Surveys of these lands were accomplished by field inspection, using aerial photographs to delineate the boundaries of the various classifications of lands. The classified areas were then delineated on base maps, measured, and the data compiled. The locations and amounts of irrigated lands within adjudicated areas of Indian Creek cind the Middle Fork of the Feather River above Beckwourth were obtained from data provided by the V/atermaster Service of the Department of Water Resources, The crop types classified by field surveys included alfalfa, improved and meadow pasture, grain and grain hay, and deciduous orchard. As agriculture in the Upper Feather River Basin is devoted mainly to the production of cattle, forage and hay crops are the predominant irrigated crop types. Irrigated pasture crops were grouped in accordance with differences in water use. Improved pasture is land with improved irrigation facilities and is generally planted to selected grasses and legumes. Meadow pasture consists of unimproved lands which sustain native grasses, such as rush and wire grasses. Meadow -119- pasture utilizes more water than improved pasture because of high-water table conditions. Pasture is the principal irrigated crop in the upper basin. Of the 76,000 acres presently irrigated within the basin, 20,000 acres are in improved pasture and 52,000 acres are in meadow pasture. The remaining acreage is devoted primarily to alfalfa and grain hay. The estimated acreage of presently irrigated lands in the hydrographic units of the Upper Feather River Basin is presented in Table 14. The tabulated values are for gross irrigated areas without reduction for roads, farmsteads, and other nonwater-using areas* Presently irrigated lands and boundaries of hydrographic units are delineated on Plate 5' The area delineated as presently irrigated lands includes agricultural lands irrigated by man-made and natural methods, and swamp and marsh lands. Urban and Suburban Lands Present urban and suburban lands include the developed areas of the cities and towns, sawmills, small communities, industrial areas, and resorts. These lands comprise the gross developed area including homes, business districts, vacant lots, and industrial areas. These urban and suburban areas are not limited by municipal boundaries or any specific density of development. The acreages of present urban and suburban lands for each hydrographic unit in the Upper Feather River Basin are tabulated in Table 14. Principal Reservoirs The area occupied by principal reservoirs comprises approximately 30 percent of the total water service areas of the Upper Feather River Basin. Principal reservoirs include man-made reservoirs, as well as those natural lakes in which the storage is controlled by dams. The acreages of the average -120- o o 5 V z ' .E >^ D X water surface area of the principal reservoirs in each hydrographic unit in the basin are tabulated in Table 14. TABLE 14 PRESENT WATER SERVICE AREAS (1954-1956) WITHIN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN (in acres) : Type of land use J Irrigated lands : Urban :Princi- Refer-: ence : Hydrographic : : : Decid- :Total: and : pal Al- : Pasture : Grain and: uous : irri-: suburban: reser- number: unit falfa: Improved: Meadow: grain hay: orchards: gated: lands :voirs 1 North Fork Feather River 1,530 10,390 11,920 530 30,960 2 East Branch Feather River 490 4,650 11,660 990 80 17,860 280 140 3 Sierra Valley ];210 11,300 26,310 1,370 40,190 100 10 4 Middle Fork Feather River 2,660 3,580 20 6,260 250 230 5 South Fork Feather River 80 22 2 J^ 120 22 TOTALS 1,700 20,220 51,960 2,360 110 76,350 1,160 31,370 Probable Ultimate Pattern of Land Use Under ultimate conditions of development, it is probable that irri- gated agriculture will continue to constitute the primary applied water re- quirement in the Upper Feather River Basin. Accordingly, considerable emphasis was placed upon the classification of potentially irrigable lands and upon the forecast of the probable ultimate crop pattern. Where timber production in the basin is one of the major factors in the economy, careful attention was given to classification of lands that are better-suited to forest production even though satisfactory for agricultural purposes. Estimates ■ 121- were made of the areas of suitable land that may be utilized as urban and suburban areas under ultimate development. Recognizing the importance of the recreation potential of this mountainous area to the local economy, as well as to the people of California, estimates of areas of land that may be used for recreation were made as a step toward estimating recreational water requirements. Areas of principal reservoirs that may exist under ultimate development were determined because of their bearing on recreational development as well as the additional water requirement that reservoir evaporation would create. Methods used to determine the ultimate pattern of land use in the basin, and the results of these studies, are included in the following discussion. Irrigable Lands The extent and location of irrigable lands in the Upper Feather River Basin were determined by field svirveys from which lands were grouped into appropriate classifications of iiTigability and crop adaptability. Considerable emphasis was placed on this classification procedure and projection of probable ultimate crop pattern, since water requirements to meet consumptive use of irrigated agriculture constitute the most signi- ficant portion of the ultimate applied water requirements of the basin. Ultimate water requirements for irrigation purposes were estimated at more than 60 percent of the total requirements. Lands classified as suitable for irrigation development were segregated into three broad topographic groups: smooth-lying valley lands, slightly sloping and undulating lands, and steeper and more rolling lands. Where other conditions limited the suitability of the lands to produce -122- climatically adapted crops, the three broad classes were further subdivided in accordance with the nature of the limitations. Such limiting conditions included shallow soil depths, rockiness, high-water tables, coarse textures with low moisture holding capacities, very fine textures limiting the effective depth, and an excess of soluble salts or exchangeable sodium. In certain of the mountain and foothill areas in the upper basin, lands are found with soils and physical cnaracteristics which permit irri- gation development. However, due to climatic and other factors associated with present utilization of these lands, they vrere classified as best-suited to remain under some type of forest management. In general, these lands lie at elevations where lengths of growing season based on killing frosts greatly limit crop adaptability. In other areas, where the economy is influenced by the production of livestock with tne accompanying demand for range land, particularly in the national forests, it was assumed that the marginal land classes would remain as grazing land under general forest management practices. Other irrigable areas adjacent to high mountain lakes and streams are suitable for recreational activities. These areas were assumed to remain under forest management and were not considered as potential agricultural lands. In Table 15 there is presented a description of the land classifi- cation standards for irrigable lands used in the Northeastern Coimties Investigation ajid adopted for use in this bulletin. The land classification procedure used during the investigation consisted basically of an examination of the soil characteristics and the physical character of the landscape. Field mapping was done on aerial photographs having a scale of 1 to 20,000, v/hich is about three inches to one mile. The character of the soils was established by examination of materials from test holes, road cuts and ditch -123- TABLE 15 LAND CLASSIFICATION STAND.1RDS FOR IRRIGABLE LANDS Land : Class : Characteristics V Smooth lying valley lauids with elopes up to six percent in general gradient, in reasonably large-sized bodies sloping in the same plane; or slightly undulating lands which are less than four percent in general gradient. The soils have medium to deep effective root zones, are permeable throughout, and free of salinity, alkalinity, rock or other conditions limiting crop adaptability of the land. These lands are suitable for all climatically adapted crops. Vw Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the present condition of a high-water table which in effect limits the crop adaptability of these lands to pasture crops. Drainage and a change in irrigation practice would be required to affect the crop adaptability. Vs Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the presence of saline and alkaline salts, which limits the present adaptability of these lands to crops tolerant to such conditions. The presence of salts within the soil generally indicates poor drainage and a medium-to high-water table. Reclamation of these lands will involve drainage and the application of additional water over and above crop require- ments in order to leach out the harmful salts. VI Similar in all respects to Class V, except for having fairly coarse textures and low moisture-holding capacities, which in general make these lands unsuited for the production of shallov;-rooted crops because of the frequency of irrigations required to supply the water needs of such crops. Vp Similar in all respects to Class V, except for depth of the effective root zone, which limits use of these lands to shallow-rooted crops, such as irrigated grain and pasture. Vr Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the presence of rock on the surface or within the plow zone in sufficient quantity to prevent use of the land for cultivated crops. Vis Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the limitations set forth for Classes VI and Vs, which makes these lands best suited for the production of deep-rooted, salt-tolerant crops. Vps Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the limitations set forth for Classes Vp and Vs, which restrict the crop adaptability of these lands to shallow-rooted, satlt-tolerant crops. .12it- TABLE 15 (continued) LAND CLASSIFICATION STAfffiARDS FOR IRRIGABLE LANDS Land : Class ; Characteristics Vpr Similar in all respects to Class V, except for the limitations set forth for Classes Vp and Vr, which restrict the crop adaptability of these lands to noncultivated crops, H Rolling and undulating lands with slopes up to a majcimum of 20 percent for rolling large-sized bodies sloping in the same plane; and grading down to a maximum slope of less than 12 percent for undulating lajids. The soils are permeable, with medium to deep effective root zones, and are suitable for the production of all climatically adapted crops. The only limitation is that imposed by topographic conditions, which affect the ease of irrigation and the amount of these lands that may ultimately be developed for irrigation. HI Similar in all respects to Class H, except for having fairly coarse textures and low moisture-holding capacities which in general makes these lands unsuited for the production of shallow-rooted crops because of the frequency of irrigations required to supply the water needs of such crops. Hp Similar in all respects to Class H, except for depth of the effective root zone, which limits use of these lands to shallow-rooted crops. Hr Similar in all respects to Class H, except for the presence of rock on the surface or within the plow zone in sufficient quantity to restrict use of the land to noncultivated crops, Hpr Similar in all respects to Class H, except for depth of the effective root zone and the presence of rock on the surface or within the root zone in sufficient quantity to restrict use of these lands to non- cultivated crops. Ht Similar in all respects to Class H, except for topographic limitations. These lands have smooth slopes up to 30 percent in general gradient for large-sized bodies sloping in the same plane, and slopes up to 12 percent for rougher and more undulating topography. These lands will probably never become as highly developed as other "H" classes of lajid, Htp Similar in all respects to Class Ht, except for depth of the effective root zone, which limits use of these lands to shallow-rooted crops, Htr Similar in all respects to Class Ht, except for the presence of rock on the surface or within the plow zone in sufficient quantity to restrict use of these lands to noncultivated crops. ■125- TABLi? 15 (continued) LAND CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS FOR IRRIGABLE LANDS Land : Class ; Characteristics Htpr Similar in all respects to Class Ht, except for depth of the effective root zone and the presence of rock on the surface or within the root zone, which limits use of these lands to noncultivated, shallow-rooted crops. F Presently forested lands, or lands subject to forest management, which meet the requirements for irrigable land but which, because of climatic conditions and physiographic position, are better suited for timber production or some type of forest management program rather than for irrigated agriculture. ■126- banks, together vd.th observation of the type and quality of natural vegetation and crops. The presence of rock, high-water tables, alkalinity, and salinity were noted. Representative slopes were measured to determine the degree of slope. Considering these factors, the appropriate crop adaptability class of the land was determined and delineated on aerial photographs. In certain areas, where similar surveys had been accomplished previously by other agencies of the State and Federal Government, the previous work was used as an aid to the department' s land classification. From field surveys, it was determined that the gross irrigable area witr.in the Upper Feather River Basin is about 196,000 acres. Irrigable valley lands comprise 133,000 acres and irrigable hill lands comprise 63,000 acres. In addition, there are 147,000 acres of irrigable land classified as best suited to forest management. No crop pattern or future water requirement is contemplated for this latter classification. Results of the classification of irrigable lands in the Upper Featner River Basin are presented in Table 16. The irrigable valley and hill lands and other irrigable lands best suited to forest management are shown on Plate 5. Even in the most intensively developed areas of irrigated agriculture, not all of the land is cultivated nor does all irrigable lands receive water every year. Since the results of the land classification survey were in terms of gross area, it was necessary to determine the net acreage that might ul- timately be irrigated in any one season. This determination depended upon one or more of the following factors: (l) quality of the land and crop rotation; (2) irrigable areas utilized for purposes other than agriculture; (3) inclusions of nonirrigable land; (4) size, shape, and location of irrigable land; (5) ease of development of irrigable lands; and (6) economic conditions. The effects of these factors on gross irrigable area is presented in the following discussion, -127- CO < > m o PI < 35 o to 3 ■PI iH M O C ^ ^H tn nJ fn O -H tio nJ Li a +j u. *^ X CO D. " CO w o. > to rH > 10 to CT5 t. i-H > O tJ S D. rH > >j > (D rH XJ « U. tn ■H > t. 1 — 1 3 ::^ :^ U ■rt CJ ra •z. t, ■!-> tlC-H o c Vi 3 t3 >> i" " i^ (h QJ 0) a) o JD a) a 3 tB c O O o o O o rH 1^ VJ\ \A u\ r^ ^D J <1 rr\ lA sO M •i •s •t t— CO vO CM <-^ vO o\ CM ,-\ o o o o o o vO CM vO ^ O o C\J Os r-l CM o -3 \r\ GO ^0 r-\ LA C\J r^ rH rH rH o O O O Q rH O O o rH o O o O o O ION On UN r- u> LA -J CM CM f^ rr, r- •* •t •« r-< -J vC O o o o O o lA -J -3 •-1 O g o o O O CVJ LPv -:3 rH rH o l^ ti O 0) fc, £ x; to (h li. O x=-^ o 3 (0 fc. -c CQ -P n) P OJ nJ W o o 01 > o t. fn 4) (U 5 rH ra -a a) o o o o o o r^ CM C-- CM UA nO CM -3 rH m O Q o o O OD CO o ^I o CM o o r~- CM LA •I ■t •I •t •s CM -3 lA rH -3 rH o O o o o O lA CO rH -Ct CM rH CM cc. CM o O 8 CN o o o o o o o o o o -J -3 CA o\ -U ^-. CM 'D\ -3 r-< u\ •s •\ •. vO NO - nO CO CM o ,o o o o o vO ■o CO o > •H b: ^ i-> o tu Ct, X p X n! 3 fe. O CO o o o rH o o ( — o o o o rH O O o rr\ o o 8 O cr\ q o o o o o -128- It is expected that, in the futiire, the higher quality irrigable lands would be intensively developed for irrigation and would remain in rela- tively continuous operation, whereas lands of poorer quality and of limited crop adaptability would only be in production when favorable economic conditions permit. Even though it is assumed that all irrigable lands will receive water service, the effect of crop rotation would reduce the acreage irrigated seasonally. It is anticipated that there will always be a portion of the irrigable lands that would be occupied by urban types of development, farm lots, highways, railroads, canals, industrial establishments, etc. The nature of the agricultural development will, to some extent, determine the amount of certain of these nonagricultural land uses. For example, orchard and truck farming areas ordinarily include more land use for roads and farmsteads than areas where field crops are dominant. It was not possible to delineate all of the small areas of nonirrigable land such as areas containing rock, shallow soil, poor drainage, or excessive slopes which occur within the lands classed as irrigable. The occurrence of these small plots of nonirrigable lands, which are included within the areas classed as irrigable, varies generally with the detail of the survey and classes of lands being surveyed. The occurrence is greatest in the marginal classes. It is apparent that small, irregularly shaped plots of land, par- ticularly those isolated from other irrigable lands, cannot be irrigated as readily or completely as large, regularly shaped, compact units. Owner- ship boundaries also exert an influence, since small, isolated ownerships probably will never be developed. ■129- The inherent difficulties encountered in developing and serving water to lands with more adverse topographic conditions will tend to prevent them from being utilized completely. This is particularly true of those lands with hilly topography which could not be served completely by a gravity irrigation system and which would require numerous pump lifts. The economic effects of crop production costs and net returns are recognized as one of the most influential factors in limiting the seasonal irrigated acreage and resiilting water requirements. It is probable that there will always be a tendency to withdraw land from production in years of economic adversity. Inasmuch as the concept of ultimate development, adopted for purposes of the present studies, presupposes maximum land use within physical limitations, econcanic effects were not given consideration in determining the probable ultimate net irrigated area. This assumption is conservative in relation to water requirements for the estimated require- ments for future water resoirrces development have thus been maximized in this stage of planning. Based on the foregoing factors, it was estimated that the net irrigable area woTild amount to 158,000 acres of the gross irrigable area of 196,000 acres under ultimate conditions, if suf f icient w ater supplies could be developed. The projection of a probable ultimate crop pattern that could be sustained on the net irrigable lands in the Upper Feather fLLver Basin was an important step in evaluating ultimate water requirements. The present development of irrigated agriculture throughout California was considered in projecting the ultimate crop pattern. Other factors affecting the ultimate crop pattern are climate and limitations on crop adaptability, due to various undesirable land and soil characteristics revealed by the land classi- fication surveys. The county farm advisors and leaders in agriculture in -130- the basin furnished additional information to aid in the forecast of future agricultural developnent. In many areas of the upper basin at higher elevations, irrigable lands occur in valleys surrounded by large tracts of public forest lands. In these areas, beef production has developed largely on the basis of meadow pasture lands in conjunction with forest grazing lands. The public lands provide summer grazing while the irrigated lands provide forage crops for fall and winter feeding. It was assumed that this livestock economy would continue, and, therefore, the crop projection for these areas was weighted heavily toward an increase in irrigated pasture and forage crops. The crop pattern forecast for the 158,000 acres in the upper basin under conditions of ultimate development was as follows: improved pasture, 72,000 acres; meadow pasture, 41,000 acres; alfalfa, 18,000 acres; grain, 12,000 acres; truck crops, 12,000 acres; and orchards, 3,000 acres. The probably ultimate crop pattern is presented in Table 17. Urban and Suburban Lands The ultimate urban water requirement was determined on a population basis. The area of land which is expected to become predom- inantly urban and suburban in character was determined by Pacific Planning and Research. The estimated acreages for each hydrographic unit are presented in Table 19 as an indication of the extent of lands that may ultimately be devoted to this use. Forest Lands and Uses Estimates of areas of commercial, forest land and production of timber products were used to compute water requirements for the forest -131- TABLE 17 PROBABLE ULTIMATE PATTERN OF IRRIGATED UND USE IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN (In acres) Hydrographic unit Crop .•Total Refer- ence : Name Alfalfa * • : Pasture rGi 'ain and:Truck: 'ain hay: : Decid- uous orchard : Sub- : tropical : orchard : ir- L:rigate number J Improved :Meadow:gi :area 1 North Fork Feathei River 900 9,000 6,600 600 800 600 18,50C 2 East Branch Feather River 2,200 12,U00 8,500 2,000 2,200 1,800 29, IOC 3 Sierra Valley Hi, 200 U1,U00 23,U00 9,100 9,100 97,50C U Middle Fork Feather River ^00 8,100 2,800 UOO 200 200 12,20C 5 South Fork Feather River 600 200 80( TOTALS 17,800 71,500 Ul,300 12,000 11,800 3,000 600 158, la products industry. The State Division of Forestry provided information from which the area of commercial forests were obtained . The United States Forest Service at the request of the Department of Water Resources made estimates of sustained annual yield of timber for each of the 15 counties included in the Northeastern Counties Investigation. Based on further information from the United States Forest Service, and the California Forest and Range Experiment Station, the estimates of sustained yield were converted to estimates of annual production of forest products for each county. Estimates of sustained timber yield and production of forest products for the Upper Feather River Basin were made assuming that yield and production would be in proportion to the distri- bution of commercial forest areas. The total sirea of commercial forest within the upper basin has been estimated at about 1,63U,000 acres, or about 63 percent of the gross area. -132- The sustained annual timber yield of these lands was further estimated to be about U31 million board feet measured by the international scale. This yield could be used in the production of about 390 million board feet of lumber (lumber tally) and about 67,000,000 square feet of plywood (3/8-inch basis). Additional logging and mill residue that would probably be shipped to the Sacramento Valley to be used in the production of pulp, fiberboard, and paper products, would not create a water requirement within the Upper Feather River Basin. The above production quantities were used in making estimates of ultimate water requirements for the forest products industry in the Basin. Table 19 shows data relating to commercial forest area and sustained timber yield for the Upper Feather River Basin. Recreational Lands and Uses Historically, the economic activity in the Upper Feather River Basin has been based upon timber, agricultiire, mining, and related service industries. In recent years, however, recreational activity has increased rapidly to a position of major importance in the economy of the area. The recreational industry in the Upper Feather River Basin is still in its infancy. This fact is confirmed by the results of studies conducted by the firm of Pacific Planning and Research and presented in Appendix A of this bulletin. The firm reported that the rate of recreational development from this time forward can be expected to exceed the rate of population growth in the State by a considerable degree. Pacific Planning sind Research delineated potential recreational areas and further separated the areas into broad classifications of high, mediumj and low intensity of recreational use. High intensity recreational -133- TABLE 18 COM-ffiRCIAL FOREST AREA AND SUSTAINED TE^BER YIELD li/ITHIN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN Item * Quantity Ccmraercial forest area, in acres l,63i;,000 Sustained annual timber yield, in board feet (International Scale) ii31,000,000 Estimated annual production of lumber, in board feet (lumber tally) 389,000,000 Estimated annual production of plywood, in square feet (3/8-inch basis) 66,960,000 use includes lands of prime recreational potential which are accessible by motor vehicle during the entire vacation season. Most future development is expected to occur in these areas. Medium intensity recreational use includes lands of prime recreational value which are not readily accessible by motor vehicles. These areas will be developed to some extent, but their greatest use will probably be for fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and similar recreational activities. Low intensity recreational areas are lands generally of inferior scenic and topographic qualities, although they may be important for hunting. These classifications of use were selected so that user-days of recreation on these lands could be estimated. The studies indicated that approximately 1,900,000 acres, or over 80 percent of the total area of the basin, has some recreational potential. The estimated acreages of lands included in the various classifications of recreational use are set forth in Table 19. -13i^- lu ■* I ■ f '/.'All i,.r il ^' I 'r,:v|^V ftl a o o ' 1 ■ f 1 \ I 1 ■,i- i 1 ]|l-. \ \ Reservoir Areas The estimated average water surface areas of reservoirs within the Upper Feather River Basin, resulting from existing and possible future projects shown in the California Water Plan, is about 70,800 acres, including Oroville Reservoir. The distribution of this total area is presented by hydrographic units in Table 19. Present and Ultimate Population At present, the Upper Feather Basin is rather spsirsely populated, but the population may be expected to increase many times as California approaches full developnent . The population in 1956 of the basin, based on estimates made by the State Department of Finance, is about 16,500, while the ultimate population may reach 125,000. At present, about 80 percent of the people are concentrated in the towns of the area, even though the popu- lation of these towns is not classified as urban in United States Census reports. The economy of the area depends primarily upon agriculture, timber production, and maintenance of resort and recreation facilities. There is sane seasonal fluctuation in the popvilation, because each of these piir suits is caiTied on actively in the summer but is curtailed during the winter. In recent years, employment in the timber industry has been reduced by the closing of a number of logging and milling operations. However, it is estimated that there are continuing increases in employment in connection with recreation. The present urban population of the Upper Feather River Basin is centered primarily in a number of small towns in the high mountain valleys in the eastern portion of the area. These towns serve as shopping centers for the agricultural population and as industrial centers for the timber industries. ■135- TABLE 19 PROBABLE ULTII-IATE PATTERN OF URBAN, SUBURBAN, RECREATIONAL LAND USE AIJD RESERVOIR AREAS IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN (In acres) Refer- ence 1. • • : Hydrographic : Urban and ; suburban •.High inten- rsity recrea- :Hedium intensity: • : recreation t Low intensity :Principal recreation : reservoir nxmber : unit : ; areas : tion areas : areas : areas : areas 1 North Fork Feather River U,000 528,500 10,500 3U,500 i;5,200 2 East Branch Feather River 3,200 U56,000 97,900 20,500 12,000 3 Sierra Valley- 3,200 158,300 32,600 11,300 2,U00 U Middle Fork Feather River 3,200 370,100 51,300 7,500 5 South Fork Feather River 1,600 97,800 3.700 TOTALS 15,200 1,610,700 192,300 66,300 70,800 The largest community in Plumas County, Quincy, with a population of about 3,300, is the county seat and serves the surrounding agriciiltural and timber-producing areas. Portola has a population of about 2,300, while Chester, Greenville and Loyalton have populations of 1,600, 1,200 and 1,000, respectively. There are a number of towns such as Blairsden, Calpine and Sierraville which have populations of only a few h\andred. All of these towns provide resort and recreational facilities for tourists. A summary of estimates of the 1956 population is shown in Table 20 for each of the hydro- graphic units within the Upper Feather River Basin. Estimates of ultimate population were made for the Department of Water Resources by the firm of Pacific Planning and Research as part of the Northeastern Counties Investigation. Detailed results of these studies are ■136- contained in Appendix A, "Future Population, Economic and Recreation Develop- ment of California's Northeastern Counties", published in 1957 as part of Bulletin No. 58, "Northeastern Counties Investigation". The population of California, based on full development of all natural reso\irces in the period from 2,020 to 2,050 was estimated to be 56,000,000, and the corresponding ultimate population of the Upper Feather River Basin would be about 125,000. The ultimate population estimates were subdivided into urban and suburban, rural farm and rural non-farm categories. Bnployment in agriculture, industry and recreation was given consideration in making this subdivision. A siimmary of the estimated ultimate population for each of the hydrographic units within the Upper Feather River Basin is shown in Table 21. Water Requirements The estimates of probable ultimate water requirements in the Upper Feather River Basin are the amo\ints of water that would be required to meet consumptive uses of applied water and irrecoverable losses incidental to such use. These estimates, modified by appropriate efficiency factors, constitute the quantity of water needed to fully irrigate the ultimate crop pattern set forth in the preceding section of this chapter. V/ater require- ments for irrigated agriculture, combined with water requirements for urban, suburban, industrial and recreational uses were then used as the basis for planning future water development in the basin. ■ The term "requirement" is a general term that expresses need for beneficial use of water, and it is customary that it be vised with certain " modifying words which by implication define the exact nature of the require- ment. For example, "diversion requirement" is the amount of water needed at the point of diversion on a stream systen to provide for losses in conveyance I -137- TABLE 20 ESTIMATED PRESEOT (1956) POPULATION BY HYDROGRAPHIC UNITS '.flTHIN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN Hydrographic unit Rural • farm Rural : : non- : i farm : Reference number • • : Name : Urban j Totals 1 North Fork Feather River 1,328 197 3,U3$ U,960 2 East Branch Feather River * 171 Ii,879 5,050 3 Sierra Valley *. 36U 1,667 2,031 h Middle Fork Feather River * 63 i;,356 U,U19 S South Fork Feather River TALS * 5 800 1U,337 5 TC 1,328 16,U65 Urban population is included with rural non-farm. of water to places of use, for the necessary irrigation head to distribute the water in the fields, for the wetting of the soil volume, and for deep percola- tion. It takes into account the re-use of return flows from iridgation or other employments of the water. A "service area requirement" accounts for all the foregoing uses of .^^ater in a specified seirvice area, measured, however, at the point or points of entrance of the water to the area, or the equivalent, rather than at a point of diversion on a stream system. Consumptive water requirements refer to the net loss of water in a given area or stream basin occasioned by water utilization. Requirements for water that cause an impairment in the quantity of the water supply remaining available for other purposes are herein referred to as "consumptive requirements. In general, they include irrigation, municipal, and industrial requirements. ■138- TABLE 21 ESTIMATED ULTII-IATE POPULATION BY HYDROGR-^^PHIC UNITS '^THIN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN Hydr ographic unit Rural farm : Rural : : non- : : fana : eference: number : Name : Urban : Totals 1 North Fork Feather River 27,U50 U50 27,900 55,800 2 East Branch Feather River 8,000 Uoo 16,850 25,250 3 Sierra Valley U,800 1,U50 2,750 9,000 h Middle Fork Feather River a, 000 250 17,350 21,600 5 South Fork Feather River 3,500 50 9,U50 13,000 TOTALS U7,750 2,600 7U,300 12U,650 Another major loss of water in the Upper Feather River Basin results from evaporation from reservoir surfaces. Only a part of the water which is applied to iririgated land is lost to the basin through transpiration by crops and evaporation from the land surfaces that have been artifically wetted. For practical purposes, these two losses of irrigation water, known as "consumptive use", are the only significant physical losses to the total quantity of water in a stream basin. For convenience, similar physical losses caused by other employments of water are also termed "consumptive use", although they may be entirely evaporative in character, such as losses from reservoir surfaces. Nonsumptive requirements refer to the use of water for fish propagation, power production, or for aesthetic purposes, in which the water is put to beneficial use and then returned to natural channels. In most instances, the regimen of stream flow is affected but not the quantity or quality of the water, -139- Unit Values of Water Use Unit values of water use for irrigated lands refer to the consumptive use of applied water by plants and the adjacent soil, expressed in feet of depth. A unit value may also be thought of as a volume in terms of acre-feet per acre. The consumptive use of applied water for a given hydrographic unit was computed as the product of the unit value of water use of the unit cuid the acreage of land involved. Ideally, unit values of water use for irrigated agriculture, urban areas, industrial production, and recreational development should be based upon measurements of the quantities of water actually utilized. Such data should be collected for the area under consideration to reflect the varying climatic and operational influences, and the measurements shotold be extensive enough to reflect season-to-season variations in demand. In the absence of adequate data, it was necessary to use the available water use measurements together with supplementary data relating to physical conditions that affect consumptive use of water. From these data, unit values of water use were esti- mated. Analyses of all available water use data were made and tabulated. Extensive studies were initiated to collect new data on water use for irrigated crops, urban and suburban service, the forest products industry, recreational activities and evaporation from reservoir surfaces. Mean seasonal unit values were estimated for each of these types of water use. The values of consumptive use of applied water for irrigated crops were determined by the basic methods set forth and described in Bulletin No. 53. Unit values of agricultural water use developed in this investigation were based on the assumption that sufficient water would be available at all times to meet the normal demand for water by growing plants. However, those -ll+O- fcuniliar with the operation of water service agencies will recognize that weather, agricultural practices, and economic factors affect the demand for irrigation water and, in turn, affect the amount of water consumptively used from season to season. Estimated mean seasonal unit values of consumptive use of applied water on irrigated lands are presented in Table 22, TABLE 22 ESTIMATED KiEAfI SEASONAL UNIT VALUES OF CONSUKPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER ON IftRIGATED LANDS IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN (In feet of depth) Hydrographic unit Reference: niamber : Name Crops ; Improved: Meadow : Grain and:Truck:Deciduous:Subtropical Alfalfa; pasture ; pasture; grain hay; crops; orchards: orchards 2.3 0.3 1.8 2.3 0.3 0.9 1.6 2.3 0.3 0.8 2.3 0.3 0.8 1.7 2.3 1.7 1 North Fork 1.8 1.9 2.3 0.3 1.8 1,8 Feather River 2 East Branch 1.9 1.9 Feather River 3 Sierra Valley 1.8 1.9 k Middle Fork 1.8 1.9 Feather River 5 South Fork 1,9 Feather River Estimates of unit values of water in present and ultimate urban, and suburban areas were determined on a per capita basic rather than on a unit area basis. The average daily quantity of per capita water use was computed from available records of water delivery and water consumption in urban areas in the mountainous northeastern counties of the State. It was estimated that the present water delivery requirement is about 160 gallons per capita per day for urban and suburban areas, and about 130 gallons per capita per day for rural areas. It was also estimated that, vinder ultimate conditions, the per capita water requirement would increase to 250 gallons per day for urban and suburban areas, ajid to 200 gallons per -la- capita per day for rursil areas. These values represent water delivered at the point of use. Irrecoverable losses restilting from such use were estimated as 50 percent of the delivery requirement. The unit values used to determine c onsumptive use and crater requirements for domestic purposes in urban, suburban and rural areas are shown in Table 23. TABLE 23 ESTIMATED milT VALUES OF CONSUMPTIVE USE AND WATER REQUIRH^EENT FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES IN URBAN, SUBURBAN AND RURAL AREAS (in gallons per capita per day) : Cons\ampt ive use : ; Water requirement Development : Present : Ultimate : ; Present : Ultimate Urban and subiirban areas Rural areas 80 65 125 100 160 130 250 200 Separate estimates were made of potential water use by the forest products industry. The major products of this industry are 1-umber and plywood. Unit values of water use for these items were obtained from information made available by the United States Forest Service and various private companies, and are shown in Table 2^^-. TABLE 24 ESTIMATED UNIT VALUES OF CONSUMPTIVE USE AND V/ATER REQUIREMENT FOR THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY WITHIN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASDJ Item I Unit : Consumptive use : Water requirement Lumber Gallons per boaxd foot of product 1.0 1.0 Plywood Gallons per board foot of logs used 1.0 1.0 -l42- Estimates of the water requirement to meet recreational demands were based on the number of user-days determined by the firm of Pacific Planning and Research and reported in Appendix A of Bulletin No. 58, The categories comprised permanent and summer residences, commercial resorts and motels, organizational camps, and camping and picnic areas. The unit values of water use, largely estimated from experience and judgment, represent both consumptive use and water requirement, and are shown in Table 25« TABLE 25 ESTII^lATED UlIIT VAIIJES OF CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATHi FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN (In gallons per user-day) 'i Unit value of consumptive Type of use : use Permanent and summer residences 150 Commercial resorts and motels 100 Organizational camps 50 Camping and picnic areas 10 Unit values of net monthly evaporation from reservoir surfaces were estimated as the amotint of evaporation in excess of precipitation during those months when evaporation is greater than precipitation. Net seasonal evaporation frcm reservoir surfaces was derived by the summation of the monthly excess of evaporation over precipitation and was expressed in terms of depth of water. Net reservoir surface evaporation generally occiirs during the 7-month period of April through October. For this investigation, gross evaporation from reservoir surfaces was estimated fran pan evaporation recoixis and atmometer records. Precipitation records were obtained for reliable -143- stations at or near the locations of evaporation pans or atmometers. Net seasonal evaporation from reservoir surfaces was fovind to range between 2? inches and 38 inches in the Upper Feather River Basin. Consiunptive Use of Applied Water Estimates were made of the amount of water consumptively used under present and probable ultimate conditions. In general, these estimates were derived by applying the appropriate unit values of water use to the present and estimated ultimate patterns of land use. Present Use of Applied Water . Present consumptive use of applied water for irrigated crops, on swamp and marsh lands, and from principal reservoirs was estimated by multiplying the estimated acreage of each class of use by the appropriate unit value of consumptive use of water. Total consumptive use of applied water in urban and rural development was estimated as the product of the population for each category times the appropriate value of per capita water use. The estimate of consumptive use of applied water for present urban and rural purposes includes water usedfor industrial and recreational purposes as well as the forest products industry. Unit values of consumptive use of applied water for irrigated crops were determined on the basis of a full water supply, sufficient to meet the optimum moisture needs of the crop. However, in mar^ areas full seasonal water supplies are not presently available, and crops are subject to a deficient irrigation supply during summer and fall months. Vftiere this condition exists, the computed consumptive use of applied water was reduced by a factor to indicate actual consumptive use under present water supply conditions. The ratio of actual consumptive use of applied water to optimum consumptive use, expressed as a percentage, was estimated by -1A4- comparison of developed water supplies to potential consumptive use, and from information furnished by watermasters on availability of water in watermaster service areas. As a result, the present consumptive use of applied irrigation water presented herein is about U5 percent of the amount that wo\ild be used if full water supplies were available. Net evaporation from reservoir water surfaces is considered eqiiivalent to consumptive use of applied water, since it results in a depletion of the available water supply. Net reseirvoir evaporation represents the quantity of water that is lost to use over and above the amount of water previously consumed on the lands in the reservoir before construction. To derive consumptive use from reservoir surfaces, average areas of reservoir surfaces for each of the hydrographic units were multiplied by unit net seasonal evaporation values. Estimates of present mean seasonal consumptive use of applied water are presented in Table 26 by hydrographic units. These estimates were based on the existing water supply development in the basin. \ -U5- TABLE 26 ESTIMATED PRESENT MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN (In acre-feet) Refer- : ence : number: Hjydrographic Unit : :Urban and :Net reser- : Irrigated: suburban :voir eva- i lands t lands ;poration : Totals 1 North Fork Feather River 2 East Branch Feather River 3 Sierra Valley h Middle Fork Feather River 5 South Fork Feather River TOTALS 13,100 I4OO 70, 800 1, 200 67,500 81,000 18,500 i;00 800 19,700 31,700 100 31,800 7,300 300 ilOO 8,000 200 200 ilOO 68,900 mo,9oo Probable Ultimate Consumptive Use of Applied Water » The procedures utilized to estimate probable ultimate consimptive use of applied water were similar to those employed to estimate present consumptive use. The amount of water that would be used on lands ultimately irrigated was estimated by multiplying the forecasted ultimate acreage of each crop type by its respective unit value of consumptive use of applied water. Ultimate seasonal consumptive use of applied water by urban and suburban lands, recreational su:eas» and forest products industry and by evaporation from principal reservoirs was esti- mated as the product of the forecasted level of development times the corres- ponding unit value of water use. Estimates of ultimate consumptive use of applied water for irrigated lands are based on the assumption that a full seasonal water supply -146- would be available to the net crop acreage that might ultimately be irrigated in any one season. Consumptive use of applied water for urban and suburban purposes was ccmputed as the product of the appropriate estimated population and the unit value of per capita water use. Consumptive use of applied water was estimated to be 50 percent of the water requirements. The probable ultimate consumptive use of applied water for forest products industry was estimated by multiplying the estLmated annual production of lu:iber and plywood that would be ultimately processed on a sustained yield basis by the appropriate average \mit value of applied water consumed in processing. The ultimate consrjmptive use of applied water for recreational purposes was detennined by multiplying the estimated user-days for each type of use in the recreation areas by the appropriate unit value of per capita water use. The totals were then expressed in acre-feet per season for each hydrographic unit. The amount of evaporation from a reservoir surface under ultimate conditions was estimated as the product of the surface area in acres at average operating level times the net seasonal depth of evaporation from the reservoir surface. The reservoirs included in the estimate are the existing reseirvoirs and those included in the Upper Feather River Basin under the California Water Plan, The estimated amount of evaporation from reservoir surfaces under ultimate conditions is approximately UO percent of the totail consumptive use of applied water in the Upper Feather River Basin. Estimates of probable ultimate mean seasonal consumptive use of water are presented in Table 27. -U7- TABLE 27 PROBABLE ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER \VITKIN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN (In acre-feet) Refer-: : Irri- tUrban and:Forest :Recrea-:Net reser-r ence :Hydrographic unit: gated :sub\arban : products :tional :voir eva- :Totals number: : lands ; lands :industry; areas tporation ; 1 North Fork Feather River 36,600 5,200 600 U,500 li;3,900 190,800 2 East Branch Feather River 52,800 2,000 200 3,500 27,300 85,800 3 Sierra Valley- 168,300 l,i|00 100 1,200 5,U00 176, UOO h Middle Fork Feather River 23,U00 3,U00 200 3,300 19,000 U9,300 5 South Fork Feather River 1,500 2,500 100 1,100 8,900 U;,100 TOTALS 282,600 m,5oo 1,200 13,600 20ii,500 516, UOO Probable Ultimate Water Requirements A determination was made of the probable ultimate requirements for water in the area under investigation. This estimate represents the gross amount of water required to meet both demands for consumptive use of applied water and irrecoverable losses incidental to its application. Consideration was given to both farm irrigation efficiencies and the re-use of return flow from water applied within the hydrographic unit. This estimate is the measure of the required water supply that ultimately should be developed on a firm basis for the particular hydrographic \init. In general, the estimates of water reqviirements were derived by dividing the consumptive use of applied water by an appropriate water service area efficiency factor for the particular hydrographic unit. -148- The various water requirements are considered and evaluated separately for irrigated agriculture, urban and suburban lands, the forest products industry, recreational areas and evaporation from reservoir areas. The estimates of probable ultimate mean seasonal water requirements to meet consumptive demands are summarized in Table 28. TABLE 28 PROBABLE ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL WATER REQUIREIffiNTS WITHIN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN (In acre-feet) Refer- : : Irri- : Urban and: Forest :Recrea-:Net reser-: ence :Hydrographic unit: gated ."suburban :products: tion rvoir eva- :Totals number; ; lands : lands t industry; areas tporation ; 1 North Fork Feather River 73,100 10,500 600 li,500 m3,900 222,600 2 East Branch Feather River 70,300 U,000 200 3,500 27,300 105,300 3 Sierra Valley 210,U00 2,800 100 1,200 5,U00 219,900 k Middle Fork Feather River 3U,200 6,800 200 3,300 19,000 63,500 5 South Fork Feather River 3,000 5,100 100 1,100 8,900 18,200 TOTALS 391,000 29,200 1,200 13,600 20U,500 639,500 -149- CHAPTER VI. PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT The growth and enhancement of the economy of the Upper Feather River Basin will require the fvirther development of water resources to provide for local needs. In the Indian Valley, Upper Indian Creek, and Sierra Valley sireas, the allocation of the unregvilated water supplies to meet current demands has been accomplished by water right adjudication and watermaster service. In these areas, however, optimum returns from presently irrigated lands, as well as desirable expansion of irrigation to lands not now served, are impeded by the insufficiency of simmer and fall water supplies. Also, in the Upper Indisin Creek, Spanish Creek, Big Grizzly Creek, and Middle Fork, and South Fork of the Feather River Basins, enhancement of the large recreational potential and fiorther production of hydroelectric power would require new water conservation developments. In most hydrographic imits of the Upper Feather River Basin, large surplus flows of water are available diiring the snowmelt period of every season. These surplus flows, if properly controlled and regulated, wo\ild, in most cases, more than meet the ultim8.te water requirements of the units. The principal exception to this situation is Sierra Veilley where there is insuf- ficient water available to meet water requirements for full developments of all irrigable land. However, in general, large surplus flows would be avail- able for export to water-deficient areas in other parts of California after probable ultimate water requirements of the Upper Feather River Basin have been met. As previously stated in Chapter II, individual plans for developing the waters of the Upper Feather River Basin were conceived as part of a -151- basin-wide master plan. Under this master plan, the waters of the basin would be developed for all beneficial purposes to obtain maixiraijm net benefits. Primary consideration was given, however, to developments that woi£Ld provide water to meet consumptive use in the Upper Feather River Basin. Incidental to the development of plans which would satisfy these requirements, consideration was given to projects which would develop hydroelectric power and provide water for water-deficient areas in the Sacramento Valley. In this chapter, general features and estimates of costs and benefits of projects considered for development in the Upper Feather River Basin are set forth. Geology as it pertains to proposed dams, reservoirs, and related water development facilities is presented where each of these facilities is discussed. The proposed projects are presented under the general headings of "Plans for Water Development of the Middle Fork Basin", "Alternative Plans for Development of the Middle Fork of the Feather River below Sierra Valley", "Plans for devel- opment of North Fork of the Feather River", and "The South Fork Project on the South Fork of the Feather River". plans for Water Development of the Middle Fork Basin The water resources of the Middle Fork Basin are essentially unde- veloped, even tho\igh numerous possibilities exist for storage of unregulated waters for irrigation use, enhancement of fishing and recreation, flood control, and the production of hydroelectric power. In the following discussion, plans are presented for three possible projects which could supply water to meet local needs in Sierra Veilley. Two of the projects. Frenchman and Grizzly Valley, were authorized by the Legislature in 1957 as part of the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects. The other potential project. Sheep Camp, was studied as a possible future ■152- development. Plans for these projects are delineated on Plate 6, entitled "Projects for Supplying Water to Upper Feather River Basin". Sierra Valley Service Area Sierra Valley is a mountain valley located in the Middle Fork of the Feather River in the southeastern portion of Plumas County and the northeastern portion of Sierra County. The valley comprises about 118,000 acres, of which about 97,500 acres are irrigable. The climate of Sierra Valley is characterized by its aridity. The average seasonal depth of precipitation on the valley floor is only about 15 inches and is less than 10 inches on a part of the valley. Other major climatic characteristics are an abundance of sunshine, wide range of tempera- ture, low humidity, and high rate of evaporation. More than 90 percent of the toteil seasonal precipitation normally occtirs between the first of October and the last of May; about one-half of which is in the form of snow. The elevation of the valley floor is approximately 4,900 feet. Consequently, below freezing temperat\ires can occiir during any month of the year. Winters are moderately severe, with monthly minimum temperatures remaining below freezing during the period from November through March. Snow on the valley floor begins to melt about the first of March, while on the surrounding mountains snow begins to melt about the middle of March. In seasons when heavy snowfall is experienced in the mountains, considerable flood damage occurs to downstream ranches, roads, and other improvements. The snowmelt nmoff declines rapidly, and intermittent streams flowing into the valley are generally dry by May 15- Nearly sill perennial streams approach minimum flows by June 15- -153- In general, most of the irrigable lands in Sierra Valley axe siiited to medium- and shallow- rooted, climatically adapted crops and to a lesser extent are suited to alfalfa, where soil depth permits. The growing season in Sierra Valley for climatically adapted crops is approximately 90 days. This short growing season, coupled with cool nights, resiilts in relatively low crop yields. Agriculture in Sierra Valley is dominated by beef cattle production. The major portion of the valley is used for range pasture in its natural state, with £in estimated average carrying capacity of 12 acres per mature animal for the period of May through October. Irrigation is of importance in the maturation and successfiil pro- duction of crops in Sierra Valley. Natural meadows are located in proximity to the small creeks flowing onto and across the valley floor. When natioral runoff is available, the meadow lands are irrigated by wild flooding methods by constructing small check dams on the creeks to cause the stream flow to spread out over the land. The lands produce a relatively high-quality hay for winter feeding, with an estimated average yield of about one ton per acre. In the more sheltered portions of the valley, however, alfalfa and domestic grasses have replaced the native grasses as a so\rrce of hay and green forage. Some dry grain and grain hay are produced, but the lack of water during the growing season results in rather poor yields. A total of seven communities, ranging in size from less than 50 to about 2,000 residents, located in and around Sierra Valley. Four of these, Vinton, Beckwourth, Loyalton, and Calpine, are located in the Sierra Valley service area. A fifth community, Portola, located along the Middle Fork of the Feather River several miles downstream from the outlet of the valley, would receive major secondary benefits from the construction of the projects. It is estimated that in the Sierra Valley service area there are about 1,500 inhabitants. ^i An excellent transportation system traverses Sierra Valley, A major east-west highway, U. S. Highway ItO Alternate, and the main line of the Western Pacific Railroad extend across the north side of the valley. State Highway 89 enters the western portion of the valley from the southeast and extends to Calpine where it leaves the valley to connect with U, S, Highway ijO Alternate at Blairsden, State Highway No. h9 extends from Sierraville through Loyalton to connect with U. S. Highway UO Alternate at Vinton, Several second- ary roads of varying capacity and condition provide access to the surrounding area. Regulation of the available water supply is urgently needed in Sierra Valley. Runoff from the streams entering the valley floor consists largely of melting snow and comes as torrential floods in the spring and drops sharply soon thereafter. The high spring runoff spreads out over the valley floor, causing flood damage. In contrast to the frequent spring flooding, most of the land has an inadequate water supply during the late summer and early fall months. Because of this 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 water. This shortage of water for irrigation use, particularly diiring the late irrigation season, makes it essential that supplemental water supplies be developed if the potential of the valley is to be fulfilled. Full irrigation development of the 97,500 acres of irrigable land in the valley would require about 210, UOO acre-feet of applied water seasonally. The estimated seasonal consumptive use that would result from, this application is about 168,300 acre-feet. The average seasonal inflow from the streams entering the valley is estimated to be about 155,000 acre-feet. It is indicated, there- fore, that there is insufficient water available for full development of all the -155- irrigable land in the valley. A more detailed discussion of water utilization and requirements is presented in Chapter V. The development of water resources for Sierra Valley would provide an opportunity for enhancement of the outdoor recreational potential. Sierra Valley is located in an attractive recreational area and the construction of reservoirs and regulation of stream flow would aid in satisfying future recre- ational demand. Authorized Projects In February 1957, the Depart^nent of Water Resources issued Bulletin No. 59, an interim report on the Upper Feather River Basin Investi- gation, entitled "Interim Report on Engineering, Economic, and Financial Feasibility of Initial Units". Bulletin No. 59 presents data on three pro- posed projects of which two. Frenchman and Grizzly Valley, are located on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, and the third, the Indian Creek Recreation Project, is located on the North Fork. Following the publication of the bul- letin, the Legislature authorized the three projects as the initial units of the Upper Feather River Division of the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects. Frenchman Project . Frenchman Project consists of a dam and storage reservoir and system of works that will regulate the waters of Little Last Chance Creek a tributary to Sierra Valley. The project will provide water for irrigation use, result in partial flood control to downstream areas, and furnish the basis for enhancement of recreational opportunities. Its operation will provide a regulated water supply of about 15,000 acre-feet seasonally, of which a large part will be new water. In addition, regulation of the presently -156- 4 .-r^'^^i* >' ^'■\ >; /^;.^^:i^-^' ■''i.- f '^ IH»' I' ^ .^•#fvi:>^ 01 E o Q c o E available unregulated water supply will enable more effective use of the water over a longer period during the irrigation season. The project will provide incidental flood control benefits. In the operation studies of Frenchman Reservoir, no specific reservation of storage space was made for flood control purposes. Storage space above the ungated spillway crest, however, would provide a high degree of flood protec- tion by reducing flood peaks on Little Last Chance Creek. It was estimated that the once-in-lOO year flood peak will be reduced from U,UOO second-feet to about 1,300 second-feet, a flow that will cause negligible damage. The reservoir will enhance the recreational potential of the surrounding area by providing a setting for the building of camp sites, boatint; facilities, and summer homes. Both the area adjacent to the reservoir site and the canyon area downstream are attractive for this type of development. The service area for the Frenchman Project lies witnin the bound- aries of the Last Chance V/ater Dis i.rict, and comprises those lands now served by diversion of the unregulated flows of Little Last Chance Creek. The project will consist of a dam and reservoir, basic public recre- ational facilities, and access roads. The dam is located on Little Last Chance Creek, about one mile downstream from its confluence with Frencliman Creek. The reservoir will have gross storage capacity of 51,000 acre-feet and net storage capacity of U9,300 acre-feet. The water surface area at spillway crest will be about 1,U70 acres. The normal pool elevation in the reservoir will be 5,588 feet. The dam will have a height of 130 feet above stream bed, a crest length of 720 feet, and will be constructed of homogeneous earthfill. -157- Construction of Frenchman Dam and Reservoir was initiated in the fall of 1959. These features will cost approximately $2,210,000. The loca- tion of the Frenchman Project and its service area is shown on Plate 6. Grizzly Valley Project . The authorized Grizzly Valley Project would consist of a dam and storage reservoir that would regulate the waters of Big Grizzly Creek, and a conduit extending to the proposed service area in Sierra Valley. The project would provide water for irrigation use, and fur- nish the basis for the enhancement of recreation opportunities. Its operation would provide a regulated water supply of about 15,100 acre-feet seasonally, of which l/t,900 acre-feet v;ould be new v;ater that presently is unavailable to irrigators in Sierra Valley. The proposed reservoir would enhance recreational opportunities by providing a setting for the building of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer homes. Both the area surrounding the reservoir and the area downstream are desirable for this type of development. Although the reservoir would reduce the peak of floods of Big Grizzly Creek, flood control benefits from the project would be insignificant since very little flood damage occurs to downstream property under present conditions. The service area for the proposed Grizzly Valley Project lies partly vvlthin the boundaries of the existing I^st Chance Creek Water District and partly in the portion of Sierra Valley lying immediately north of the district. Operation of the project would be integrated, therefore, with the -158- operation of the Frenchman Project. As a result approximately 6,200 acres, in addition to those served by the Frenchman Project would receive a full irriga- tion supply. The Grizzly Valley Project would consist of a dam and reservoir on Big Grizzly Creek, about five miles north of Portola; a conveyance system to deliver water to Sierra Valley; and basic recreational facilities and necessary access roads. The reservoir would have a gross storage capacity of 80,000 acre-feet, and a net storage capacity of 77,800 acre-feet. The water surface area at spillway crest would be ii,100 acres, and the normal pool eleva- tion in the reservoir would be 5,775 feet. The dam would have a height of 123 feet above stream bed, a crest length of 380 feet, and it would be constructed of earthfill. Preliminary data on the estimated costs of the authorized Grizzly Valley Project and on the benefits that would accrue therefrom were presented in Bulletin No, 59. The department is currently engaged in advanced planning studies which include a re-evaluation of the costs and accomplishments of the project. Location of the Grizzly Valley Project and its service area is shown on Plate 6. Sheep Camp Project The Sheep Camp Project would include the construction of a dam and reservoir on Carman Creek about two miles north of Calpine. Water from nine small watersheds that drain onto the valley floor would be intercepted by a canal extending northwesterly across Sierra Valley to a pumping plant located at the base of Sheep Camp Dam. This water would be pumped into the proposed reservoir for storage and later release .during the irrigation season to the intercepting canal for conveyance to lands located below the canal. The location of the proposed Sheep Camp Project is shown on Plate 6, -159- The proposed Sheep Camp Project would provide a reg\ilated water supply of about W,000 acre-feet seasonally, of which 25,000 acre-feet would be new water that presently is imavailable to irrigators in the valley. In addition, the presently available unregiilated water supply could be more effectively used over the irrigation season than at present. About 20,000 acres located below the intercepting canal co\jld be served from Sheep Camp Project, exclusive of the proposed service areas for the authorized Grizzly Valley and Frenchman Projects. The total seasonal yield from Sheep Camp Reservoir could meet the water requirements for this area^which amount to about ^46,000 acre-feet per season. The reservoir could result in the enhancement of an outdoor recre- ational area by providing a setting for the building of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer homes. The reservoir would be located near the western edge of Sierra Valley and woiild lie in both Sierra and Plumas Coimties. It would inundate Carman Valley and have a storage capacity of 65,000 acre-feet at normal pool and a minimum storage capacity of 5j500 acre-feet. The water surface area would be 1,635 acres at spillway crest elevation of ^+,997 feet, and 6^4-0 acres at minimiim pool elevation. A topographic map of the reservoir area was prepared in 1956 to a scale of one inch equals UOO feet eind with a contour interval of five feet. Reservoir storage capacity and water s\irface area data for various pool ele- vations at Sheep Camp Reservoir were determined from this map and are pre- sented in Table 29. -160- TABLE 29 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF SHEEP CAMP RESERVOIR Depth of water : Water surface : Water : Storage at dam, : elevation, : surface area, : capacity. in feet : in feet : in acres : in acre-feet 11,925 15 k,sko 370 2,100 25 U,950 720 7,700 35 i+,960 970 16,300 ^5 ^+,970 1,170 27,000 55 U,98o 1,350 39,600 65 U,990 1,520 53,900 72 ^,997 1,635 65,000 75 5,000 1,690 70,000 Preliminary geologic investigation of the Sheep Camp Project was accomplished during 1956 and 1957- The exploration program included siirface geologic mapping of the main dam and auxiliary dam sites, reservoir area, potential borrow areas, and intercepting canal route; drilling and sampling of materials from 22 test holes along the axes of the proposed dams and spill- way; dozer excavation of test trenches on the abutments of the main dam; seismic exploration along the axis of the main dam to determine depth to bed- rock and the extent of a compact plastic clay bed in the channel section; and collection of soil samples and estimation of quantities to determine the suit- ability and availability of potential borrow materials. The main dam site at Sheep Camp is situated across the broad flat valley of Carman Creek adjacent to Sierra Valley. Bedrock on the abutments consists of jointed granitic rock that, in places, is weathered deeply. The upper part of the left abutment consists of volcanic rock, mainly andesite. Volcanic rock caps most ridges and hills in the area. The channel is filled with recent alluvium and lake sediments to a depth of at least 150 feet at the deepest point. The granitic bedrock on the left abutment slopes gently under -161- the channel fill toward the right abutment. Along the right abutment, a normal fault has dropped the granitic bedrock surface in the channel relative to the abutment. Jointing in the granitic rock on the abutments is moderate, and most of the joints appear tight. The results of the drilling indicate a nearly continuous impervious clay stratum in the channel at a depth of about l8 feet. The plastic nature of the clay stratum and the unconsolidated nature of the channel material present serious foundation problems. Extreme care in the design and construc- tion of a dam on this site would be required. Stripping to a depth of about l8 feet beneath the pervious section would intercept the nearly continuous impervious clay stratum and would insure cutoff. An average stripping depth of about 30 feet of disintegrated granitic rock on the right abutment would be required to reach competent bedrock. On the left abutment the removal of about 10 feet of disintegrated granite and loose volcanic material beneath the impervious section of the dam should be adequate. Heavy grouting would be required in the volcanic rocks on the left abutment. Difficulty may be experienced in grouting the weathered granitic rock along the volcanic-granitic contact. The spillway would be located along the upper portion of the left abutment and would need lining, as the rock is deeply weathered. Two auxiliary dams would be required. One auxiliary dam site is located about 0.5 mile northeast of the main dam, and the other is approxi- mately two miles northeast of the main dam. Geologic conditions at the site about 0.5 mile from the main dam are similar to those of the left abutment of the main dam. The other auxiliary dam site located about two miles north- easterly of the main axis would require a dam about 27 feet in height. The foundation rock at this site is suitable for a dam of the proposed height. -162. Volceinic rock outcrops along the uppermost part of the abutments. On the lower portions of the abutments, bedrock is masked by slope wash. The chgmnel contains an Impervious slope wash fill to a depth of about six feet. Volcanic tuff and agglomerate underlie the slope wash. The lower left abutment is under- lain by loose granitic sand, which is believed to be a beach deposit from an ancient lake. Stripping beneath the impervious section of the auxiliary dam would total three to five feet. An impervious blanket across the lower left abutment, where loose beach sand occurs, may be necessary to provide cutoff. Seismicity in the region of Sheep Camp dam site is regarded as moderate to high. Borrow material is considered adequate in quantity and quality. Decomposed granitic rock located adjacent to the right abutment is a source of impervious material. Nearby outcropping granitic rock could be quarried for riprap. Based on the preliminary program of exploration, an earthfill dam with a height of up to 100 feet could be built at the Sheep Camp site. Geologic conditions of Sheep Camp dam site are shown on Plate 7* It was estimated that the average seasonal runoff from the 89 square miles of drainage area above the intercepting canal is about 46,000 acre-feet. In addition, the estimated average seasonal runoff of Carman Creek from the 23 square miles of watershed above Sheep Camp dam site is about 13,000 acre-feet. Monthly yield studies were conducted in sizing the Sheep Camp Project. From the studies, a reservoir storage capacity of 65,000 acre-feet was selected to illustrate the accomplishments of the project. Releases from the reservoir were assumed to meet an irrigation demand schedule. A summary of the yield study for the reservoir is presented in Appendix B, entitled "Summary of Project Yield Studies". The dam would be of earthfill construction with a height of 82 feet and a crest length of 3,300 feet. The choice of dam section was -163- influenced by the serious foimdation weakness. The dam would consist of a homogeneous embankment with a 3 -25 to 1 upstream slope and 2 to 1 downstream slope. Berms with a width of 200 feet woiild be located on both slopes at an elevation 36 feet below the crest of the dam. Two auxiliary dams with heights of 27 feet would be constructed in saddles located northeasterly of the main dam. Embankment slopes of these dams would be 3-5 to 1 upstream and 3 to 1 downstream. A concrete-lined spillway woiild be located in the left abutment of the dam. A concrete ogee weir would discharge into a constant width, rectang\ilar, concrete-lined chute extending across the andesitic mud flow of the abutment to a point where the mud flow contacts granitic rock. From this point to the stream bed, the chute would be unlined. At maximum water siirface elevation of 5^000.5 feet, the spillway discharge would be 1,000 second- feet, the requirement for a standard project design flood, and the surcharge capa- city would be 5,500 acre-feet. The outlet-inlet works would serve both to discharge irrigation releases from the reservoir and to convey water into the reservoir from the pumping plant. A concrete intake structiure in the reservoir containing an emergency slide gate wo\ild be connected to a 5^-inch diameter outlet conduit. The conduit woiild be a concrete cut and cover section located in a trench on the left abutment. Downstream from the dam, the conduit would be formed of precast concrete pipe. The outlet works would comprise a Howell-Bunger valve located in a concrete valve house and woxild discharge through a stilling basin to the intercepting canal. The pumping plant would be located adjacent to both the outlet works and the intercepting canal. Ten pumps Eirranged in parallel would lift -16U- water from a sump located in the canal throiagh a manifold to the inlet-outlet conduit and thence into the reservoir. Each pump would have a capacity of 12,000 gallons per minute at design head. The intercepting canal would have a capacity of 300 second-feet and would extend in a northwesterly direction across Sierra Valley to inter- cept the streams which flow in a northeasterly direction through the valley. When water in excess of irrigation requirements is available, it would be pumped from the canal to Sheep Camp Reservoir for storage. Diiring the latter part of the irrigation season, stream flow would be supplemented by releases from the reservoir into the cansil. At three major stream crossings the canal would be provided with gated control structures. These structures would control releases from the canal to the downstream channels for irrigation purposes and also would pass stream flows in excess of the canal diversion capacity during flood periods. The canal woiild be trapezoidal in section and \inlined except at the control structures. Spoil from the canal excavation would be placed on the north side of the canal in order to divert overbahk flood waters to the control structures. General features of the Sheep Camp Project and related data are presented in Table 30. A comparison of benefits and costs of the Sheep Camp Project was made to determine the economic justification of the project. The capital cost of the Sheep Camp Project was estimated to be about $5,8o6,000. The corres- ponding annual cost, using an interest rate of 4.0 percent per annum and an amortization period of 50 years, plus costs of operation, maintenance and replacement was estimated to be about $415,000. An estimate of the cost of individual project features is presented in Appendix C. A simmary of capital and annual costs for the project is presented in Table 31- Irrigation benefits from Sheep Camp Project would be derived from a new irrigation supply for Sierra Valley and from reregulation of the existing -165- TABLE 30 GENERAL FEATURES OF SHEEP CAMP PROJECT Dam Site Location Sec. 5 & 8, T21N, Rl^J-E, MDB&M Stream Carman Creek Dam and Appiirtenant Featirres Type of dam homogeneous earthfill Crest elevation, in feet 5,007 Crest length, in feet 3,300 Crest width, in feet 25 Height above stream bed, in feet 82 Freeboard above spillway crest, in feet 10 Side slopes of msdn dam Upstream 3.25:1 Downstream 2:1 Elevation of stream bed, in feet ^+,925 Volume of fill, in cubic yards 2,596,500 Type of spillway ogee weir with trapezoidal chute Spillway discharge capacity, in second-feet 1,000 Type of outlet- inlet works reinforced concrete cut-and-cover conduit under dam, concrete pipe downstream from dam Reservoir Water svirface elevation at normal pool, in feet ^+,997 Siirface area at spillway lip, in acres 1,635 Storage capacity at spillway lip, in acre-feet 65,000 Drainage area, in square miles 23 Seasonal new yield of water, in acre-feet 25,000 Canal Type lonlined, trapezoidal section Length, in feet 25,250 Bottom width, in feet 26.0 Side slopes 2:1 Capacity, in second-feet 300 Pumping Plant Number of pumps 10 Capacity per pump, in gallons per minute 12,000 Average annual energy consumed, in kilowatt-hours 1,670,000 -166- TABLE 31 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF SHEEP CAMP PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item . Cost CAPITAL COST Project construction $ 4,350,000 Lands, easements, and rights of way 133^000 Subtotal $ 4,it83,000 Engineering and administration kk8,000 Contingencies 672,000 Interest during construction 203^000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 5,8o6,000 ANNUAL COST Reservoirs, conveyance, and power features Interest and capital recovery- Operation and maintenance, replacement, general expense, and insurance Electrical energy, pumping Subtotal Recreation features Public facilities, including operation and maintenance TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 270,000 70,000 39,000 $ 379,000 $ 36,000 $ i+15,000 -167- supply. The annueil, direct irrigation benefits from the new and reregulated water supply, based on prices and costs during the period 1952-56, were estimated at $209,000 annually. Recreation benefits would accrue to the Sheep Camp Project from enhancement of the reservoir area. Only those benefits derived directly from public recreational facilities were evaluated for this stiidy. On this basis, the average annual primary benefits from recreation would be $122,000. An evaluation of recreational benefits that would accrue to the Sheep Camp Project is presented in Appendix A. Some minor flood control benefits would res\ilt from operation of the reservoir, even though specific flood control featiires were not included. However, these incidental benefits were not evaluated and economic justifi- cation was based solely on irrigation and recreational benefits. Total estimated primary benefits from all soiirces are sijmmarized in Table 32. TABLE 32 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS FROM SHEEP CAMP PROJECT Item [ Benefits Irrigation $209,000 Recreation (public facilities) 122,000 TOTAL $331,000 The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Sheep Camp Project would be 0.8 to 1.0 (1959). -168- Alternative Plans for Development of the Middle Fork of the Feather River belov Sierra Valley Studies were made of six alternative plans for developing the waters of the Middle Fork of the Feather River. These alternatives are the Richvale Plan, Modified Richvale Plan, Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Plan, Nelson Point- Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan, Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan, and the Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan. Although the projects \mder these alternative plans would be operated primarily to produce hydroelectric power, they also woxild produce new water for use in areas outside the Upper Feather River Basin as well as to enhance the recreational potential of the basin. Studies of the alternative plans were conducted for the piirpose of determining and comparing estimated costs and accomplishments of each, and were limited to a preliminary determination of engineering feasibility and economic justification. It is noted, however, that because of the necessity for re- serving water for upstream use, no monetary evaluation was made of the Richvale Plan. In determining the water supply available for regulation vinder each alternative plan, it was assumed that the present water supplies of the Middle Fork of the Feather River would be modified by operation of the up- stream Frenchman, Grizzly Valley, and Sheep Camp Resejrvoirs, and by additional ground water development in Sierra and Mohawk Valleys and other smaller valleys, It was estimated that this modification would reduce the present flows of the Middle Fork by an average seasonal amount of about 66,000 acre-feet. In conducting reservoir operation studies, it was assigned that for stream flow maintenance for fish and wildlife, there would be made a release of 20 second-feet from Clio Reservoir to the Middle Fork of the Feather River, 75 second-feet from all reservoirs located downstream from Sloat, and 10 second-feet from Meadow Valley Reservoir to Spsmish Creek. These assumed flows are subject to review by the Department of Fish and Game are are discussed herein in Appendix D. -169- 1 An evaluation was made to determine the new firm irrigation yield that would be realized from the operation of the alternative Middle Fork Projects. Under the Delta Pooling Concept whereby Oroville Reservoir would be operated as an export project, the alternative Middle Fork Projects were operated disregarding the probable existence of Oroville Reservoir. The yield of new water on a firm irrigation demand schedule for each alternative was estimated as the difference in stream flow at Oroville during the irriga- tion season, with and without an alternative Middle Fork Project. An evaluation was made of the probable effect of each alternative plan on the operation of the proposed Oroville Reservoir. This evaluation consisted of operating Oroville Reservoir both with and without the upstream projects to determine the net effect of each project on power output and yield of water. In conducting operation studies of Oroville Reservoir, it was assumed that the following potential upstream projects were constructed and in operation: Frenchman, Grizzly Valley, and Sheep Camp Irrigation Projects; Indian Creek Recreation Project; Squaw Queen Power Project, and Oroville V^andotte-Yuba County South Fork Project. From these studies it was determined that no additional dependable capacity of the Oroville power plants, over and above that which would be obtained from the pumped storage operation proposed for Oroville Reservoir, would be realized from operation of the alternative Middle Fork Projects. Richvale Plan A plan for developing the hydroelectric power potential of the Middle Fork of the Feather River has been advanced by the Richvale Irrigation District. This plain would include the construction of Grizzly Valley Dam and Reservoir on Big Grizzly Creek; an enlargement of Gold Lake; Clio and Nelson Point Dams and Reservoirs on the Middle Fork of the Feather River; and a -170- I series of diversion dams, txmnels, and power plants in the canyon of the Middle Fork downstream from Nelson Point. The location of the Richvale Plan is shown on Plate 8, entitled "Alternative Middle Fork Plans, Richvale Plein, and Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan". The RichveLLe Irrigation District has completed its application with the State Water Rights Board for a water right permit for this project. The application has been advertised and protests have been received. Subse- quent to the filing of its applications for a water right permit, the District has made some changes in features of the Richvale Plan. The revised projects and its accomplishments as claimed by the district are described herein. _ Since the operating criteria utilized by the district to evaluate its plan were substantially different from the criteria adopted by the department in evaluating the other five alternative Middle Fork Projects the department did not fully analyze the Richvede Plan. The primary differences are summarized in the following discussion. The Richvale District based its studies on full use of the water supplies made available by the upstream reservoirs without stream flow impair- ment due to irrigation for the first 20 years of project operation. For the period thereai'ter, the district allowed an average seasonal stream flow depletion of 66,000 acre-feet, for local uses in Sierra Valley and other upstream areas. The district plan wo\ild utilize Grizzly Valley Reservoir for upstream storage for release to downstream plants on a power demand schedule for the first 20 years, and for irrigation of land in Sutter and Butte Covinties. The department's studies considered that Grizzly Valley Reservoir was a feature of the authorized State Water Resources Development System and would provide an irrigation water s\rpply for use in Sierra Valley as and when needed. Fur- thermore, the department's studies considered that the alternative Middle Fork -171- Projects woiald be operated with a substantial seasonal depletion in water supply- resulting from future upstream development and increased water use in larger amounts than assumed by the -Disl^rict. The district's plan would provide an average summer release of ^+0 to 50 second-feet for the maintenance of stream flow in the Middle Fork of the Feather River. The department's studies of alternative plans would provide a release of 75 second-feet for the maintenance of stream flow. Actual re- leases would be worked out jointly with the Department of Fish and Game. Under the plan of development presently proposed by the district, as recently described to the department and which differs somewhat from the application for a water right permit. Grizzly Valley Reservoir, with a storage capacity of kQ,600 acre-feet, would be created by construction of a dam on Big Grizzly Creek about five miles north of Portola, in Section 1, T23N, R13E, MDB&M. Additional storage capacity of 15,910 acre-feet woiild be provided in Gold Lake on Freizier Creek by increasing the height of the dam at Gold Lake. The regulated waters of Grizzly Valley Reservoir and Gold Lake wo\ild be released to flow downstream for reregxilation in Clio Reseirvoir. Clio Reservoir, with a storage capacity of 156,400 acre-feet, woiild be created by construction of a dam on the Middle Fork of the Feather River about one-half mile below Clio, in Sections 23 and 26, T22N, R12E, MDB&M. The regxolated water from Clio Reservoir would be released for reregxilation in Nelson Point Reservoir. Nelson Point Reservoir, with a storage capacity of 116,000 acre-feet, would be created by construction of a dam on the Middle Fork of the Feather River about three miles downstream from the junction of Nelson Creek with the Middle Fork, in Section 18, T23N, RIOE, MDB&M. The regulated flow from Nelson Point Reservoir would be released throiogh a tunnel 0.35 mile in length and dischairged through Power Plant No. 1. This plant would be located in Section 13, T23N, R9E, MDB&M and would have an installed -172- power capacity of 20,000 kilowatts. Minerva Dam, located in Sections 13 and 2k, T23N, R9E, MDB&M, woiild be constructed to form a reregulating reservoir below Power Plant No. 1. From Minerva Dam, a tunnel 6.1 miles in length would extend to Power Plant No. 2. This plant would be located at Sherman Bar, in Section 36, T23N, R8e, MDB&M, and would have an installed power capacity of ^4^0, 000 kilowatts. Dogwood Dam would be constructed to form a rereg\ilating reservoir below Power Plant No. 2 and would be located just below the junction of Dogwood Creek and the Middle Fork of Feather River, in Section 2, T22N, r8e, MDB&M. From Dogwood Dam, a tunnel 5-98 miles in length would convey the water to Power Plant No. 3; which would have an installed power capacity of 40,000 kilowatts, and would be located at Hartman Bar, in Section 11, T22N, R7E, MDB&M. Hartman Bar Dam would be constructed to form a rereg\ilating reservoir below Power Plant No. 3- This dam would be 0.4 mile downstream from the jimction of Willow Creek and the Middle Fork, in Section 11, T22N, RTF, MDB&M. From Hairfcman Bar Dam, a tunnel 7-7 miles in length would convey the water for discharge through Power Plant No. h. This plant, with an installed power capacity of 50^000 kilowatts, would be located at Milsap Bar, in Section 2, T21N, r6e, MDB&M. Bald Rock Dam, located about one-half mile downstream from American Bar, in Sections 10, 11, and Ik, T21N, r6e, MDB&M, would be constructed to form a reregulating reservoir below Power Plant No. k. From Bald Rock Dam, a tunnel three miles in length would extend to Power Plant No. 5- This plant, with an installed power capacity of 70,000 kilowatts, woiild be located at the jimction of Fall River and the Middle Fork of the Feather River, in Sections 3k and 35, T21N, r6e, MDB&M. The project as des- cribed would have a total installed power capacity of 220,000 kilowatts. The Richvale Irrigation District has estimated that the Richvale Project would make new water available on a firm irrigation demand schedule -173- in the amoimt of 9^,000 acre-feet seasonally. Furthermore, the district claims the project woiild have a dependable capacity of 210,000 kilowatts and would produce 1,085,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy seasonally (hi percent of capacity) during the first 20 years of the operation of the project and 970,000,000 kilowatt hours of energy seasonally (3^ percent of capacity) during the next 25 years. The district estimated that the annual hydroelectric power benefits from the project would be $7,336,350 during the first 20 years of project oper- ation and $7,022,^00 during the next 25 years. Irrigation benefits from the Richvale Project were balanced against the cost of proposed irrigation facility improvements which were excliided from the estimates of capital cost. No evaluation by the district was made of the recreational benefits that would accrue to the Richvale Project. The capital cost of the Richvale Project was estimated to be about $120,000,000. Corresponding annual costs using an interest rate of k.O percent were estimated to be $6,991,000. Annual costs using an interest rate of 4.25 per percent were estimated to be $7,228,000. From information supplied by the Richvale Irrigation District, the benefit-cost ratio of the Richvale Project, based only on benefits from the production of hydroelectric energy, would be about 1 to 1. Modified Richvale Plan A Richvale Plan modified by the Department of Water Resources, in which certain changes were made in the size of features eind operation of the plan presented by the Richvale Irrigation District, was analyzed by the Department as an alternative Middle Fork Project. Major changes in the plan included the elimination of Gold Lake and Grizzly Valley storage sites, and the elimination of gates on the spillway for Clio Dam. This latter chsinge -17U- would reduce the storage capacity of the reservoir from the now (September I96O) proposed 156,'^^00 acre-feet to 100,000 acre-feet. Other important changes in the plan were made in sizes of power plants, t\mnels, and penstocks, to reflect the changes in the available water supply and in reservoir operation criteria. The Modified Richvale Plan would include the construction of Clio and Nelson Point storage reservoirs, Minerva, Dogwood, Hartman Bar, and Bald Rock diversion reservoirs on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, and the five power plants of the Richvale Plan. The storage reservoirs would be operated to regulate the stream flow of the Middle Fork for releases downstream through the five power plants. In addition to the regulated water, the lower four power plants would receive significant amounts of water from uncontrolled runoff from local drainage areas. The plan is shown on Plate S, entitled "Alternative Middle Fork Plans - Modified Richvale Plan and Tvirntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan" . Monthly yield studies, based on the estimated available runoff, were conducted in sizing the project. A sixmmary of the yield study for the size of project selected to illustrate its accomplishments is presented in Appendix B. The Modified Richvale Plan would make new water available in the Feather River below Oroville on a firm irrigation demand schedule in the estimated amovmt of about ^5,000 acre-feet seasonally. It was estimated that the project would have an installed power capacity of 150,000 kilowatts, a dependable power capacity of 123,900 kilo- watts, and would produce about 785,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy seasonally. New recreational opportunities would be made available by the pro- ject by providing a setting for the development of camp sites, boating facili- ties, and simmer homes. Both the area surroxonding the resei^roirs and the Middle Fork canyon are attractive for this type of development. -175- Under the plan of development, Clio Reservoir, with a storsige capacity of 100,000 acre-feet, woiild be created by construction of an earthfill dam 150 feet in height on the Middle Fork of the Feather River about one-half mile northwest of the commimity of Clio, in Sections 23 and 26, T22N, R12E, MDB&M. Water regulated in Clio Reservoir would be released for reregulation in Nelson Point Reservoir. Nelson Point Reservoir, with a storage capacity of 116,000 acre-feet, would be created by construction of a concrete arch dam 365 feet in height on the Middle Fork of the Feather River about three miles downstream from the junction of Nelson Creek with the Middle Fork, in Section 18, T23N, RIOE, MDB&M. Water from Nelson Point Reservoir would be conveyed through a txmnel 0.35 mile in length and discharged through Power Plant No. 1. This plant would be located in Section 13, T23N, R9E, MDB&M, and would have an installed power capacity of 12,000 kilowatts. Minerva Dam would be a concrete arch structxire, with a height of 81 feet and would be located in Sections 13 and 2k, T23N, R9E, MDB&M. It would form a reregulating reservoir below Power Plant No. 1. From Minerva Dam, a tiinnel 6.1 miles in length would extend to Power Plant No. 2 located at Sherman Bar in Section 36, T23N, r8e, MDB&M. This plant would have an installed power capacity of 28,000 kilowatts. Dogwood Dam would forin a reregulating reservoir below Power Plant No. 2. The dam would be a concrete arch structure with a height of 165 feet and would be located just below the junction of Dogwood Creek and the Middle Fork of the Feather River, in Section 2, T22N, r8e, MDB&M. From Dogwood Dam, a t\mnel 6.0 miles in length would convey the water to Power Plant No. 3} which would have an installed power capacity of 28,000 kilowatts. Power Plant No. 3 would be located at Hartman Bar, in Section 11, T22N, R7E, MDB&M. Hartman Bar Dam, with a height of 90 feet, would form a reregulating reservoir below Power Plant No. 3- This dam would be of concrete arch construction and would be located O.U mile downstream from the junction of Willow Creek and the -176- Middle Fork, in Section 11, T22N, R7E, MDB&M. From Hartman Bar Dam, a tunnel 7.7 miles in length would convey the water for discharge throiigh Power Plant No. h. This plant, with an installed power capacity of 1*0,000 kilowatts, would be located at Milsap Beir, in Section 2, T21N, r6e, MDB&M. Bald Rock Dam, a concrete arch structure I80 feet in height, located about one-half mile downstream from American Bar, in Sections 10, 11, and Ik, T21N, r6e, MDB&M, would form a reregiilating reservoir below Power Plant No. k. From Bald Rock Dam, a tunnel 3*0 miles in length would convey water from the reservoir to Power Plant No. 5- This plant, with an installed power capacity of J+2,000 kilowatts, woxild be located at the junction of Fall River and the Middle Fork of the Feather River, in Sections 3k, 35, T21N, r6e, MDB&M. The project, as described, would have a total installed power capacity of 150,000 kilowatts. The geologic investigations of the dam sites included in the Modified Richvale Plan consisted of a review of available reports and of field reconnais- sances of the sites. The department did no fovindation drilling of these sites during the Upper Feather River Basin Investigation. A preliminary drilling program of Clio dam site was conducted by the Richvale Irrigation District in Jainuary 1953- The information obtained from this program was reviewed and utilized for the purposes of this investi- gation. Additional work conducted dviring the investigation included field reconnaissance and surface mapping of the Clio dam and reservoir site. Clio Dam would be constructed on unconsolidated glacial outwash deposits which consist of boulders and cobbles in a matrix of sand, silt, and clay except for the right abutment which is composed of volcanic rock. No solid bedrock was encoimtered during the subsurface exploration along the axis of the dam. The left abutment is underlain by sandy clay and carbonaceous clay with some interbeds of coarse sand and lignite. A flow of axtesian -177- water was recorded from one of the holes for a period of 10 days. Springs and seeps may be noted along the southeastern slope of the left abutment ridge. The strength of the materials underlying the left abutment has not been adequately determined. However, it is believed that the material probably would support a dam of the height being considered. Cutoff beneath the left abutment of a dam could be obtained by completely blanketing the abutment with impervious material. The channel section is filled to a depth of about 20 feet with cobbles, gravel, sand, and silt. These alluvial deposits would have to be removed beneath the impervious section of the dam. In addition, a deep cut- off would be required to stop underflow through the numerous coarse sand lenses. The right abutment is composed of volcanic rock. The rock is prominently jointed and deeply weathered. About 10 feet of overbiirden and numerous large blocky outcrops would have to be removed from beneath the impervious section of the dam. The very long spillway from the left abutment of the dam to the Middle Fork of the Feather River shoiild be designed to pre- vent excessive erosion of the glacial outwash material. Adequate supplies of suitable impervious borrow material may be obtained from the reservoir area within a short distance of the site. Pervious gravels may be obtained from the channel of the Middle Fork of the Feather River. A major fault cuts throiigh the dam site near the base of the right abutment. The contact between the fine-grained lake bed and glacial materials against the nearly vertical face of the igneous rocks probably represents a weakness in the foundation. Evidence of recent faulting, such as sulphur springs and fiss\u:es occiir in the Mohawk Valley airea. This faulting -178- indicates the possibility of high seismicity at this dam site. In addition, leakage would occur throiogh the sediments underlying the dam site unless exten- sive treatment is effected. The stability of these sediments laider load is questionable. Geologic conditions of the Clio dam site are shown on Plate 12, entitled "Clio Dam on Middle Fork Feather River". Geologic investigation of the Nelson Point dam site was limited to a field reconnaissance of the site. The dam site is located in a rugged, steep-walled gorge of the Middle Fork of the Feather River. Bedrock in the area consists of interbedded quartzite, chlorite schist, and various other schists and meta- sandstones. Some quartz veins cut the rocks. All of the rocks belong to the Calaveras formation. The strike of the beds is perpendi- cular to the general course of the river in the area of the dam site. Out- crops flanking the river at the dam site extend as uneven vertical bluffs up to a height of approximately 100 feet above stream bed. Depth of stripping of the abutments for an arch dam would depend on the depth of weathering and strength of materials of the abutments. Based on the brief geologic reconnais- sance, Nelson Point dam site appears suitable for the construction of a con- crete arch dam of the height being considered. Geologic investigation of the Minerva dam site consisted of a limited field reconnaiissance of the site. As proposed by the Richvale Irri- gation District, the Minerva site would be located approximately one mile downstream from the Nelson Point dam site. However, a concrete dam at this location does not seem advisable because the foimdation material is serpentine. It is believed that the Minerva dam site should be moved about 2,000 feet up- stream to a location where more favorable foundation conditions exist in the bedrock of the Calaveras formation. Foundation conditions at this upper axis shoiald be generally similar to those described for Nelson Point dam site. -179- Geologic investigation of the Dogwood dam site consisted of a limited field reconnaissance of the site. The foundation rock is a massive queurtzite belonging to the Calaveras formation. Also present at the site are numerous granitic dikes and minor amounts of schist and phyllite. Bedrock is exposed on both abutments to a height of about 80 feet above the river. Depth of stripping of the abutments would depend on the extent of weathering of the abutment rock. Unless additiongil foundation exploration indicates otherwise, 10 feet would appear to be a reasonable stripping depth. At the axis of the dam site, the channel section is about 80 feet wide and extremely irregular. Average depth of fill of sand, gravel, and large boulders in the channel is estimated at about 10 feet. Based on the brief geologic reconnais- sance, Dogwood dam site appears suitable for the construction of an arch dam of the height being considered. Geologic investigation of the Hartman Bar dam site consisted of a limited field reconnaissance of the site. The site is located in a steep- walled gorge of the Middle Fork of the Feather River. Foundation rock con- sists of moderately jointed, fresh, very coarse-grained biotite granodiorite . On the right abutment, the granodiorite crops out at a height of about 15O feet above the river. Outcrops of granodiorite are continuous on the left abutment to a height of about 20 feet above the channel. Higher on the abut- ment the bedrock is covered by old channel deposits which form a moderately sloping terrace. At the axis of the dam site, the channel section Is about 100 feet wide. Channel fill consists of sand, gravel, and boulders to an average depth of about 10 feet. Suitability of this site could not be determined from the brief field reconnaissance. Of particular concern were terrace deposits located on the left abutment. Suitable foundation conditions, however, appear to exist at an alternative axis located about 1,000 feet downstream from the site considered. o The geologic investigation of the Bald Rock dam site consisted of a limited field reconnaissance of the site. The site is located in a steep- walled gorge of the Middle Fork of the Feather River. Granitic bedrock out- crops sdmost continuously on both abutments. The foundation rock at the dam site appears to be veil s\iited to the construction of an arch dam. Stripping woiJ-d include the removal of about 15 feet of veathered rock from each abutment and the excavation of an average of about 10 feet of boxilders, cobbles, and sand from the channel section. In addition, an estimated average of five feet of bedrock shoiild be excavated from the channel to prepstre for the base of the dam. Based on a brief geologic reconnaissance, it appeeirs that the Bald Rock site is suitable for the construction of an arch dam of the height being considered. The geologic investigation of the tunnel routes included in the Modified Richvale Plan consisted of a review of published data and a brief field reconnsdssance of the routes. The geologic conditions of the tionnel routes are shown on Plate 11. A short, high pressure t\innel wo\ild extend from Nelson Point Reservoir to Power Plant No. 1. The txmnel would penetrate rocks of the Calaveras formation which may include beds of phyllite, schist, quartzite, and limestone. For purposes of tiinnel design, the rock was classified as very blocky and seamy. As the tunnel would be a pressure tunnel, reinforcing and lining would be required throughout its length. Overbreak should not be excessive since the tunnel would be driven approximately normal to the strike of the bedding. The tunnel from Minerva Dam to Power Plant No. 2 would be approx- imately six miles in length of which about the first three miles would be in serpentine rock. A large-diameter txainel could be constructed through this serpentine, but the attendant risks and construction expense in such rock -181- are usually great. Water-bearing shear zones and fault zones can be expected in the serpentine. Squeezing, popping, and running ground may be encountered. The tunnel in serpentine would have to be strongly supported and heavily lined throughout its length. The last three miles of tunnel between Minerva Dam and Power Plant No. 2 would penetrate rocks of the Calaveras formation. The rocks penetrated would include phyllite, schist, and quartzite and should be classified as blocky and seamy. Overbreak should not be extensive because the bore woiild be oriented silmost perpendicular to the structure of the rock. However, support and lining should be planned for at least 50 percent of the length of this section of the txonnel. The tunnel from Dogwood Reservoir to Power Plant No. 3 located at Hartman Bar wovild be about nine feet in diameter and six miles in length. The tunnel would penetrate the interbedded phyllite, schist, quartzite, and limestone of the Calaveras formation and would encounter one short zone of granodiorite . The tunnel would penetrate a major fault within about one-half mile of the intake portsil. West of this point, tunneling conditions should be as good as can be expected in the Calaveras formation. The tunnel would be oriented almost normal to the beds and structures of the rock, and overbreak would not be unduly high. The timnel would require moderate support. Almost continueil lining also may be required to prevent leakage of water under pres- sure thro\igh the joints of the bedrock. The short section of granodiorite which would be encountered probably would be faulted and sheared. In this rock, overbreak may be somewhat higher. The rock should be classified as very blocky and seamy. The tunnel between Hartman Bar and Power Plant No. k, located at Milsap Bar, would be about 7«7 miles in length and 1^.5 feet in diameter. -182- The Intake portal of the tunnel woxild be located in granitic rock. Heavy support and lining probably would be required for the first 50 to 150 feet of the tunnel. For the next two miles of the tunnel, support and lining in the granitic rock probably would be light. A zone of Calaveras formation having a width of about one mile would be encountered three miles from the intake portal. Near this zone it is expected that the granitic rock would become progressively more sheared and that overbreak would increase. In this area the need for support and lining would increase. Timneling conditions in the Calaveras rocks would be about as described for the tunnel between Dogwood Dam and Hartman Bar, since both timnels wo\ild penetrate similar rocks normal to the structure. Support and lining probably would be needed continuously. The rock near the contact between the granodiorite and the Calaveras formation may be strongly sheared and crushed and probably would require very strong support and heavy lining. It is estimated that about 50 percent support and lining wovild be required for two miles of the tunnel in the granodiorite area west of the Calaveras formation. The final mile of tunnel probably would re- quire heavy support and lining in view of the proximity of this area to the contact with the Calaveras formation and to the outlet portal. The tunnel extending from Bald Rock dam site to Power Plant No. 5 would have a length of about three miles and an xmlined diamter of 1U.5I feet. The rock encoiantered would be predominantly granodiorite and would be some of the most competent rock to be encountered in this part of the Sierra Nevada. The tunnel portals should be in reasonably so\ind rock. A minimiom of txinnel support and lining could be expected. As previously stated in Chapter II, the engineering designs of the features of the Modified RichvsLLe Plan were of a preliminary nature. Addi- tional field exploration and study may develop information that substantially could change the designs and estimates of cost presented herein. With the -183- exception of Clio Dam, the designs of dams presented herein were developed by the Richvale Irrigation District, The principal features of Clio Dam are delineated on Plate 12, Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Modified Richvale Plan as designed for preliminary cost estimating purposes, are summarized in Table 33. The economic analysis of the Modified Richvale Plan consisted of a preliminary determination of the economic justification of the project. This work entailed a comparison of the estimated project benefits and costs to determine the overall project benefit-cost ratio. The capital cost of the Modified Richvale Plan was estimated to be about $117,853,000. The corresponding annual costs, using an interest rate of U.O percent per annum and an amortization period of SO years, were estimated to be about $8,210,000, Of this amount, the estimated value of taxes foregone would be $1,269,000. An estimate of the cost of individual project features is presented in Appendix C, A summary of capital and annual costs of the project is presented in Table 3U. The benefits that would accrue to the Modified Richvale Plan would result from production of hydroelectric power, from new water supplies, and from increased recreational opportunities in the area. Some minor flood control benefits would accrue from operation of the proposed reservoirs even though specific flood control feat\ires were not included. However, incidental benefits were not evaluated and economic justification was based solely on hydroelectric power, irrigation, and recreational benefits. Hydroelectric power benefits estimated at $5,025,000 annually, on the average, would be realized from the operation of the five power plants of the Modified Richvale Plan. -181;- •P -P 0) O Q) o O -P 0) > •H -P tn o u o ^ .N -P -P ^ (U w -P 0) OJ ho OJ CO >vD OS oo LTN •^ •x »\ •\ oo OJ OJ H oo o u-\ O CO LTN oo3- oo OJ O LTN H Ln Q O UNVD 00 VD a\ CO H oo H H W WWW H O H H H r-l CO CO cn ;h ^ ^ > > P" Oj fe pt, [x« • • • s s s u ^1 Q) 0) X! x: ■P -p oJ 03 o3 C H ^5 H O (1) -H -P u c3 -p (U 03 03 OJ i> !m o H >v I tJ -p O (U O tH (U w 'd 0) -rJ S OJ p (8 ft 03 ft C 03 -H a a; >^ r-l -p -p 03 • C o3 (1) bO •P ^ OJ 03 Tj to (U ^ O W ^ H C << -H I o3 "» -P Tf -P w o3 0) OJ 0) w X! 3 O H PM PL| -185- O Q O O Q t— VD OJ CO O VO On OO u^ ON •\ »\ "v »» oo OJ OJ H o o o o o oo C— VO OJ CO O ^ CT\ oo LTN •\ »\ ^ •v •^ -d- oo OJ OJ H f- O U^ O OJ iH (5n LTN H LfNVD \0 CO OS I I CO OJ H .\ .V ^ . <^ % 99 Q <^ H OJ OJ^^ C— O LTN O Q CO i^-ON-3- O O Q O O CO H-5 -^ CO H t— VD C~-vO O O C? C? O VD H-5 -3- CO oo t— VO t— VO W W W W Cr\qQ ■ ■ - K « ^^&^ W K ^^ OJ OJ OJ ,- E^ EH Eh Eh oovD H OJ H oo H oo - • • • • J- (1) CO CO CO CO oo p) • to CO >, M H OJ OO^ LTN ^ O O O O S S S 3 • P" O O a EH •^■P •P 0) ho tH i '^ •H P> •H O P" !-i O O Q) to o3 -H C ft O 03 O O d) to to u ^ y xi H I iH Q) 4^ •H -P P> iPi 0) o3 Xi U ^ -P o o5 ^ C W) d o (U was I I n II x: < > w o a ^ ^ 8 O Q O o o o o Cr\ OJ VD VD CT\ •\ "s •^ *\ •\ H OJ H Q tTN oo 0O3- H o Q ocQ q o o o3 c\j H H H - O u^ O i-{ 0\ir\ r-\ Lf\VD VD CO ON oo^ o • • Lr\ s o o CM a s • • {) CM • • • 3 . O W w PM a • • • 1 Ph Ck K p> . 1 1 • C W ^ fH Ph •H » £d 03 o CM fp m t ^ CM • o 03 tJ C (> C > O O H O E CG els ir.e ogw art s S o w m TABLE 3^ SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF MODIFIED RICHVALE PLAN (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item '. Cost CAPITAL COST Project construction $86,185,000 Lands, easements, and rights of way 1,1^2,000 Relocation of public utilities 1,71^^,000 Subtotal $89,Oi+l,000 Engineering and administration $ 9 j 093, 000 Contingencies 12,783,000 Interest during construction 6,9^,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $117,853,000 ANNUAL COST Reservoir, conveyance, and power features Interest and capital recovery $ 5,^98,000 Operation and maintenance, replacement, general expense, and insurance 1,306,000 Taxes foregone 1,269,000 Subtotal $ 8,073,000 Recreational features Public facilities, iincluding operation and maintenance $ 137,000 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 8,210,000 ■186- Irrigation benefits would be realized from the estimated ^5,000 acre-feet of new water that wo\ild be made available on an irrigation demand schedvile from the operation of the Modified RichveuLe Project. The estimated irrigation benefits would be about $360,000 seasonally. Recreational benefits would accrue to the Modified Richvale Plan from an enhancement of the Clio and Nelson Point resei^oir areas and from the Middle Fork Canyon area below Nelson Point Reservoir. Only those recreational benefits estimated to be derived from public recreational facilities were evalviated. The estimated net annual recreational benefits would be $66,000 for Clio Reservoir, $110,000 for Nelson Point Reservoir, and $106,000 for other reservoirs on the Middle Fork of the Feather River. The derivation of these benefits is discussed in detail in Appendix A. TotsLL estimated benefits from all sources for the Modified Richvale Plan are sxmmiarized in Table 35* TABLE 35 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS FOR THE MODIFIED RICHVALE PLAN Purpose [ Benefits Hydroelectric Power $5,025,000 Irrigation 360,000 Recreation 282,000 TOTAL $5,667,000 The res\ilting ratio of benefits to costs for the Modified Richvale Plan would be O.69 to 1 (1959)- -187- Clio-Nelson ftoint-owayne Plan The Clio-Nelson Pbint-Swayne Plan is a further modification of the previously described Richvale Plan. It was studied as an alternative possi- bility for developing the waters of the Middle Fork of the Feather River Basin. The additional modification would consist of diverting the regulated waters from Hartinan Bar Reservoir for storage in the proposed Swayne Reservoir on French Creek, From Swayne Reservoir, the regulated water would be conveyed to and dropped through a power plant located on lower French Greek, shore of Oroville Reservoir, The storage reservoirs and power plants would be operated conjunctively to utilize available flows to maximize the dependable power capacity of the total system. Monthly yield studies, based on the estimated available runoff, were conducted in sizing the project, A summary of the yield study for the size of project selected is presented in Appendix B. The Clio-Nelson ftoint-Swayne Plan would produce new water on a firm irrigation demand schedule in the estimated amount of 137,000 acre-feet sea- sonally. This estimate was based on conditions expected to prevail in the future, when water supplies available to the project would have been reduced to meet requirements for upstream use. It was estimated that the project would have an installed power capacity of 195*500 kilowatts and a dependable power capacity of 174,800 kilo- watts* The project would produce about 909*000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy seasonally. New recreational opportunities would be made available by the project. It would enhance outdoor recreation in the area by providing a setting for the developnent of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer homes. The areas surrounding the proposed reservoirs and the Middle Fork Canyon are attractive -188- for this type of development. Location of the project is shown on Plate 10, entitled "Alternative Middle Fork Plans, Clio-Nelson Pbint-Swayne Plan, and Nelson Point-»Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan", Under the plan of development, Clio Reservoir, with a storage capacity of 100,000 acre— feet, would be created by construction of an earth- fill dam 150 feet in height on the Middle Fork of the Feather River about one-half mile below Clio in Sections 23 and 26, T22N, R12E, MDB&M. The regulated water from Clio Reservoir would be released for reregulation in Nelson Point Reservoir. Nelson Point Reservoir, with a storage capacity of 116,000 acre-feet, would be created by construction of a concrete arch dam 365 feet in height on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, about three miles downstream fxxim the junction of Nelson Creek with the Middle Fork in Section 18, T23N, RIOE, MDB which would have an installed power capacity of -189- 28,000 kilowatts, and would be located at Hartman Bar, in Section 11, T22N, R7E, MDB&M. Hartman Bar Dam, with a height of 175 feet, would be constructed to form a reregulating reservoir below Power Plant No. 3. This dam would be of concrete arch construction and would be located 0,4 mile downstream from the junction of Willow Creek and the Middle Fork of the Feather River in Section 11, T22N, R7E, ^©B&M. From Hartman Bar Dam, a tunnel 6,4 miles in length would convey the regiilated waters to Spoon Diversion Works located on Little North Fork in Section 27, T22N, R6E, MDB&M, Spoon Diversion Dam would be of concrete gravity construction and would have a height of 25 feet. From Spoon Diversion, a tunnel 1.8 miles in length would convey the regulated water for storage in Swayne Reservoir on French Creek, Swayne Dam would be of zoned earthfill construction, with a height of 380 feet and would be located about three miles upstream from the confluence of French Creek with the North Fork in Section 35, T22N, R5E, MDB(U1. From Swayne Reservoir, a tunnel 1,3 miles in length would convey the regulated water to Swayne ftjwer Plant, This plant, with an installed capacity of 127,500 kilowatts, wovild be located on French Creek about one mile upstream from its confluence with the North Fork in Section 10, T22N, R5E, ^©B&M, The project, as described, would have a total installed capacity of 195*500 kilowatts. Since geologic conditions at the Clio, Nelson ft>int, Minerva, Dogwood, and Hartman Bar dam sites were described previously under the discussion of the Modified Richvale Project, only the Swayne dam site is discussed in this section. The geologic investigation of Swayne dam site consisted of both regional and detailed geologic site mapping. The program included: (l) geologic mapping of the dam, reservoir, and powerhouse sites, and of the power t\innel route; (2) core drilling and sampling of 11 holes having an aggregate length of 1,160 feet along the axis of the dam site and in two possible saddle spillway -190- sites; (3) obtaining xindisturbed samples of foiindation materials; (4) con- ducting seismic studies to determine the depth of decomposed granodiorite in the left abutment and beneath a spillway saddle; (5) mapping and sampling of possible construction material borrow areas; and (6) resistivity studies to determine the depth and volume of dredge tailings in the reservoir area. Swayne dam site is located in a deep canyon of French Creek. Bed- rock at the dam site and in the area of the tunnel route is granodiorite which may be broken down into two sub— units; (l) fresh, competent, hard granodiorite; and (2) soft, crumbly, decomposed granodiorite. The fresh granodiorite is generally confined to stream channel areas. Elsewhere, the depth of decomposed granodiorite is highly irregular and very difficult to determine. Close to the surface, where the weathering is most intense, the clay content of the decomposed rock is high. Below the clayey zone, the clay content decreases and the rock becomes more crumbly. At the dam site, the decomposed granodiorite becomes progressively deeper, higher on the abutments and extends to a depth of 100 feet or more in the upper portions of both abutments. The outcrops of apparently fresh granodiorite in the decomposed rock are residual boulders of weathering. The irregular slope and depth of decom;osed granodiorite on the left abutment at the site may be indicative of a fault system which parallels the general course of the stream. Stripping beneath both the impervious and pervious sections of the dam should average about 10 feet on the abutments. Shaping of the bedrock would be necessary only in the channel section. Sufficient quantities of materials for construction of a dam are available within 1,5 miles of the dam site. Extensive deposits of dredge tailings are available in the reservoir site. -191- No recent fault scarps were observed in the area, but a few minor faults and shear zones are known to exist. The seismicity of the area is considered to be low to moderate. Swayne dam site appears geologically suitable for the construction of a zoned earthfill dam. Geologic conditions at the Swayne dam site are shown on Plate 13 • No detailed geologic study was made of the Spoon diversion site. Geologic conditions of the area are shown on Plate 11. The geologic investigations of the tunnel routes included in the Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Plan consisted of a review of published data and a brief field reconnaissance of the routes. The geologic conditions of the tunnel routes in the Middle Fork Canyon are shown on Plate 11 and were pre- viously discussed under the Modified Richvale Plan, The inlet portal, and the first 2,3 miles of the Hartman Bar-Little North Fork Tunnel, should be in reasonably good granitic rock. Following the granitic rock, the tunnel should penetrate about one mile of Calaveras formation, after which about 1#5 miles of granodiorite again should be encountered. The granitic rocks probably would be sheared and crushed near the contacts and could be expected to require heavy support and lining. Moderate support and almost continuous lining would be required in the Calaveras rocks. The Little North Fork-Swayne Tunnel probably would not need support or lining, inasmuch as the tunnel would penetrate a broad zone of granodiorite at some distance from any known contact or faults. The tunnel connecting Swayne Reservoir and the power plant located at the mouth of French Creek would penetrate about one mile of granodiorite and decomposed granite and about one-quarter mile of schist. The inlet portal -192- would be founded on fresh granodiorite exposed on the nose of an ascending ridge at an elevation of about 2,000 feet. Light to moderate support probably would be required in the fresh granodiorite. Zones of decomposed granite may require heavy support. Light to moderate support should be anticipated through the schist. As previously described in Chapter II, the engineering designs of the Clio— Nelson Point-Swayne Plan were of a preliminary nature. Additional field exploration could change substantially the designs and estimates of costs presented herein. The preliminary designs as developed by the Richvale Irrigation District for all dams on the Middle Fork of the Feather River below Clio Dam were utilized for the purposes of this investigation. Pertinent data with respect to goieral features of the Clio-Nelson PDint-Swayne Plan as designed for preliminary cost estimating purposes, are presented in Table 36. The economic analysis of the Clio-Nelson Paint-Swayne Plan consisted of a preliminary determination of the economic justification of the project. This work entailed a comparison of the estimated project benefits and costs to determine the overall project benefit-cost ratio. The capital costs of the Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Project was esti- mated to be about $156,074*000, The corresponding annual costs, using an interest rate of 4»0 percent per annum and an amortization period of 50 years, were estimated to be about $10,618,000, Of this amount, the estimated annual value of taxes foregone would be about $1,654,000, An estimate of costs of individual project features is presented in Appendix C. A summary of capital and annual costs and the value of taxes foregone is presented in Table 37, -193- •H +> «! a> (XCh u 0) o tiO a! -p CO o -p a> 0) 0) Cm O rt C 3 • CO C o Ih -h (D +J ■P efl rt > :$ (U CO en r-vo o -* o sO o -4- -4^ -* on O vO ON O i^ LTNsO r-i (r\ r'^c^^ cm n Pd O H l/N >^ CO nO C~- r-i r-i < < <: U CJ O WWW ai cd ai Mn 2: en I - CV CM C>i H Eh E-i cnNO CO CM CV rS en cJ CM rH CO CO CO CO CO I O I o CM* lA O -*cn en en CM CM O I CM CM 00 cnl C5 W o ^ CM CM CM e-< E- f^ CO CO u o 5^ O fH 3 O r-t O -P c -P «M rt nj rH C ^ • -P cd -P 0) 3= ? ID -P ■S «• *« •• 0) bO -P aj T) m X: rH c CO (0 o o c &0+> U 4* ^3^8 sO CJv -* O * * •% cnCM CM 4,030 3,670 2,960 2,330 Q C^ u> <^J H o ir\NO CO R m C»- CM o ^ 8 en «^ o o O Q ( O O C O O ( 5 'A •* n •> • o o in CM ^ C\J m CM § O C>- ''N rH en CJN C^ m rH Q O l>- O vo H en en enc>- m -J- H W M W M O CO C~- in ca oi cn cn 2 en CM CM E-< fH en^ r-i en :1 s • CO • CO • CO • CO rH CM en o o o 2 3 2 ft J- -P tio rt -P T3 C (I> Oh O -P O f-. -P 0) Cm -P +> tM •^ J, o c -d rt -rH C a rt o rHl CMlr^ CM 9) L. n o o O tn rt x: x: J^ £ 0] ^ to (0 tn m H 0) (U 0) (i> 3 o 01 CO (0 0) Pi u Li t. (h L, •H o o o •H o K X a: X CJ CM I 8 •vO m vn iTN tn r~- m CM r^. cr\ CO CO o fM en -* r-\ r-i H R^^88S u> vO CO O H >A r^ H tn 0) 2 -P 4) H o rt Q" ? 2 S Q X CO CO -194- TABLE 37 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF CLIO-MELSON POINT-SWAYNE PLAN (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item * Cost CAPITAL COST Project construction $11^,328,000 Lands, easements, and rights of way 1,358,000 Relocation of public utilities 1.71A.000 Subtotal $117,400,000 Qigineering and administration 11,930,000 Contingencies 17,039,000 Interest during construction 9t705tQOO TOTAL CAPITAL COST $156,074,000 ANNUAL COST Reservoir, conveyance, and power features Interest and capital recovery $ 7,265,000 Operation, maintenance, replacement, general expense, and insurance 1,537,000 Taxes foregone l,654t000 Subtotal $ 10,456,000 Recreational features Public facilities, including operation and maintenance $ 162,000 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 10,618,000 ■195- The benefits that woiild accrue to the Clio-Nelson fbint-Swayne Plan would result from production of hydroelectric energy, from new water supplies, and from increased recreational opportunities in the area. Some incidental flood control benefits would accrue from operation of the proposed reservoirs even though specific flood control features were not included. However, in.» cidental benefits were not evaluated and economic justification of the project was based solely on hydroelectric power, irrigation, and recreational benefits. Average auinual hydroelectric power benefits estimated at $6,512,000 would be realized from the operation of the four power plants of the Clio-Nelson Point- Swayne Plan. Irrigation benefits would be realized from the estimated 137>000 acre-feet of new water that would be made available on an irrigation demand schedule from the operation of the Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Pl*oject, The estimated irrigation benefits would be about $1,096,000 seasonally. Recreational benefits would accrue to the project from an enhance- ment of the Clio, Nelson Ftoint, and Swayne reservoir areas and from the Middle Fork Canyon area below Nelson Point Reservoir. Only those recreational benefits estimated to be derived from public recreational facilities were evaluated for this study. The estimated net annual recreational benefits would be $66,000 for Clio Reservoir, $110,000 for Nelson Pbint Reservoir, $59,000 for Swayne Reservoir, and $120,000 for the Middle Fork Canyon area. The derivation of these benefits is discussed in detail in Appendix A. Total benefits from all sources are summarized in Table 38. -196- TABLE 38 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS FROM CLIO-NELSON POINT-SWAYNE PROJECT Purpose * Benefit Hydroelectric power $ 6,512,000 Irrigation 1,096,000 Recreation 355.000 TOTAL $ 7,963,000 The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Clio-Nelson Pbint-Swayne Plan would be 0.75 to 1 (1959). Nelson Point^eadow Valley-North Fork Plan This plan would include the construction of Nelson Paint Dam and Reservoir on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, the diversion of the waters of Nelson ftjint Reservoir by tunnel to the proposed Meadow Valley Reservoir on Spanish Creek, and the conveyance of the conserved water from Meadow Valley Reservoir by tunnel to a power plant located on the North Fork of the Feather River about one mile upstream from Beldai. Flood flows of Bear Creek, a tributary of the Middle Fork, would be diverted by the Red Ridge diversion worics to Meadow Valley Reservoir to augment the yield from the latter reservoir. Monthly yield studies based on the estimated available runoff, were conducted in sizing the project. A summary of the yield study for the size of project selected is presented in Appendix B. The Nelson R>int-Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan would produce new water on a firm irrigation demand schedule in the estimated amount of about 133*000 acre— feet seasonally. This estimate was based on conditions expected -197- to prevail in the future, when water available to the project would have been reduced to meet requirements for upstream use. It was estimated that Meadow Valley ftjwer Plant would have an in- stalled power capacity of 118,500 kilowatts, a dependable power capacity of 118,500 kilowatts, and would produce about 506,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy seasonally. In addition, it is estimated 346,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy would be realized in the existing North Fork power plants of the Piacific Gas and Electric Company, New recreational opportunities would be made available by the project by providing a setting for the development of camp sites, boating facilities, and Slimmer homes. Both the area surrounding the reservoirs and the Middle Fork Canyon area are attractive for this type of develofxnent* Location of the project is shown on Plate 8, entitled "Alternative Middle Fork plans, Richvale Plan and Nelson Ftoint-Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan". Under the plan of development. Nelson Point Reservoir, with a storage capacity of 116,000 acre-feet, would be created by construction of a concrete arch dam 365 feet in height about three miles downstream from the junction of Nelson Creek with the Middle Fork in Section 18, T23N, RIOE, MDB&M, The regu- lated flow from Nelson Fbint Reservoir would be released through a tunnel 7.8 miles in length for storage in Meadow Valley Reservoir on Spanish Creek, This reservoir, with a storage capacity of 900,000 acre-feet, would be created by construction of a zoned earthfill dam 464 feet in height, about three miles west of Quincy, in Section 17, T24N, R9E, MDB&M. Red Ridge diversion works would be created by construction of a con- crete gravity dam 25 feet in height on Bear Creek in Section 16, T23N, R8E, MDB&M, The water intercepted by the diversion structure would be conveyed -198- through a tunnel 3.6 miles in length to be discharged into Meadow Valley Resei*voir, The regxilated waters from Meadow Valley Reservoir would be re- leased through a lined tunnel 9»7 miles in length to be discharged through the Meadow Valley Power Plant, This plant would be located in Section 19, T25N, R7E, MDB&M and would have an installed power capacity of 118,500 kilowatts* The geologic investigation of the dam sites for the Nelson Point- Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan consisted of a field reconnaissance of the Nelson Point and Red Ridge dam sites and foundation drilling and geologic mapping of the Meadow Valley dam site. A description of the geologic conditions at the Nelson Baint dam site was presented herein under the discussion of the Richvale Fleui. The geologic investigation of the Meadow Valley dam site included: (l) subsurface exploration by means of 11 diamond drill core holes totaling 1,524 lineal feet, and (2) geologic mapping of the site. Meadow Valley dam site is in a narrow, fairly steep-walled gorge cut by Spanish Creek, The stream follows a tortuous channel around alteiv nating meander spurs near the dam site. Based on preliminary drilling results, the Meadow Valley dam site appears suitable for a zoned earthfill dam with a height of up to 500 feet. The three geologic units that occur at the site are recent stream gravels in the channel, miocene gravely sandy clay at the top of the left abutment, and the Calaveras formation which comprises the bedrock at the site* The rock types found at the dam site are quartzites, phyllites, and schists with variations and gradations from one type to another* Diamond drill cores indicate that the metaraorphic rocks are generally competent enough to support an earthfill or concrete gravity dam. The beds dip almost vertically and -199- strike N30°W, Slaty cleavage is not as well developed in this area as it generally is in phyllitic and schistose rocks. No recent large faults or shear zones were encountered at the dam site; however, many small shear zones are present. These shear zones are all apparently parallel to the bedding and do not appear to affect the rock as a foiindation for a fill dam. The shears, joints, and cleavage partings may make heavy grouting necessary. On the right abutment, an estimated average of 10 feet of soil and weathered loose rock would have to be stripped under the impervious core of a dajn. Under the pervious section of a dam, at least five feet of overburden should be stripped. The chsuinel section would require an average of about 30 feet of stripping of sand and gravel. The bedrock immediately under the channel fill is reasonably hard and fresh, and would require only shaping of irregularities. Bedrock is exposed over much of the lower 200 feet of the left abutment. From this area, an average of about six feet of soils and weathered rock should be removed under the impervious core section and three feet under the pervious section of a dam. From about 200 feet above the channel to the top of the abutment, bedrock is deeply weathered. Stripping of 15 feet under the impervious section of the dam and six feet under the pervious section probably would be necessary. High on both abutments, the bedrock has sltunped and may require stripping up to 40 feet of unstable rock. Further exploration may show this slumped rock to be competent enough for the founda- tion of an earthfill dam. Topographically, the most desirable location for a spillway is above the left abutment. This area is one of very deep weathering and of slvimped bedrock. A spillway in this area would require a cut with a depth of about 100 feet. The decomposed rock excavated in such a cut may be suitable for impervious fill. -200- I E o o >^ > i o -o o E o E o 0) k- 1/* c o o Sufficient impervious and pervious fill material for an earthfill dam is located within three miles of the dam site. Impervious materials occur near the ridge tops surrounding Meadow Valley as Miocene stream channel deposits. The material is an auriferous gravel and is classified as a gravely sandy clay# These deposits have been extensively placer mined. Some of the material has been reworked. As a result, it has a high sand and gravel content, but is still classified as impervious, A deposit of pervious fill is located about 1,5 miles downstream from the dam site at the head of American Valley, It is composed of Recent sands and gravels deposited by Spanish Creek, Other sources of pervious material exist upstream from the dam site. The upstream deposits are irregular in width and depth, and are located in a high-water table area. Haul distances would vary from two to five miles. The seismicity of the area should be considered as at least moderate. The Spjanish Peak fault is located about five miles west of the dam site. Although no movement along this faiilt has been recorded during historic time, it may still be active. Geologic conditions of the Meadow Valley dam site are shown on Plate 16, "Meadow Valley Dam on Spanish Creek", The geologic investigation of the tiinnel routes of the Nelson Point- Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan consisted of a review of published data and a brief field reconnaissance of the routes. The geologic conditions of the tunnel routes are shown on Plate 11, The tunnel route from Nelson Point Reservoir to Meadow Valley Reservoir is almost entirely within Calaveras fomaation. Much of the ground would be very blocky and seamy with high overbreak. Fairly firm rock for an outlet portal is available along Spanish Creek about one-half mile east of Slate Creek, ■201- The intake portal for the tvmnel from Meadow Valley Reservoir to the power plant would be located in serpentine rock. With proper alignment of the tunnel, however, only about ^ne-half mile of the serpentine need be penetrated before the tunnel would enter the Calaveras formation. In the tunnel in the serpentine formation, lining and support necessarily would be very heavy. The tunnel would be located in the Calaveras formation for the remainder of the route. Tunneling through the Calaveras formation would involve moderately high to high overbreak and almost continuous support and lining. Light to moderate flows of water from Joints and shear zones should be anticipated* The tunnel portal for the Red Ridge-Meadow Valley Tunnel would be in sound granitic rx>ck. The tunnel would continue in this rock for about one mile after which a major fault zone would be encountered near the contact between the granitic rock and the Calaveras formation. Heavy support and lining would be required through this zone. Water flowing into the tunnel under considerable pressure should be anticipated. For the next two miles, the tunnel would penetrate the Calaveras formation and would encounter blocky and seamy conditions and moderately high overbreak. Because of the proximity to major faults in the area, it is anticipated that the tunnel would require heavy support and continuous lining. The tunnel would penetrate about one- half mile of serpentine between the Calaveras formation and the outlet portal in Meadow Valley, Heavy support and continuous lining would be required in the serpentine. The engineering designs cf the Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-North Fork Project were of a preliminary nature. Additional field exploration and study may develop information that substaintially could change the designs and estimates -202- of costs presented herein. The desigi of the Nelson Raint Dam as developed by the Richvale Irrigation District was utilized for the purpose of this investi- gation. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Nelson ft>int- Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan, as designed for preliminary cost estimating purposes, are presented in Table 39» The economic suialysis of the Nelson Fbint-Meadow Valley-North Foric Plan for developing the waters of the Middle Fork of the Feather River consisted of a preliminary detennination of the economic justification of the project. This work entailed a comparison of the estimated project benefits and costs to determine the overall project benefit-cost ratio. The capital cost of the Nelson Pbint-Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan was estimated at $143,374,000, The corresponding anniial costs, using an interest rate of 4»0 percent per annum and an amortization period of 50 years were estimated to be about $8,926,000, Of this amount, the estimate of the annual value of taxes foregone is $1,003,000. An estimate of the costs of individual project features is presented in Appendix C, A summary of capitsil and annual costs and of the costs of taxes foregone for the Nelson R)int-41eadow Valley-North Fork Plan is presented in Table 40, Benefits would accrue to the Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Noirth Fork Plan from the production of hydroelectric power, from new water supplies, and from enhancement of the recreational opportunities in the area. Some minor flood control benefits v;ould accrue from operation of the proposed reservoirs even though specific flood control features were not included. However, in- cidental benefits were not evaluated and economic justification v^-as based solely on hydroelectric power, irrigation, and recreational benefits. Hydroelectric power benefits would be realized from the operation of the Meadow Valley Power Plant and from the existing Rock Creek, Cresta, and Poe Power Plants of the P&cific Gas and Electric Company on the North Fojrk, -203- •\ >, +J •H +J O (I) a (1) Pl'tH 05 1 fj a) Jh (1) f) bn 01 0) u C o •H -p w w O a ■P d) QJ C) 0) ol tM tH ^ •rH 03 #> fn • 0) > +J (I) crt H » OJ ■H O C P H 6 O u o O p< s •» -p ■P -C OJ to -P 0) (U ho Im u c H -H '^ -p •p a; (U •H "§) I ■p CO oJ w 8 ro oo ro OJ H O ON<^ »\ »\ •* Q O O Ch ON H LTN-d- LTN < CJ o W o w o W w ^ On CO *\ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ O.I o,i C\l H H H •v •\ ^ CO tr-vo H H H C) t) CJ Q) 0) fl) CO CO W U a) > ;d ^ u C) (1) (1) x: u ^ -p D a> ol at .. > +J 0) •H •H o r— 0) Ph > bO c o ^ S 10 Ti H Oj -d (1) (1) (1) S S W I u H a; •H -P 05 05 EH > -P C ■ O ffi d H -P C ? 0) -H ^i: •s g <; (U c c W (1) 'H •H O 0) C (U Ph Ph 05 o a CO -p o H •H -P 05 c; o5 -P •P 0) tjO •p o5 'd m X3 H G p w o t:! 0) a w -H 05 0) -H O -P 0) I+-I G >H 05 x; H bO -P C g 4J p w o 0) a w -H 'd Q) ■H O -P 05 ^M H ^ 05 G •\ •H LTN U -P ■^ -4- H -P (U n> 1 G ■d LPv ^•H 0) G ^. •H Hi r-T t>5 tH ON -p 1 O •H Ti f- CJ G G 05 -H O H Ph O W 05 5 § (U t^ CO > > O -d 05 0) S I ^51 >> •p •H ^ > o o5 05 Q :^ (U (U •iH +J 4J , (I) H i^ ■^ O (1) > tn ^ "o O 1^ > 05 O > (1) s o ^ T-i 1 >, 05 ■^ (1) 0) G •H O n 2 a) Ph > ^ G O > o ■^ to T) H 05 T) (U Q) 0) s a K -20i+- TABLE 1+0 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF NELSON POINT-MEADOW VALLEY -NORTH FORK PLAN (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item Cost CAPITAL COST Project construction Lands, easements, and rights of way- Relocation of public utilities Subtotal Engineering and administration Contingencies Interest during construction TOTAL CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST $ 10i4-,029,00O 1,850,000 1,683,000 $ 107,562,000 $ 10,89^,000 15,716,000 9,202,000 $ 1^3,37^,000 Reservoir, conveyance, and power features Interest and capital recovery Operation and maintenance, replace- ment, general expense, eind insurance Taxes foregone Subtotal $ 6,671^,000 1,066,000 1,003,000 $ 8,7^^3,000 Recreation feat\ires Public facilities, including operation and maintenance TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 183,000 $ 8,926,000 -205- The increase in power output from the existing plants of the fticific Gas and Electric Company would be made possible by diversion of additional water into the North Fork, The estimated average annual benefits would be about $4,091,000 from Meadow Valley Power Plant and about $1,008,000 from the existing power plants of the fticific Gas and Electric Company, Irrigation benefits, estimated at $1,064,000 per season, would be realized from the estimated 133,000 acre-feet of new water that would be made available for irrigation by the project. Recreational benefits would accrue to the project from enhancement of the Nelson Pbint and Meadow Valley reservoir areas and from the Middle Fork Canyon area, Qily those recreational benefits estimated to be derived from public recreational facilities were evaluated for the study. The estimated net annual recreational benefits would be $110,000 from the Nelson Point Reservoirj $193,000 from Meadow Valley Reservoir, and $141,000 from the Middle Foric Canyon, The derivation of these benefits is discussed in detail in Appendix A, Total estimated benefits from all sources for the Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan are summarized in Table 41. TABLE 41 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS FROM THE NELSON POINT-MEADOW VALLHf-NORTH FORK PLAN Item * Benefit hydroelectric power $5,099,000 Irrigation 1,064,000 Recreation 444.000 TOTAL $6,607,000 The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Nelson Point- Meadow Valley-North Fork Plan would be 0,74 to 1 (1959), -206- Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan This project would include the construction of Nelson Point Reservoir on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, the diversion of the conserved waters for storage in Meadow Valley Reservoir on Spanish Creek, and the diversion of the conserved water from Meadow Valley Reservoir back to the Middle Fork to- gether with the diversion of additional waters from Bear Creek to pass through three power plants. In addition to the regulated water, the lower two power plants would receive significant amounts of water from uncontrolled mmoff from local drainage areas. Monthly yield studies, based on the estimated available runoff, were conducted in sizing the project, A summary of the yield study for the size of project selected is presented in Appendix B, The Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan would produce an estimated 168,000 acre-feet of new, firm, irrigation water seasonally. This estimate was based on conditions expected to prevail in the future, when water supplies available to the project would have been reduced by an amount necessary to meet requirements for upstream use. It was estimated that the project would have an installed power capac- ity of 220,000 kilowatts, a dependable power capacity of 209,000 kilowatts, and would produce about 1,150,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy seasonally. Also, because of the diversion of the waters of Spanish Creek away from the existing Rock Creek, Cresta, and Poe Power Plants of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, it was estimated that there would be a reduction of aboiit 80,000,000 kilowatt- hours seasonally in the amount of energy produced by these plants. The project would provide new recreational opportunities and would enhance outdoor recreation by providing a setting for the development of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer homes. Both the cu:ea surrounding the -207- reservoirs and the Middle Fork canyon area are attractive for this type of development. Location of the project is shown on Plate 10, "Alternative Middle Fork Plans, Clio-Nelson fbint-Swayne Plan and Nelson Fbint-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan". Under the plan of development. Nelson fbint Reservoir, with a storage capacity of 116,000 acre-feet, would be created by constnaction of a concrete arch dam 365 feet in height about three miles downstream from the junction of Nelson Creek with the Middle Fork in Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 9 East, MDB&M. The regulated flow from Nelson Pbint Reservoir would be released through a tunnel 7.8 miles in length for storage in Meadow Valley Reservoir on Spanish Creek, This reservoir with a storage capacity of 900,000 acre-feet, would be created by construction of a zoned earthfill dam 464 feet in height about three miles west of Quincy, in Section 17, Township 24 North, Range 9 East, MDB&M, The regulated flow from Meadow Valley Reservoir would be conveyed through a tunnel 12,0 miles in length to the Meadow Valley J^awer Plant, This plant would have an installed pov;er capacity of 85,000 kilowatts, aind would be located in Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 7 East, MDB&M, Qiroute, the Meadow Valley Power Plant tunnel would intercept the flows of Bear Creek at the Red Ridge diversion works. Red Ridge diversion works would be created by construction of a concrete gravity dam 25 feet in height on Bear Creek in Section I6, Township 23 North, Range 8 East, MDB&M. Hartman Bar Dam on the Middle Fork of the Feather River with a height of 90 feet, would be constructed to form a reregulating reservoir below the Meadow Valley Power Plamt, This dam would be of concrete ^rch construction and would be located 0.4 mile downstream from the junction of Willow Creek and the Middle Fork in Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 7 East, MDB&M, From Hartman Bar -208- Dam, a tunnel 7.7 miles in length vrould convey the water for discharge through Hartman Bar Rawer Plant, This plaint, with installed power capacity of 55#000 kilowatts, would be located at Milsap Bar, in Section 2, Township 21 North, Range 6 East, MDB5 -P •H +3 O 0) a 0) 03 I V Q) U (D o 03 O -H ■P CO •p O (U 03 tH Jh > -P H ci3 a; CO o O •»-P ■p x: ^ ^ •H S -^ W ^ Vi U i) u (t) 0) 0) (U Si ^ ;h x: +3 ^ ■P O +3 03 fl) 03 03 fl) fl) (u x: (u li. h |i| U [il CJ •H • fe 3 pti Pi^ ^ Ol S CO S S ^ t>5 • > +i (U •H o m M (1) &< > o to C) T) c > § K •H o o s K 0) d) a3 0) S S w m K I 0) +3 I ?H 05 "x -P ■d (U > G C Q) 8 -P (1) O -H 5 tap C DO a o u U Vi a; OJ si; to I -p to o3 U > ;3 03 O 0) s I I tJ t) -> C a; 03 ;>! C QJ H ft -P -H ft ^ o3 -H ' 03 o S rH -P H -H 03 O -P 03 • C o3 M V CQ •P > O H •H to Td W o3 o3 w ^ o; o 0) ^ H ? w o -x ■H O -P 03 C ^ 03 S H to -P ^ u +> O H ■211- -p -d- o o CM CM CO OO CM H 00 t~- OO C7\ H t-- H H O LfN o o o I C3\ O CM Lf\ LP, O CO LnCO CJN o CM LTN CM Ov-^ O O O VD-* CO OO r~-vD o -?co LTN LPi CM o CO CM CM O OO WWW K K S H CM u^ ^-^ OO O CJ o (1) OJ Q) CO CO CO >5 (1) 9 o 1=1 03 0) s a (1) -p to to •p o K m fh 03 PQ AJ y ^ fl) fn > 03 :* (U ^ O o Ti ft tJ 03 o3 03 a; CO Q) ?; H ^ 1 -P fl) 1 G •H O r— 1 m ^ Ph > o o G H M « f) o g CO Tl 03 T) fl) 03 fl) ^ S 2 W P4 The capital cost of the project was estimated at $190,990,000. The corresponding annual costs, using an interest rate of A,»6 percent per annum and an amortization period of 50 year's, were estimated to be about $1 2, 614 > 000, Of this amount, the estimated annual value of taxes foregone is about $1,861,000, An estimate of costs of individual project features is presented in Appendix C, A summary of capital and annxial costs, and of taxes foregone is presented in Table 43. The benefits that would accrue to the Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan would result from production of hydroelectric power, from new irriga- tion water supplies, and from enhancement of recreational opportunities. Some minor flood control benefits would accrue from operation of the proposed reser- voirs even though specific flood control features were not included. However, incidental benefits were not evaluated and economic justification was based solely on hydroelectric power, irrigation, and recreation benefits, Hydroelectric power benefits would be realized from the operation of the three power plants of the project. Also, there would be a decrease in benefits from the existing Rock Creek, Cresta, and Pbe Power Plants of the fticific Gas and Electric Company because of the flows of Spanish Creek being diverted away from these plants. The estimated average annual power benefits would be about $7> 968,000 from the three power plants of the project. The value of the decrease in energy produced by the power plants of the fticific Gas and Electric Company was estimated at $233*000 seasonally. Irrigation benefits would be realized from the estimated 168,000 acre-feet of new firm water that would be made available for irrigation from the operation of the project. The estimated irrigation benefits would be $1,344,000 seasonally. ■212- TABLE i+3 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF NELSON POINT -MEADOW VALLEY-BALD ROCK PLAN (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item ■ Cost CAPITAL COST Project construction $ 1^0,550,000 Leuids, easements, etnd rights of way 1,850,000 Relocation of public utilities 1,683,000 Subtotal $ lMl,083,000 Engineering and administration $ lU, 57^, 000 Contingencies 21,109,000 Interest during construction 11,223,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 190,989,000 ANNUAL COST Reservoir, conveyance, and power features Interest and capital recovery $ 8,891,000 Operation ajid maintenance, replace- ment, general expense, euid insurajice 1,686,000 Taxes foregone l,86l,000 Subtotal $ 12,i+38,000 Recreation featvires Public facilities, including operation and maintenajice $ 176 , 000 TOTAL AN1^IUAL COST $ 12,6lU,000 -213- Irrigation benefits would be realized from the estimated 168,000 acre- feet of new firm water that would be made available for irrigation from the operation of the project. The estimated irrigation benefits would be $1,34^-, 000 seasonally. Recreation benefits would accrue to the project from enhancement of the Nelson Point and Meadow Valley Reservoir areas and from the Middle Fork canyon area below Nelson ftsint Reservoir. Only those recreational benefits estimated to be derived from public recreational facilities were evaluated for this study. The estimated net annual recreational benefits would be $110,000 fcr Nelson Point Reservoir, $193,000 for Meadow Valley Reservoir, and $120,000 for the Middle Fork canyon area. The derivation of these benefits is discussed in detail in Appendix A» Total estimated average annual benefits from all sources for the Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan total $9,500,000 and are summarized in Table 44. TABLE 44 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS FOR THE NELSON POINT-MEADOW VALLEY-BALD ROCK PIAN Item * Benefit * Hydroelectric power $7,735,000 Irrigation 1,344,000 Recreation 423.000 TOTAL $9,502,000 The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Nelson ft)int- Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Plan would be 0.75 to 1 (1959). -214- Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan This project would include the construction of Turntable Reservoir on Middle Fork of the Feather River and the diversion of the water from Turntable Reservoir for storage in Meadow Valley Reservoir on Spanish Creek. From Meadow Valley Reservoir, the conserved water, augmented by a diversion from Bear Creek, would be conveyed to a power plant located at Hartman Bar on the Middle Fork of the Feather River. Downstream from the power plant, Hartman Bar Reservoir would be constructed to reregulate the releases from the power plant. From Hartman Bar Reservoir, the conserved water, augmented by a diversion from the Little North Fork, would be conveyed by tunnel for storage in the proposed Swa3rne Reservoir on French Creek. From this reservoir, the conserved water would be conveyed to a power plant located on lower French Creek on the shore of Oroville Reservoir. Monthly yield studies, based on the estimated available runoff used in sizing the project, are summarized in Appendix B. The project would produce a new firm irrigation yield estimated at 191,000 acre-feet seasonally. This estimate was based on conditions expected to prevail in the future, i>rhen water supplies available to the project would have been reduced to meet requirements of upstream use. It was estimated that the project would have an installed power capacity of 273,000 kilowatts, a dependable power capacity of 273,000 kilowatts, and would produce 1,301,700,000 kilowatt-hours of energy seasonally. Because the project vroulci divert the waters of Spanish Creek away from the existing Rock Creek, Cresta and Poe Power Plants of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company on the North Fork, a seasonal reduction would occur of 73,400,000 kilowatt-hours in the generation of energy in those plants. .215- The project would enhance outdoor recreation by providing a setting for the development of camp sites, boating facilities and summer homes. Both the area surrounding the proposed reservoirs and the Middle Fork canyon area are attractive for this type of development. Location of the project is shovm on Plate 9, "Alternative Middle Fork Plans and Turntable-Meadow Valley- Swayne Plan" . Under the plan of development. Turntable Reservoir with a storage capacity of about 47,800 acre-feet, would be created by construction of a zoned rockfill dam with a height of 245 feet just downstream from the junction of Nelson Creek with the Middle Fork in Section 16, Township 23 North, Range 10 East, MDB&M. The regulated water from Turntable Reservoir would be released through a tunnel 10.0 miles in length for storage in Meadow Valley Reservoir on Spanish Creek. This reservoir with a storage capacity of 900,000 acre-feet, would be created by construction of a zoned earthfill dam 464 feet in height about three miles west of Quincy, in Section 17, Township 24 North, Range 9 East, MDB&M. Regulated water from Meadow Valley Reservoir, augmented by a diversion from Bear Creek at the Red Ridge site would be released through a tunnel 10.8 miles in length, to pass through Meadow Valley Power Plant located at Hartman Bar. This plant would have aji installed power capacity of 98,000 kilowatts, and would be located in Section 1, Township 22 North, Range 7 East, MDB&M. Red Ridge diversion works would be created by construction of a concrete gravity dam 25 feet in height on Bear Creek in Section I6, Township 23 North, Range 8 East, MDB&M. Hartman Bar Dam with a height of 175 feet would be constructed to form a rereg\ilating reservoir below the Meadow Valley Power Plant. .216- I This dam would be of concrete arch construction and would be located 0.4 mile downstream from the junction of Willow Creek on Middle FoiSc of Feather River in Section 11, Township 22 North/ Range 7 East, MDB&M. From Hartman Bar Dam, the conserved water would be conveyed by tunnel 6,4 miles in length to Spoon diversion works located on the Little North Fork in Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 6 East, MDB&M, Spoon diversion dam would be of concrete gravity construction with a height of 25 feet. From Spoon diversion works, 1,8 miles of tunnel would convey the regulated water for storage in Swayne Reservoir on French Creek, Swayne Dam would be of earthfill construction with a height of 380 feet and would be located about three miles upstream from the confluence of French Creek with the North Fork of the Feather River in Section 35* Town- ship 22 North, Rajige 5 East, MDB&M, From Swayne Reservoir, a tunnel 1,3 miles in length would convey the regulated water to Swayne Power Plant, This plant, %d.th an installed capacity of 175>0O0 kilowatts, would be located on French Creek about one mile upstream from its confluence with the North Fork of the Feather River in Section 10, Township 21 North, Range 5 East, MDB&M, The project as described would have a total installed capacity of 273,000 kilowatts. Except for the Turntable dam site, the geologic conditions of the dam sites have been discussed previously herein. The exploration program at the Turntable site included surface geologic mapping of the dam site, preliminary test drilling of the foundation and spillway areas, petrographic analysis of the foundation rock, collection of soil samples, and estimation of quantities of available construction materials. Subsurface foundation exploration included a total of 1,036 lineal feet of core holes. -217- Topography at Turntable dam site is characterized by steep, rocky slopes which form a narrow gorge. Slopes up to 100 percent are common. Bed- rock at the site consists of contorted, thin-bedded slate, phyllite, and quartzite with occasional thick beds of quartzite and limestone. The thick- ness of these beds varies from a few inches to several feet. Bedrock outcrops are prominent near the channel. The strike of the beds is N30^, which is roughly parallel to the proposed axis of the dam. The dip of the beds is nearly vertical* A large zone of discontinuous bedding-plane shears is exposed on the right abutment. This shear zone is 180 feet wide on the upper part of the right abutment, but thins to about 40 feet near the channel, A portion of the left abutment, located in the vicinity of the spillway approach area, has sliunped badly & appears xinstable. The rock in this area is badly fractured and often powdered and, therefore, would have to be removed. The spillway crest and channel would be located on firmer bedrock. Based on present data, stripping of the right abutment beneath the i-T.pervious section should consist of an average of about six feet of talus and soil, plus six feet of weathered bedrock. About three feet of soil cover should be stripped beneath the pervious section. On the left abutment, an average of about 10 feet of slumped aiid weathered rock should be removed be- neath the ijnpervious section, and an average of five feet bensath the pervious section. Water tests indicated severe leakage across the entire axis. However, with an adequate grout progra/ri and because of the favorable attitude of the beds along the axis, leakage beneath a dam at this site should not be excessive. It is anticipated that the grout take would be moderate to heavy. ■21 8- Impervious material for use in the core of a dam could be obtained at Texas Flat, located 0.3 mile upstream from the site. Spoil from the large spillway cut could be used in the random fill section of the dam. Limestone, quarried and crushed from Limestone Point about 1.5 iniles downstream from the site, could be used for pervious material or rock fill. Exploration of the bedrock has shown that Turntable dam site is not ideal from a geologic point of view. Thin-bedded rocks together with sheared zones provide rather poor foundation conditions. Heavy slumpage in the bedrock in the proposed spillway approach area is a serious problem. However, Turr.table dam site is considered suitable for a properly constructed zoned earthfill dam with a height of up to 250 feet. Geologic conditions at the Turntable site are shown on Plate 15, entitled "Turntable Dam on Middle Fork Feather River" . The geologic investigation of the tunnel routes included in the Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plari consisted of a review of published data and a brief field reconnaissance of the routes. The geologic conditions of tunnel routes have been described previously herein. Tne engineering designs of the Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan were of a oreliminary nature. Additional field exploration and study may develop information that substantially could change the designs and estimates of costs presenteu nerein. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan, as designed for preliminary cost estimating purposes, are presented in Table 45. -219- LPv -4- W >i 4J -H •P C) (1) OJ (1> ft 0) u (1) C) bO crt cri Jh a () •H -P Cfi OJ > •H O < w w o u o -p o Q) -P fi H •H O C O ■r] PJ •^ -P -P ^ OJ t/3 -P u^ O -:!■<) OJ r- CO ? H CM CO m o w O W Pq W w w C^ K *§ K VD UA « « w^ S ^ t\ ^ •n. ^^^^ ^^ OJ OJ CM CU CM OJ Eh EH EH Eh en &H •\ •% -S -N •s ^ H iH H i-l OJ en o o o o O V 0) Q) (1) 0) (1) M > > U 13 s .^ J4 Jh 0) fn X3 X (U (U 0) -p OJ 1 ?i .c: ^ ^ x: -P O (U -P aJ . > •H H > bO •H -9 ^ '^ S o o5 > -H a -P O « 1 liH H -p 0) 03 a tM 01 •p a) Q) 01 rH C K > (U V •H ^ > • +J o CJ 0) fl) H a; Q) pm Ch w IfH I 1 C -P o3 Ph-h -p t:3 03 •^ 03 C O >5 > (D -P O P4 (1) -H H r-i (J ■<-{ ;Q 03 ^ a 0) w +J >- -P . -P > H -H o 03 O H -p 03 -H C 0) HOC 10 0) CO +> bO O o3 H I -p Ti +J CO 03 OJ CO ^ Cm to O O bO -P bO +3 O H P^ Pm LTN O S8. CM -4- O CM m O. CV-) m CM 88 CM H r-T O? 8 CO LTN on OJ LTNVD CM -3F H ir\ cr\ OJ H -* o H H H O O d) w o (U to Jh ->t:3 ■P O •H CJ +> O (L) (I) o3 to (U liH ■::hi !h Ti >» O -P Cm bO •H C ^ > +i -H c; 03 0) 5-1 d U oJ H (I> (U Tii C H •H +J +J C O ■H tH 0) eu O -H J 1 O O (U ^ fl CJ C C to QJ o () o O > •M Pd w o "8;^ CJ II II II < ^'' a g K w o O LTN 3 cvTl to -p to C O o 88888 CO on H ^ CO »\ ♦x •s •^ ^ CM CM -^ CJ\VO LTNVD rn 88 8 H H a) fl) H U ^ C) O ^H a ^ x: 01 '^'^ to 0) to '^ o c; to to t) ^1 Jh u Jh Jh •H •H o o •H O U ffi W O LPi LTN CU OJ C— ON H H i.rN m O irM~- ITNOO • • • • • -:t CM-4- VO-^ H H H H H LfNCO H *V *V VV *\ *\ m H H H CM CO CO -220- The economic ajialysis of the Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan consisted of a preliminary determination of economic justification of the project. This entailed a comparison of the estimated project benefits and costs to determine the overall project benefit-cost ratio. The capital cost of the Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan was estimated at $233,483,000. The corresponding annual costs, using am interest rate of 4.0 percent per annum and an amortization period of $0 years and including operation, maintenance and replacement were estimated to be about $15,233,000. Of this amount, the estimate of the annual value of taxes fore- gone is s^2,310,000. An estimate of the costs of individual project features is presented in Appendix C. A summary of capital and annual costs and of the cost of taxes foregone is presented in Table 46. The benefits that would accrue to the Turntable^eadow Valley-Swayne Plan would result from production of hydroelectric power, irrigation from new water supplies and from enhancement of recreational opportunities in the area. Some minor flood control benefits would accrue from operation of the proposed reservoirs, even though specific flood control features were not included. However, incidental benefits were not evaluated and economic justification was based solely on hydroelectric power, irrigation and recreationcil benefits. Hydroelectric power benefits would be realized from the operation of the Meadow Valley and Swayne Power Plants. However, there would be a decrease in power benefits from the existing Rock Creek, Cresta and Poe Power Plants of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company as a result of the flows of Spanish Creek being diverted away from these plants. The estimated average annual power benefits would be about $9,825,000. from the power plants of the project. The value of the decrease in power benefits from the power plants of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company was estimated at $213,000, seasonally. -221- TABLE h6 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF TURNTABLE -MEADOW VALLEY-SWAYNE PLAN (Based on prices prevailing in fall of 1958) Item ' Cost CAPITAL COST Project construction $ 173,789,000 Lands, easements, and rights of way 2,066,000 Relocation of public utilities 765 , OOP Subtotal $ 176,620,000 Engineering ajid administration $ 17,811,000 Contingencies 26,OU5,000 Interest during construction 13, 007 > 000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 233,^3,000 ANNUAL COST Reservoir, conveyajice, and power feat\ires Interest and capital recovery $ 10,869,000 Operation and maintenance, replace- ment, general expense, and ins;rrajice 1,861,000 Taxes foregone 2,310,000 Subtotal $ 15,040,000 Public recreationaJ. facilities, including operation ajid maintenance ^ 198,000 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 15,238,000 -222- Irrigation benefits would be realized from the estimated 191,000 acre-feet of new firm water for irrigation estimated at $1,528,000 seasonally. Recreation benefits would accrue to the project fxxjm enhajicement of the Turntable, Meadow Valley, and Swayne Reservoir areas and from the Middle Fork canyon area below Turntable Reservoir, Only those recreational benefits estimated to be derived from public recreational facilities were evaluated for this study. The estimated net annual recreational benefits would be $110,000 for Turntable Reservoir, $193,000 for Meadow Valley Reservoir, $49,000 for Swayne Reservoir, and $140,000 for the Middle Fork canyon area. The derivation of these benefits is discussed in detail in Appendix A, Total estimated benefits from all sources for the Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plaji are summarized in Table 47« TABLE 47 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS FOR THE TURNTABLE-MEADOW VALLEY-SWAYNE PUN Item * Benefit Hydroelectric power $ 9,612,000 Irrigation 1,528,000 Recreation 492.000 TOTAL $11,632,000 The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Turntable-Meadow Valley-Swayne Plan would be 0.76 to 1 (1959). -223- Plans for Development of the North Fork of the Feather River The water resources of the main stem of the North Fork of the Feather River have been extensively developed for the production of hydroelectric power by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. In the remainder of the North Fork Basin, possibilities exist for storage of unregulated waters for irrigation use, for enhancement of fishing and recreational uses, for flood control, and for the production of hydroelectric power. Three potential projects for developing the waters of the Indian Creek portion of the North Fork Basin were studied during the Upper Feather River Basin Investigation, As previously stated herein, one of the projects, the Indian Creek Itecreation Project, has been authorized as part of the Feather River Project, The department is currently engaged in advance planning studies of this project. These studies include a re-evaluation of the costs and accomplishments of the project. The other two projects, the Squaw Queen and the Genesee Recreation Projects, were studied as possible future developments. Indian Creek Recreation Project The following discussion of the Indian Creek Recreation Project was summarized from Bulletin No, 59. 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 the recreational potential of the upper Indian Creek Basin. The project would include Antelope Valley Reservoir on Indian Creek, Dixie Refuge Reservoir on Last Chance Creek, and Abbey Bridge Reservoir on Red Clover Creek. It was estimated that an average annual increase of 93,200 visitor-days of use over and above the present use would be realized from developments around the reservoirs included in the Indian Creek Recreation Project, In addition, about 309,000 visitor-days of use would be realized fron -224- 62 miles of streams that would be improved by the operation of the project. Features of the authorized Indian Creek Recreation Project are shown on Plate 6. Antelope Valley Reservoir , Antelope Valley Reservoir would be created by construction of an earthfill dam with a height of 93 feet on Indian Creek about one mile downstream from the Boulder Creek Guard Station, 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 at spillway crest elevation of 5,000 feet would be 930 acres, Dixie Refuge Reservoir , Dixie Refuge Reservoir would be created by construction of an earthfill dam with a height of 81 feet on Last Chance Creek about five miles south of Milford, The reservoir would have a gross storage capacity of 16,100 acre-feet and a net storage capacity of lli,l50 acre-feet. The water siirface area at spillway crest elevation of 5,7liO feet would be 800 acres. Abbey Bridge Reservoir . Abbey Bridge Reservoir would be created by construction of an earthfill dam with a height of 71 feet on Red Clover Creek about two miles upstream from the Abbey Bridge Gxiard 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 at spillway crest elevation of 5,1^20 feet would be 5U0 acres. Squaw Queen Project Squaw Queen Project would include Squaw Queen Dam and Reservoir on Last Chance Creek and a conduit system for conveying the conserved waters for discharge throu^ a power plant located upstream from the junction of Last Chance and Red Clover Creeks in Genesee Valley. Waters released through the -225- pcwer plant would be reregulated in the potential Genesee Reservoir, the prin- cipal feature of the Genesee Recreation Project, Under the plan of operation, the releases for stream flow maintenance purposes from the upstream Dixie Refuge Reservoir on Last Chance Creek would pass through Spuaw Queen Reservoir to the stream channel below the dam. The Souaw Queen Project would have an installed power capacity of 12,000 kilowatts, a dependable power capacity of 11,300 kilowatts, and would produce 56,570,000 kilowatt-hours of energy seasonally. In addition, the regulated waters from the project would increase the production of energy from the existing Rock Creek, Cresta, and Poe Power Plants of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company by 12,500,000 kilowatt-hours seasonally. New recreational opportunities would be made available by the project by providing a setting for the development of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer homes. Location of the project is shown on Plate 6, Squaw Queen Dam would be located on Last Chance Creek about 1,5 miles downstream from the junction of Last Chance and Squaw Queen Creeks in Sections 1 and 2, Township 25 North, Range 12 East, MDBScM, A topographic map of the dam site and reservoir area at a scale of one inch equals i;00 feet and a con- tour interval of 10 feet was made in 1957. Reservoir area and capacity data taken from this map are presented in Table ii8. The geologic investigation of the Souaw Queen dam site was limited to reconnaissance geologic mapping and borrow material sampling. The site is located in a granitic gorge of Last Chance Creek well below a contact between granitic basement rocks and overlying andesitic and basaltic lava flows. The granitic rocks at the site are very uniform and consistent. They are massive, coarse-grained, and hard, except near the surface and along joints where weather- ing is more active. Width of weathering along joints probably diminishes rapidly with depth. Good exposures of rock are present along the channel section, -226- TABLE U8 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF SQUAW QUEEN RESERVOIR Depth of water : Water surface : Water surface : Storage capacity. at dam, : elevation. : area. : in in feet : in feet : in acres : acre -feet 5,290 30 5,320 Uo 500 70 5,360 120 3,500 110 5,Uoo 520 11^,300 150 5,U;0 l,iUiO 51,500 190 5,^80 3,U5o m6,ooo A saddle behind the right abutment appears to be a satisfactory- location for a spillway. However, this spillway site is within a few hundred feet of a recently active fault and it appears to be near the intersection of two well-developed shear zones. The overburden of decomposed granitic rock apparently is quite deep in the saddle area. Lining of the spillway channel may be required to prevent erosion. Sufficient amounts of impervious, semi- pervious, and rockfill materials are located within three miles of the dam site, and could be used for the construction of the dam. Earthquakes centered on faults northeast and southeast of Diamond Mountain in 1908 and 1951, and evidence of recent faulting near the dam site indicate moderate to high seismicity in this area. Based on preliminary geologic reconnaissance. Squaw Queen dam site appears to be suitable for the construction of a zoned earth or rockfill dam. Geologic conditions of the Squaw Queen dam site are shown on Plate 17, "Squaw Queen Dam on Last Chance Creek". The average seasonal runoff from the approximately 200 square miles of watershed above the Squaw Queen dam site is estimated at 63,000 acre-feet. Reservoir operation studies and consideration of topographic and geologic conditions, led to the selection of a reservoir with a storage capacity of 100,000 acre-feet for cost analyses of the Squaw Queen Project, -227- The dam would be of zoned earth and rock construction with a height of l8ii feet, a crest length of 760 feet, and side slopes of 2:1, The spillway- would be located in a saddle about 700 feet west of the right abutment of the dam. It would have a concrete weir 100 feet in length from which discharges would be made into an unlined trapezoidal channel. The unlined channel would connect with Last Chance Creek about 0.5 mile downstream from the dam. The outlet works were designed to make releases both for stream flow maintenance and for power production. The submerged inlet structure would contain two 36-inch diameter valves connected to a 76-inch diameter concrete pipe. Just downstream from the dam an 18-inch discharge valve in a control valve house would release water for stream flow maintenance. From this valve house, a concrete pipe line with a diameter of 60 inches and a length of 2U,500 feet, plus 900 feet of tunnel, would extend to the penstock leading to the power plant. The capacity of the conduit would be 100 second-feet. The pen- stock would be 36 inches in diameter and would lead to a power plant with an installed capacity of 12,000 kilowatts located at the i;5)per end of Genesee Valley, The general features of the Souaw Queen Project and related data are presented in Table h9. Most of the land in the Squaw Queen reservoir site is in the Plumas National Forest, Several United States Forest Service roads would be inundated by the reservoir. Timber covers most of the area and much of it would be salvageable, A preliminary determination of the economic justification of the Squaw Queen Project was made. This work entailed a comparison of the estimated project benefits and costs to determine the project benefit-cost ratio. The capital cost of the total project was estimated to be about $9,Ul2,000. Corresponding annual costs, using an interest rate of li.O percent -228- TABLE h9 GENEEAL FEATURES OF SQUAW QUEEN PROJECT Dam Site Location Sec. 1 & 2, T25N, R12E, MDB&M Stream Last Chance Creek Dam Type composite-eajrth & rockfill Crest elevation, in feet 5,^7^ Crest, length in feet 760 Crest width, in Teet 25 Height above stream bed, in feet loh- Freeboard, in feet 9.5 Side slopes Upstream 2:1 Downstream 2:1 Elevation of stream bed, in feet 5^290 Volume of fill, in cubic yards 1,100,000 Reservoir Water surface elevation at normal pool, in feet 5,464.5 Surface axea at spillway crest, in acres 2,550 Storage capacity at spillway crest, in acre-feet 100,000 Drainage area, in square miles I98 Average seasonal runoff, in acre-feet 63,000 Seasonal yield of water, in acre-feet Uo,000 Type of spillway Ogee weir with trapezoidal chute. . . . Spillway dischaj-ge capacity, in second-feet 5,060 Type of outlet works reinforced-concrete cut-and-cover condiiit Pipeline Type Low-pressure concrete pipe Length, in feet 24,500 Diameter, in feet 5.O Tunnel Type concrete-lined, circiHar Length, in feet 9OO Diameter, in feet 7.O Power Plant Installed capacity, in kilowatts 12,000 Average annual energy produced, in kilowatt-hours 56,570,000 -229- per annum and an amortization period of 50 years were estimated to be $761,000. Of this amount, the estimated annual value of taxes foregone is about $101,000. An estimate of costs of individual project features is presented in Appendix C. A s\unmary of capital and annual costs and of taxes foregone are presented in Table 50. The benefits that would accrue to the Squaw Queen Project would result from production of hydroelectric power and from enhancement of recreation opportunities in the area. Some minor flood control benefits wo\ild accrue from operation of the reservoir even though specific flood control features were not included. However, incidental flood control benefits were not evaluated and economic justification was based solely on benefits from production of electrical energy and from recreation. Hydroelectric power benefits would be realized frcm the operation of the Squaw Queen Power Plant and as a result of the incremental increase in power generated by the existing Rock Creek, Cresta, and Poe Power Plants of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, This increment of power output would be made possible by improved flow conditions in the North Fork resulting from the opera- tion of Squaw Queen Reservoir, The estimated average seasonal power benefits would be about $Ul5,000 from the operation of Squaw Queen Power Plant and $37,000 from the existing plants of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Recreational benefits would accrue to the Squaw Queen Project from enhancement of the reservoir area. Only those recreational benefits derived directly from public recreational facilities were evaluated for this study. On this basis the estimated net annual recreational benefits would be $192,000. Total estimated benefits fi"om all sources are summarized in Table 5l« The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Squaw Queen Project would be 0.85:1 (1959). -230- TABLE 50 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF SQUAW QUEEN PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item ■ Cost CAPITAL COST Project construction $ 7,03^,000 Leinds, easements, and rights of way 151,000 Relocation of public utilities 90,000 Subtotal $ 7,275,000 Engineering and administration $ 728,000 Contingencies 1,091,000 Interest during construction 278,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 9,^+12,000 AHMJAL COST Reservoir, conveyance, and pover features Interest amd capital recovery $ ^+75,000 Operation and maintenance, replace- ment, general expense, and insurance 127,000 Taxes foregone 101,000 Subtotal $ 703,000 Public recreational facilities, including operation and maintenance $ 58,000 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 76l,0OO ■231- TABIE 51 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS FROM SQUAW QUEEN PROJECT Item '. Benefits Hydroelectric power $Ii52,000 Recreation 192,000 TOTAL $6Ui,000 Genesee Recreation Project Genesee Recreation Project would include the construction of Genesee Dam and Reservoir on Indian Creek in Genesee Valley and the development of the valley for intensive recreational use, Genesee Reservoir would be operated as an afterbay for the Squaw Queen Power Project, when and if that project were constructed, and would have a maximum fluctuation of about one foot in order to maximize its recreational potential. The regulated releases from the reservoir would enhance the recreational potential of Indian Creek, Camp sites and other outdoor recreational facilities and resort establishments would be located near the reseirvoir and along Indian Creek, It is estimated that the public recreational facilities developed in connection with the project would provide an average of over 1,000,000 visitor -days of use seasonally during the repayment period of the project. Location of the project is shown on Plate 6. Genesee Dam would be located on Indian Creek about two miles above Genesee in Sections 10 and U, Township 25 North, Range 11 East, MDB&M. A topographic map of the reservoir area at a scale of one inch equals UOO feet and a contour interval of 10 feet was made in 1957. Reservoir area and capacity data taken from this map are presented in Table 52. -232- TABLE 52 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF GRNESEK RESERVOIR Depth of water : Water sxirface : Water surface : Storage capacity, at dam, in feet ;elevation, in feet; area, in feet ; in acre-feet 3,692 8 3,700 2lil li50 18 3,710 li75 U,050 28 3,720 675 9,800 38 3,730 875 17,500 The geologic investigation of the Genesee dam site included a brief geologic reconnaissance, drilling of two holes in the channel section to a depth of 35 feet each, and a seismic survey. In addition, potential borrow areas were located and samples were taken for laboratory testing. The right abutment of the dam site is underlain by deeply weathered, well-indurated, tuffaceous volcanics and sandstone covered with several feet of sandy overburden. The material in the broad channel section consists of stream-deposited, unconsolidated pervious sands, silty sands, and gravels with about five feet of sandy and clayey silty soil at the surface. Water tests conducted during the drilling operations indicated moderate seepage losses. The seismic survey indicated that depth to bedrock in the channel section would range from 50 feet near the right abutment to over 200 feet near the stream channel. The left abutment of the dam site is composed of deeply weathered, slaty shales with some interbedded sandstone. The rocks weather to a sandy soil which has formed a deep blanket over the abutment. The stripping depth beneath the impervious section of a dam would be about 15 feet. The saddle behind the knoll which forms the right abutment appears to be well suited for the location of a spillway. Based on preliminary geologic exploration, the Genesee dam site appears suitable for the construction of a low earthfill dam. ■233- Geologic conditions at Genesee Dam site are shown on Plate 18, "Genesee Dam on Indian Greek". From a consideration of topographic and geologic conditions, a reser- voir with a storage capacity of 9,800 acre-feet was selected for cost analysis of the Genesee Recreation Project, The reservoir water surface sirea would be 675 acres at normal pool elevation. The dam would be of earthfill construction with a height of UU feet and a crest length of 1,700 feet. The embankment slopes would be 3 to 1 upstream and 2 to 1 downstream. The spillway would be located in a saddle near the right abutment of the dam and would have a dis- charge capacity of 30,000 second-feet. A concrete weir 200 feet in length would control spills into a chute terminating in a stilling basin at stream bed level. The outlet works were designed to discharge 200 second-feet with the reservoir water surface at minimum pool. It would have a submerged inlet st]ruct\ire con- necting to a 3-foot diameter welded steel pipe encased in concrete in a trench in the right abutment. Principal features of the Genesee Recreation Project and related data are presented in Table 53. Most of the land in Genesee Reservoir area is under private ownership and is devoted to grazing. Clearing of the land would consist of the removal of scattered trees and several ranch buildings. The economic analysis of the Genesee Recreation Project consisted of a preliminary determination of the economic justification of the project. The capital cost of the project was estimated to be about $3,183,000. Cor- responding ajinual costs using an interest rate of U.O percent per annum and an amotrization period of ^0 years, plus operation, maintenance and replace- ment, were estimated to be $310,000. An estimate of costs of individual project features is presented in Appendix C. A summary of -234- m y '-•i^ft- 't. %^ •■■ c -^ • ^'i" •^v - ~ ^ _3> "5 • > *■• . o im o f~ M ' . 0) c 'X a o TABLE 53 GENERAL FEATURES OF GENESEE RECREATION PROJECT Dam Site Location Sec. 10 & 11, T25N, RllE, MDB&M Stream Indian Creek Dam Type homogeneous, impervious fill Crest elevation, in feet 3^736 Crest length, in feet 1,700 Crest width, in feet 20 Height above stream bed, in feet kk Freeboard above spillway crest, in feet l6 Side slopes Upstream 3:1 Downstream 2:1 Elevation of stream bed, in feet 3,692 Volume of fill, in cubic yards 3li+,600 Reservoir Water surface at normal pool, in feet 3,720 Surface area at spillway crest, in acres 675 Storage capacity at spillway crest, in acre-feet 9,800 Drainage area, in squaxe miles 518 Type of spillway Ogee weir with rectangular chute Spillway discharge capacity, in second-feet 30,000 Type of outlet works steel pipe encased in concrete -235- capital and annual costs are presented in Table ^Ii, The benefits that would accrue to the Genesee Recreation Project would result from enhancement of the outdoor recreational potential of Genesee Valley, Only those recreational benefits derived directly from public recreational facilities were evaluated for this study. On this basis, the estimated net annual recreational benefits would be $3U0,000. The resulting ratio of benefits to costs would be 1,1 to 1 (1959). Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir A reconnaissance study was made of the possibilities for a Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir on Yellow Creek, The reservoir would be formed by a dam on Yellow Creek about one mile below the mouth of Humbug Valley in Section 18, Township 26 North, Range 7 East, MDB&M. The location of the reservoir is shown on Plate 19, "Existing North Fork and Proposed Yellow Creek and South Fork Developments", Reconnaissance studies of the reservoir indicate its best use would be realized when operated to augment the water supply available to the existing power plants on the North Fork of the Feather River, The reservoir would provide a firm water yield on a continuous flow basis of about 19,000 acre- feet seasonally. New recreational opportunities would be made available by the project. It would enhance outdoor recreation by providing a setting for the development of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer homes. The geologic investigation of the Humbug Valley dam site consisted of a brief reconnaissance of the site and the location and sampling of construc- tion material. Humbug Valley is a narrow, alluviated valley located in an area of moderately subdued topography. The area is in the transition zone between the older metamorphic rocks of the Sierra Nevada and the younger volcanic rocks ■236- TABLE 5I1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF GENESEE RECREATION PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item ; Cost CAPITAL COST Project construction $ 1,752,000 Lsjids, easements, and rights of way 653,000 Relocation of public utilities 105,000 Subtotal $ 2,510,000 Engineering and administration $ 251,000 ouutingencies 37^,000 Interest dirring construction lk3,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 3,183,000 AITOUAL COST Reservoir, conveyance, and power feat\ires Interest and capital recovery $ l6l,000 Operation and mainteancce, replace- ment, general expense, and insiirance 2,000 Subtotal $ 163,000 Public recreational facilities, including operation and maintenance $ 1^7,000 TOTAL AMUAL COST $ 310,000 -237- associated with Mt, Lassen and with the Cascade geomorphic province. Slate, schist, meta-volcanics, and quartzite are exposed at the site, and in and around Humbug Valley, Seismicity may be considered to be low to moderate. Humbug Valley dam site is situated in a steep-walled, narrow canyon at the outlet of the valley. The north-northwest regional structural trend is reflected in the formational contacts and in the jointing and foliation of the rocks. At the axis of the dam site, the joints, foliation, and probable shear zones roughly parallel the channel. The right abutment is underlain by massive, jointed meta-volcanic rocks. Apparent outcrops on the abutment are probably very large, massive boulders formed as a result of weathering. Stripping for the impervious section of a fill dam is estimated to include removal of about eight feet of bouldery soil overburden and two feet of jointed rock. The channel section is about 150 feet wide. About one-fifth of the channel section is occupied by the stream channel. The channel fill is predominantly silt with a little gravel, the estimated depth being l5 feet. This fill would be removed frati beneath the impervious section. Stripping should also include removal of about three feet of jointed bedrock. Since prcminent joints, foliation, and probable shear zones roughly parallel the channel, grouting should be deep, and grout holes should have narrow spacing to control seepage under the dam. Fractured meta-volcanics are exposed in a few outcrops on the left abutment. Stripping beneath the inpervious section should include about four feet of overburden and three feet of rock. A side-channel spillway could be cut across the right abutment. The spillway should be lined to prevent plucking of the jointed rocks. The natural slope above the spillway appears to be stable. The sides of the spillway cut should be stable on a 1:1 slope in bedrock. Leakage from the reservoir through the jointed metamorphic rocks should be slight. Gravelly silts located within two miles of the dam site in -238- the reservoir area may be suitable for impervious fill. Pervious rockfill and riprap materials can be quarried at the dam site. The site appears to be geologically suitable for the construction of a zoned earth and rockfill dam vd.th a height of up to 150 feet. Based on geologic reconnaissance and preliminary economic analysis, an earthfill dam, 104 feet in height with a crest elevation of 4,360 feet was selected for cost analysis of Hun±iug Valley Dam and Reservoir. A concrete- lined side channel spillway would be located in the right abutment. The outlet works would be located in the left abutment. The reservoir would have a storage capacity of 55,000 acre-feet and an area of 1,630 acres at normal pool elevation. Principal features of Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir aree presented in Table 55. The capital cost of Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir was estimated at $2,189,000. The corresponding annual 'costs, using an interest rate of 4.0 percent per annum and an amortization period of 50 years, were estimated to be $121,000. A summary of capital and annual costs of Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir are presented in Table 56. For the purpose of this study, no analysis was made of the benefits that would be derived from the operation of Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir, as it would be used only in conjunction with the existing North Fork power system. South Fork Project for Development of the South Fork of the Feather River As previously stated herein, a plan for developing the South Fork of the Feather River has been advanced by the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. This plan has been accepted by the Yuba County Water District as a joint project of the two agencies in accordance with an agreement entered into in 1958 with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. This agreement provides for the sale to the company of the electric energy developed by the project. Because of the advanced stage of planning by the district for the development of the waters -239- TABLE 55 GENERAL FEATURES OF HUMBUG VALLEY DAM AND RESERVOIR Dam Site Location Sec. l8, T26n, R7E, MDB&M Stream Yellow Creek Dam Type zoned earthfill Crest elevation, in feet h, 360 Crest length, in feet 560 Crest width, in feet 25 Height above stream bed, in feet 104 Freeboard above spillway crest, in feet 10 Side slopes Upstream 2.25:1 Downstream 2.25:1 Elevation of stream bed, in feet ^,256 Volume of fill, in cubic yards ^4-27,680 Reservoir Water surface elevation at normal pool, in feet ^j 350 Surface area at spillway crest, in acres 1,630 Storage capacity at spillway crest, in acre-feet 55,000 Drainage area, in square miles 35 Average seasonal runoff, in acre-feet 27,000 Seasonal yield of water, in acre-feet 19,000 Type of Spillway concrete-lined, side channel Spillway discharge capacity, in second-feet 5,700 Type of outlet works concrete-encased steel pipe -240- TABLE 56 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF HUMBUG VALLEY DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item ■ Cost CAPITAL COST Project construction $ 1,275,000 Lands, easements, and rights of way 277,000 Relocation of public utilities 132,000 Subtotal $ 1,68U,000 Engineering ajid administration $ 168,000 Contingencies 252,000 Interest during construction 85,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 2,189,000 AITOUAL COST Reservoir, conveyance, and power featiires Interest and capital recovery $ 102,000 Operation and maintenance, replace- ment, general expense, and insurance 19,000 TOTAL AMMJAL COST $ 121,000 -24l- of the South Fork, no additional planning for the development of this stream was done for the purposes of the Upper Feather River Basin Investigation, The South Fork Project is a proposed water supply and hydroelectric pofwer project within the South Fork of the Feather River and North Fork of the Yuba River Basins. The principal purpose of the project would be to provide additional irrigation and domestic water supplies for use in the Oroville- Wyandotte Irrigation District, in areas adjacent to the district, and in the Yuba County Water District, Hydroelectric energy would be developed to provide revenue for repayment of the project costs. The proposed project would consist of three storage reservoirs with a total storage capacity of approximately 1$6,000 acre-feet, four diversion dams, three power plants with a total generating capacity of 85,000 kilowatts, 17 miles of tuiuiel, and certain other works, including a small terminal storage reservoir and irrigation canals. The existing Lost Creek Reservoir would be included in the system. The plan of the South Fork Project is shown on Plate 19. Under the plan of development. Little Grass Valley Reservoir with a storage capacity of 93,010 acre-feet would be constructed on the South Fork of the Feather River, The dam would be of earth and rockfill construction and would have a height of 202 feet. The conserved water from the reservoir would be released to the stream for diversion to Lost Creek by the South Fork diver- sion works. The diversion works would consist of a concrete arch dam with a hei^t of 57 feet, Frcm the diversion works, the conserved water would be conveyed 2,6 miles by tunnel for storage in Sly Creek Reservoir. From Sly Creek Reservoir, the conserved water would be released to existing Lost Creek Reservoir immediately downstream. Slate Creek diversion dam, a concrete arch structure 70 feet in height, would be located on Slate Creek, Water from Slate Creek would be diverted 2,li miles by tunnel for storage in Sly Creek -2U2- Reservoir. From Lost Creek Reservoir the conserved water would be conveyed 3.5 miles by tunnel to pass tbirough Woodleaf Power Plant located on the South Fork. The Woodleaf Power Plant would have an installed capacity of li9,90O kilowatts. The Forbestown diversion dam would be located downstream from the power plant and would be concrete arch construction with a height of 73 feet. From this reservoir the conserved water would be conveyed 3.5l miles by tunnel to pass through the Forbestown Power Plant, This plant would have an installed power capacity of 27,600 kilowatts. After passing through the power plant, the conserved waters would be diverted into the Miners Ranch conduit by the Ponderosa diversion dam. This dam would have a height of 163 feet. The Miners Ranch conduit would consist of 3.69 miles of tunnel and 6.55 miles of sidehill canal. The conduit would discharge into Miners Ranch terminal reservoir with an active storage capacity of 912 acre-feet. This reservoir would be operated to regulate releases to the Kelly Ridge Power Plant located on the Feather River and to make releases for irrigation use. The conduit to the Kelley Ridge Power Plant would include 0.35 mile of canal and 0.92 mile of tunnel. The power plant would have an installed power capacity of 9,000 kilowatts. Irrigation facilities that would be constructed as part of the South Fork Project are described in an agreement between Oroville-Wyandotte Irriga- tion District and Yuba County Water District, These facilities would consist of 2.2 miles of conduit extending from Miners Ranch terminal reservoir to the outlet of Mt, Ida Siphon, and Bangor Canal which would extend approximately lii miles southward from the terminal reservoir. In addition, the Yuba County Water District would extend its canal from Dry Creek to the Dobbins and Oregon House areas. -243- CHAPTER VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOfL'-ENDATIONS The rapid expansion of population in California since World War II, and the corresponding increase in water requirements, have resulted in a need for an accelerated program of water resource development. The Legislature, realizing the urgency of this need, has provided funds for planning a coordi- nated statewide development of water resources. With the initiation of action to develop the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects as initial units of the California Water Development System, the people of the northern part of the State became concerned over the disposition of local water supplies. Consequently, the Legislature provided funds for the Upper Feather River Basin Investigation, This investigation has as its basic objective the completion of engineering, geologic, and economic studies directed toward the develop- ment of a basin-wide master plan for multi-purpose water development for all beneficial uses. The beneficial uses of water considered include irrigation, domestic, recreation, and fish and wildlife, and production of hydroelectric power . S\jjTmary The Upper Feather River Basin is located in Northeastern California and consists of the portion of the basin located upstream from the authorized Oroville Dam located on tne Feather River near Oroville, It contains an area of about 2,261,000 acres*, most of which are in the Plumas National Forest, The Feather River, the largest tributary of the Sacramento River system, has an average seasonal natural flow at Oroville of about U,2iiU,000 acre-feet. -2li5- There is considerable variation in geologic structure and topog- raphy throughout the upper basin. The Cascade Range, consisting of volcanic ridges and mountains, extends from the north into the basin to contact with the Sierra Nevada, which loosely could be termed a huge granitic monoclinal fault block. The elevation of the basin ranges from 10,U57 feet on Mt. Lassen, the principal feature of the southern Cascade Range; to over 8,000 feet for numerous peaks of the northern Sierra Nevada; to 5>000 to 6,500 feet for the high open mountain valleys and plateaus located in the eastern part of the basin; to less than 300 feet at Oroville. The upper basin is a region of significant climatic differences. There are substantial changes in temperature and precipitation within short distances where air movement is modified by the topography. In the eastern portion of the upper basin, the winters are moderately severe with monthly minimum temperatures remaining below freezing during the period from November through March. The summers are warm with cool nights. In the lower, or southwestern, part of the basin the winters are mild, and the s\immers are hot and dry. In most parts of the upper basin, there are sufficient surplus flows, if properly controlled and developed, to more than meet present and future local water requirements. However, this is not true in Sierra Valley, since there is insufficient water available to meet water requirements for full development of all irrigable lands. In this area, it is probable that future development will be limited by the amount of water that can be economically developed. The ultimate water requirements of the entire upper basin would cause a reduction in the present flow of the Feather River at Oroville of about 10 percent. The present summer flows of the Feather River that remain -2L6- after satisfying upper basin requirements are diverted for irrigation use in the Sacramento Valley. The winter flows are wasted to the ocean. The economy of the upoer basin is based principally on lumbering, raising of livestock, and recreation. Also of importance to the upper basin is the hydroelectric power industry since it provides a considerable portion of the property tax base. Present indications are that these activities will continue to be the dominant features of the economy of the area. The present permanent population of the upper basin is about 12,500 scattered over 3>520 square miles, an average of less than three people to the square mile. It is expected, however, that a considerable increase in population will occur in the future. Water Rights On the Feather River above Oroville, rights have been established by a few entities to divert and store water for purposes of irrigation and production of hydroelectric power. In the Upper Feather River Basin, the water rights have been adjudi- cated in the stream systems of Sierra Valley and Indian Creek. On the Feather River below Oroville, rights have been established by several entities to divert water for irrigation use in the Sacramento Valley. Also, state appli- cations have been filed for the appropriation of water at Oroville Reservoir and five Upper Feather River Basin reservoir sites. South Fork of the Feather River . On the South Fork of the Feather River, permits have been issued jointly to the Oroville -V/yandotte Irrigation District and the Yuba County Water District for a South Fork Project. This project is in the final planning stage and will be constructed as soon as financing of the project can be arranged. -2U7- North Fork of the Feather River . On the North Fork of the Feather River, water rights have been obtained for extensive hydroelecti*ic power development by the Pacific Gas ahd Electric Company, Middle Fork of the Feather River . Applications Nos. 13681, 13682, lii919, lii920, 15551, and 15552 were filed by the Richvale Irrigation District in support of its proposed project on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, The applications were advertised by the State Water Rights Board and the first day of hearing was held in October 1959. The matter is now (October I960) awaiting a further hearing before the board. On September 22, 1959, Richvale Irrigation District requested the California Water Commission to release frcan priority State Applications Nos. 5629, 5630, 1]|lili3, 1/|)|l|)i, and liiJiJi5 in favor of the applications of the district. The commission has held hearings on the requests of the Richvale Irrigation District and has the matter under consideration (October I960). State Applications Nos, 5629, 5630, 1)iJ|)i3, Ihhhh, and lJi)|)i5 have also been filed for water from the Feather River for the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects, These applications propose the appropriation of water from the Feather River and channels of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Department of Water Resources has requested the California Water Ccaranission to assign to it Applications Nos, 5629, 5630, lhhh3, 'ihhhh and a portion of Application No, IhkhS* The commission has held hearings on the requests of the department and also has these requests under consideration (October I960), A material difference in viewpoint exists between the State and Richvale Irrigation District in regard to the proposed use of water to be made available by Grizzly Valley Reservoir, Under the state plans water frcm Grizzly Valley Reservoir would be used primarily for irrigation in Sierra Valley when and as needed. Under the Richvale Plan, that water would be denied to Sierra -2h8- Valley for at least 20 years and instead would be used for generation of hydro- electric energy and irrigation of land in various districts within Sutter and Butte Counties. In assigning or releasing the priority of any state applications, the California Water Commission must give consideration to Section 10505 of the Water Code commonly known as the "County of Origin" law. This section provides that no assignment or release of priority shall be made which, in the judgment of the commission, will deprive the county in which the water origi- nates of any water necessary for its development. Water Supply The water supply of the Upper Feather River Basin largely occurs as precipitation. Melting snow produces the major portion of the seasonal runoff and occurs in the late spring and early summer months. Direct diversion of unregulated stream flow is the principal source of water for irrigation and dcmestic use. Ground water exists in the alluvial basins, and in many localities, limited water supplies are obtained from individual wells for domestic, stock- watering, and irrigation purposes. Precipitation on the upper basin varies between wide limits from month to month, from season to season, and generally increases with elevation. Due to the orographic effect of the Sierra Nevada, however, the eastern half of the upper basin, although higher in elevation, receives less precipitation than the western half. Winter storms deposit relatively light precipitation in crossing the floor of the Sacramento Valley, but these storms drop moisture at increasing rates as they are lifted in passing over the Sierra Nevada, A maxi- mum rate of precipitation is reached along the intermittently defined first crest of the Sierra Nevada, Precipitation then decreases rapidly until the effects of local ridges such as Smith Peak, Dixie Mountain, and Kettle Peak -2U9- reverse the trend. The average seasonal rate of precipitation ranges from a high of about 80 inches along the ridge southwest of Bucks Lake to a low of less than 10 inches in Sierra Valley. Over 75 percent of the average seasonal precip- itation occurs during the five months from November 1 to March 31« The seasonal variation in precipitation can be shown by a comparison of the estimated seasonal full natural flows of the Feather River at Oroville. These estimates range from a maximum of about 8,60ii,000 acre-feet in 1937-38, to a minimum of about 1,307,000 acre-feet in 1923-2ii. The principal tributary streams of the Feather River are the North, Middle, and South Forks. The average seasonal natural flow of each stream is: North Fork at Big Bar; 2,199,000 acre-feet; Middle Fork at Bidwell Bar, 1,U22,000 acre-feet; South Fork at Enterprise, 256,000 acre-feet. The maximum recorded instantaneous discharge of the Feather River at Oroville occurred during the floods of 1907 when the flow was 230,000 second-feet. Ground water basins with adequate storage capacity and sufficient permeability to justify development for irrigation exist in Sierra, Indian, and American Valleys. In Sierra Valley, the ground water is confined under extensive, thick, lake sediments, and water flows from many deep wells under artesian pressure. Well logs indicate that the deep aquifers are thin and that ground water production from them would be limited. However, the present rate of extraction could be increased. In American and Indian Valleys, sufficient ground water capacity exists to take care of most future water needs. However, particularly in Indian Valley, there is relatively low permeability of the sediments and consequently very low specific yields. The surface waters available for storage in reservoir sites in the upper basin are of excellent mineral quality suitable for most beneficial uses. Increased agricultural activity in Sierra Valley in the future will result in greater quantities of irrigation return flow to the Middle Fork Feather River, -250- Although the quality of water to be iirqpounded in downstream reservoirs may be degraded by increased return flow from Sierra Valley, it should be suitable for most beneficial uses. There are highly mineralized springs in the valley fill eireas of the upper basin, particularly in Sierra Valley, However, the quantity of flow is insignificant and these springs cause only localized and minor quality impairment of the major water supplies. Water Utilization and Requirements Extensive studies of land use and water requirements within the Upper Feather River Basin were made as part of the Northeastern Counties Investigation. The results of these studies have been published in Bulletin No, 58, •'Northeastern Counties Investigation", Data from Bulletin No, 58 were used in the Upper Feather River Basin Investigation, The gross irrigable area within the upper basin is about 196,000 acres. Irrigable valley lands comprise 133,000 acres and irrigable hill lands comprise 63,000 acres. In addition, there are lii7,000 acres of land classified as irrigable, but best suited to forest management. For this latter classifica- tion, no future crop pattern or additional water requirement is contemplated. Under present development, pasture is the principal irrigated crop. Of the 76,000 acres irrigated, 20,000 acres are in improved pasture and 52,000 acres are in meadow pasture. The remaining acreage is devoted primarily to alfalfa and grain hay. Under \iltimate development, it is estimated that 158,000 acres WCTild be irrigated if adequate water supplies were developed. The major items in the ultimate crop pattern were estimated to be improved pasture, 72,000 acres; meadow pasture, Ul,000 acres; alfalfa, 18,000 acres; and grain, 12,000 acres; truck crops, 12,000 acres; and orchards, 3,000 acres. In addition, it was estimated that the probable ultimate pattern of urban, suburban, and recreational -251- land use would be as follows: \irban and suburban areas, 15,200 acres; high intensity recreational areas, 1,610,700 acres; medium intensity recreational areas, 192,300 acres; low intensity recreational areas, 66,300 acres; and principal reservoirs, 70,800 acres. The present estimated average mean seasonal consvimptive use of applied water on irrigated lands in the upper basin is about 71,000 acre-feet. In addition, the estimated mean seasonal consur^jtive use of water for domestic purposes is about 1,000 acre-feet. Estimated net reservoir evaporation is about 69,000 acre-feet seasonally. Estimates of probable ultimate mean seasonal consumptive use of applied water in the upper basin are presented in Table $7. TABIE 57 PROBABIE ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTrVE USE OF APPLIED WATER WITHIN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN (In acre-feet) Use ' Amount Irrigation 283,000 Domestic lii,000 Forest products industries 1,000 Recreational areas 1U,000 Net reservoir evaporation 20ii,000 TOTAL 516,000 Estimates of probable ultimate mean seasonal water requirements to meet consumptive demands in the upper basin are presented in Table 58, -252- TABIE 58 PROBABIE UUIMATE MEAN SEASONAL WATER REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN ^In acre -feet) Use J Amount Irrigation 391,000 Domestic 29,000 Forest products industries 1,000 Recreational areas lU,000 Net reservoir evaporation 20it,000 TOTAL 639,000 Plans for Water Development The growth and enhancement of the economy of the Upper Feather River Basin is dependent upon the further development of water resources of the basin to provide for local needs. In the valley areas of the basin, the division of the unregulated water supplies available to satisfy current demands has been acccmplished by water right adjudication and watermaster service. In these areas, however, the summer and fall water supplies are insufficient to satisfy present and future needs. Individual plans presented herein for developing the waters of the upper basin were conceived as a part of a basin-wide master plan. Under this master plan water would be developed for all beneficial purposes to return maximvoi net benefits. Consideration was given first to developments that would provide for the water needs of the upper basin. Second, consideration was given to projects that would develop hjrdroelectric power for areas else- where in the State. -253. Plans for Development of the Upper Basin Six projects were planned for the purpose of meeting the water needs of the Upper basin. These projects are the Frenchman Project on Little Last Chance Creek, Grizzly Valley Project on Big Grizzly Creek, Indian Creek Recreation Project in the Indian Creek Basin, Sheep Camp Project on Carman Creek, Squaw Queen Project on Last Chance Creek, and Genesee Recreation Project on Indian Creek, The first three of these projects were reported on in Bulletin No. $9, "Investigation of Upper Feather River Basin Development", February 1957, and were subsequently authorized as part of the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects. The three authorized projects are described herein but were not studied further in the investigations for this bulletin. Frenchman Project on Little Last Chance Creek . Construction of the Frenchman Project was initiated in the fall of 1959, and it is expected that the reservoir will be available for water storage in the 1961-62 water year. The project will consist of a dam and reservoir with a storage capacity of 50,000 acre -feet, and a system of works that will regulate the water of Little Last Chance Creek. The project will provide water for irrigation use, partial flood control to downstream lands, and provide the basis for the enhancement of recreational opportunities. The project will provide a regulated water supply of about 16,000 acre-feet seasonally, of which 12,000 acre-feet will be new water that is presently unavailable to irrigators in Sierra Valley, In addition, the presently available unregulated water can be more effec- tively used during the irrigation season. The operation of the project will provide incidental flood control. Although no specific reservation of storage space will be made for flood control purposes, storage space above the ungated spillway crest will provide flood protection by reducing the peak flows entering the reservoir. It was estimated that the once-in-lCXD-year flood peak will be reduced from U,UOO second-feet to about 1,300 second-feet, a flow that will cause only negligible damage. The reservoir will increase the recreational potential of the surround- ing area by providing a setting for the building of camp sites, boating facil- ities, and summer homes. Both the area adjacent to the reservoir site and the canyon downstream are attractive for this type of development. Grizzly Valley Project on Big Grizzly Creek , The authorized Grizzly Valley Project would consist of a dam and reservoir with a storage capacity of 80,000 acre-feet and a system of works that would regulate the waters of Big Grizzly Creek, The project would provide water for irrigation use, and provide the basis for the enhancement of recreational opportunities. The project would provide a regulated water supply of about 15,000 acre-feet seasonally. The proposed reservoir would increase recreational opportunities by providing a setting for the building of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer hones. Both the area surrounding the reseirvoir and the area downstream are desirable for this type of development. Incidental flood protection afforded by the reservoir would have little value since only minor flood damage occurs to downstream property under present conditions. The service area for the Grizzly Valley Project lies partly within the boundaries of the existing Last Chance Creek Water District and partly in the valley area immediately north and west of the district. Operation of the project would be integrated with the operation of the Frenchman Project, Approximately 6,200 acres, in addition to those served by the Frenchman Project, would receive a full irrigation supply. -255- Indian Creek Recreation Project , The authorized Indian Creek Recreation Project which also was reported in Bulletin 59, February 1957, would comprise a system of works for regulating the waters of Indian Creek and its tributaries for the enhancement of recreation in Indian Creek Basin. The works would include Antelope Valley Dam and Reservoir on Indian Creek, with a storage capacity of 21,600 acre-feet and a water surface area of 930 acres; Dixie Refuge Dam and Reservoir on Last Chance Creek, with a storage capacity of 16,100 acre-feet and a water surface area of 800 acres; and Abbey Bridge Dam and Reservoir on Red Clover Creek, with a storage capacity of 11,100 acre-feet and a water surface area of 5U0 acres. It was estimated that an average annual total of 93,200 visitor-days of recreational use, over and above present use, would be realized from developments around the reservoirs. In addition, about 309,000 visitor-days of recreational use annually would be realized from 62 miles of improved streams. Sheep Camp Project on Carman Creek . The proposed Sheep Camp Project would include the construction of Sheep Camp Dam and Reservoir on Carmsm Creek, with a storage capacity of 65,000 acre-feet, and an intercepting canal extend" ing northwesterly across Sierra Valley to a pumping plant located at the base of Sheep Camp Dam. The waters intercepted from nine small watersheds that drain onto the valley floor by the intercepting canal would be conveyed to the pumping plant and pumped into Sheep Camp Reservoir. The conserved waters would later be released as required to the intercepting canal for gravity con- veyance for the irrigation of lands located below the canal. The Sheep Camp Project would provide a regulated water supply of about ii8,000 acre-feet seasonally, of which 25,000 acre-feet would be new water that presently is unavailable to irrigators in the valley. In addition, the presently available unregulated water supply, could be more efficiently used -256- over the irrigation season. Also, the reservoir would increase recreational opportunities by providing a setting for the building of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer homes. The capital cost of the Sheep Camp Project was estimated to be about $5,806,000. The corresponding annual costs, using an interest rate of U.O per- cent per annum and an amortization period of 50 years, were estimated to be about $Ul5,000, The total average annual benefits from the Sheep Camp Project were estimated to be about $330,500. Of this amount, $208,500 would be irrigation benefits, and $122,000 would be benefits from public recreation facilities. The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Sheep Camp Project would be about 0.8 to 1 (1959). Squaw Queen Project on Last Chance Creek . The proposed Squaw Queen Project would include the construction of Squaw Queen Dam and Reservoir on Last Chance Creek, with a storage capacity of 100,000 acre-feet, and the conveyance of the conserved waters from the project to a power plant located in Genesee Valley upstream from the junction of Last Chance and Red Clover Creeks. Waters released through the power plant would be reregulated in the proposed Genesee Reservoir, the principal feature of the Genesee Recreation Project. Under the plan of operation, the releases for stream flow maintenance purposes from the upstream authorized Dixie Refuge Reservoir would pass through Squaw Queen Reservoir to the stream channel below the dam. The Squaw Queen Project would have an installed power capacity of 12,000 kilowatts, a dependable power capacity of 11,300 kilowatts, and would produce 56,570,000 kilowatt-hours of energy seasonally. In addition, the regulated waters from the project would increase the production of hjndroe lee trie energy from the existing Rock Creek, Cresta, and Poe Power Plants of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company by -257- 12,500,000 kilowatt-hovirs seasonally. Also, the reservoir would increase recreational opportunities by providing a setting for the building of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer homes. The capital cost of the Squaw Queen Project was estimated to be about $9,lil2,000. Corresponding annual costs, using an interest rate of U.O percent per annum and an amortization period of 50 years, were estimated to be $761,000, Of this amount, the estimated value of taxes foregone is $101,000. Total average annual benefits from the Squaw Queen Project vere estimated to be about $6Ui,000. Of this amount, $1^52,000 would be hydroelectric power benefits and $192,000 would be benefits from public recreational facilities. The resulting ratio of benefits to costs for the Squaw Queen Project would be 0.85 to 1 (1959). Genesee Recreation Project . The proposed Genesee Recreation Project would include the construction of Genesee Dam and Reservoir on Indian Creek in Genesee Valley, with a storage capacity of 9,800 acre-feet, and the development of the valley for intensive recreational use, Genesee Reservoir would be operated as an afterbay for the Squaw Queen Project when constructed, and would have a maximum fluctuation of about one foot in the reservoir in order to maxi- mize its recreational potential. The regulated releases from the reservoir would enhance the recreational potential of Indian Creek, Camp sites and other outdoor recreational facilities would be located near the reservoir and along Indian Creek, It is estimated that the public recreational facilities connected with the project would provide an average of over 1,000,000 visitor-days of use seasonally during the repayment period of the project. The capitaul cost of the Genesee Recreation Project was estimated to be about $3,183,000, Corresponding annual costs, using an interest rate of U.O -258- percent per animm and an amortization period of 50 years, were estimated to be $310,000, Average annual benefits from the Genesee Recreation Project would be $3U0,000. The resulting ratio of benefits to costs would be 1.1 to 1 (1959). Plans for Hydroelectric Power Development Alternative plans were considered for developing the waters of the Middle Fork of the Feather River for the production of hydroelectric power and to provide water for areas in the Sacramento Valley. In addition. Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir on Yellow Creek was studied for the purpose of increas- ing the production of hydroelectric energy in the existing power plants located on the North Fork of the Feather River, Also, the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, in cooperation with the Yuba County Water District, is proceeding with plans for the development of the waters of the South Fork of the Feather River , Alternative Middle Fork Projects , Studies were made of six alternative plans for developing the waters of the Middle Fork of the Feather River, These alternatives are the Richvale, Modified Richvale, Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne, Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-North Fork, Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock, and the Turntable -^leadow Valley-Swayne Plans. The projects proposed under these plans would be operated primarily to produce hjnlroe lee trie energy. However, they would also produce new water for use in areas outside the upper basin and would increase the recreational potential of the basin. The studies of the alternative projects were directed toward a compar- ison of their accomplishments and were limited to a preliminary determination of engineering feasibility and economic justification. The reservoir operation studies were conducted under the assumption that the present water supply of the Middle Fork would be depleted by the upstream Frenchman, Grizzly Valley, -259- and Sheep Camp Projects and by additional ground water development. It was esti- mated that this depletion would amount to an average of about 66,000 acre-feet seasonally during the repayment period of a Kiddle Fork Project, Also, it was assumed that for stream flow maintenance purposes there would be a minimum release of 20 second-feet from Clio Reservoir, 10 second-feet from Meadow Valley Reservoir, and 7$ second-feet from all reservoirs located downstream from Sloat. These stream flow amounts are subject to review by the Department of Fish and Game, The accomplishments, the estimated capital and annual costs, and the benefit of cost ratios of the alternative possibilities for developing the waters of the Middle Fork Basin are summarized in Table 59. - Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir on Yellow Creek, North Fork of the Feather River . Reconnaissance studies were made of the proposed Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir on Yellow Creek, This reseinroir would have a storage capacity of 55,000 acre-feet. These studies indicate that the best use of the reservoir would be realized when operated to augment the water supply available to the exist- ing power plants on the North Fork of the Feather River, For this purpose, the reservoir would provide a firm water yield on a continuous flow basis of about 19,000 acre-feet seasonally. Also, new recreational opportunities would be made available by the project. It would enhance outdoor recreation by providing a setting for the development of camp sites, boating facilities, and summer homes. The capital cost of Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir was estimated to be about $2,189,000, The corresponding annual costs, using an interest rate of U.O percent per annum and an amortization period of 50 years, were estimated to be $121,000, For the purposes of this reconnaissance analysis, no estimate was made of the benefits that would be derived from the operation of Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir, as it would be used only in conjunction with the existing North Fork power system. -260- (K M CO 3 O CO tic: =^ P a: w CO 3 g Dl, CO w O K < CO CO CL, o 1 •H +J O OS o 3 +J CO •H +J c O M CX (0 ■H ^rH CO o rH O o o T3 " rH CO -P O H to ** V C -p •H O •H V. -H Cm U -P m IH CO hO V rH CO rH iH O CO CO 13 ;-, c 3 o o C O U -H 0) rH Q) '^ •r-3 a c > O --^^ < u u Dh 0) T3 •» CO ^ >> -p -p r-l •H CO (Q CO O •SB +J -P CO C tn & H CO c CO •H rH a. M o ;«; 'k (0 (U x; +J ■p ;s CO ■H +J 5 T3 O C CO cu C CO •H » 0) D. O D, CO rH ^ o •H ^ U ci' 0) •H QJ c -p 0) o CO •>Ch CO :z ■V 1 CO rH (I) <0 » (V ^1 CO C ■&« •P o o •n O £ SO XA CM -LTN OO UN OSJ r^ n (U -p CO :3 rH 1J> OJ CO C\J rH > o xn Q) •v •* lA vO +J O o o CO so rH H CVJ CM sO CN •» •v •\ OO o CO en -3 -=t UN C^ C-- CO o m «s »» •» r- sO m H rH XA rH ^ C~- m c^ sO SO o sO C3s so sO o sO ^ sO Os sO rr\ o o OS O ■LTv o o O Q o o o XA XA •k •» •V o XA OO XA CJs rH \A C>- sO CO o CJs CO O XA CJs -:3 -3 XA 8 o CVJ CM sO oo C\J XA CO CM CVJ en sO OO CM XA m CM CM OS -3 -3 sO Os en CSJ Q 8 OO o o o R ^ 8 8 *\ •V •\ «^ *\ m -cj °o. 2> m CM r- H o r- H iH rH CM CM 8 O 8 O 8 § 8 o •V •^ •w *^ •» XA C^ r^ °S rH -3- a P so iH ^ ^ 1 1 , CO •H ^ >, >» ^ o PL. , r5i 1 ,5j u -p rH ^ V H ■H c c CO ^ c 00 ^ CO a: o •H > O -H > o 1 > m o (z< O o e « T3 rH © Ol, » P^ > « rH » V '^ •H 0} 1. c ■§ x; c s T3 T) XI CO ■§& > Cm 1 CO o CO ^ o CO rH -P CO CO o 1 o ;1 C^ m a> o H S Z 0) m rH 0) 0) s S CO sc o z Z Eh -261- South Fork of the Feather River Plan of Oroville^yandotte and Yuba County Districts , A plan for developing the South Fork of the Feather River has been advanced by the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. This plan has been accepted by the Yuba County Water District as a joint project of the two agencies in accordance with an agreement entered into in 1958 with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. This agreement pr<3vides for the sale to the company of the electric energy developed by the project. Because of the advanced stage of planning for the development of the waters of the South Fork, no additional planning for the development of this stream was done for the purposes of the Upper Feather River Basin Investigation, The South Fork Project is a proposed water supply and hydroelectric power project within the South Fork of the Feather River and North Fork of the Yuba River Basins, The principal purpose of the project would be to provide additional irrigation and domestic water supplies for use in the Oroville- Vfyandotte Irrigation District, in areas adjacent to the district, and in the Yuba County Water District. Hydroelectric power would be developed to provide revenue for repayment of the project costs. Conclusions As a result of the field surveys and from analyses of the data developed for the Upper Feather River Basin Investigation, the following conclusions have been reached, 1, The present economy of the upper basin is based principally on lumbering, raising of livestock, and recreation. Also of importance is the hydroelectric power industry. Because water is an essential part of all these activities, the growth and enhancement of the economy of the upper basin will depend to a considerable extent upon further development of the available water resources. -262- 2. The mean seasonal natural flow of the Feather River at Oroville is estimated to be 4,2^^,000 acre-feet. Of this amount, the North Fork Basin contributes about 2,199,000 acre-feet, the Middle Fork Basin about 1,166,000 acre-feet, the South Fork Basin about 256,000 acre-feet, and the remaining portion of the basin about 623,000 acre-feet, 3. In most parts of the upper basin, there are surplus flows that, if properly controlled and regulated, could more than meet total ultimate water requirements. This is not true in Sierra Valley, however, where it is indicated that there are insufficient water resources available to meet water requirements for full development of all irrigable lajid, 4. The surface waters of the upper basin available are of excellent quality suitable for most beneficial uses, 5. Even after the probable ultimate water requirements of the upper basin have been met, except as noted above in Sierra Valley, large surplus flows will be available for export to water-deficient areas in other parts of the State, 6. The gross irrigable area within the upper basin is about 196,000 acres. Of this amount, irrigable valley lands comprise 133,000 acres and irrigable hill lands comprise 63,000 acres. In addition, there are 147,000 acres of irrigable land classified as best suited to forest management, 7. Under present development, about 76,000 acres in the upper basin receive a partial irrigation supply. Of this total, 20,000 acres are in im- proved pasture and 52,000 acres are in meadow pasture. The remaining irrigated acreage is devoted to alfalfa and grain hay, 8. The present mean seasonal consumptive use of applied water on irrigated lands in the upper basin is about 71,000 acre-feet. In addition, estimated mean seasonal consumptive use of water for domestic purposes is about -263- 1,000 acre-feet, and the estimated net reservoir evaporation is about 69,000 acre -feet, 9, Under conditions of ultimate development in the upper basin, it is estimated that a net land area of 1^8,000 acres could be irrigated if adequate water supplies are developed. The major items in the estimated ultimate crop pattern would be improved pasture, 72,000 acres; meadow pasture, Ul,000 acres; alfalfa, 18,000 acres; grain, 12,000 acres; truck crops, 12,000 acres; and orchard, 3,000 acres, 10, The estimate of ultimate mean seasonal consumptive use of applied water for all purposes is about 516,000 acre-feet. Of this amount, 283,000 acre-feet would be utilized on irrigated lands, li;,500 acre-feet by- urban and suburban lands, 1,200 acre-feet for the forest products industry, and 13,600 acre-feet on recreational lands. Also included in the total would be 205,000 acre-feet of water consumed by evaporation, 11, The Sheep Camp Project on Carman Creek and the Squaw Queen Project on Last Chance Creek are not economically justified at this time, 12, The Genesee Recreation Project on Indian Creek is engineering feasible and economically justified. However, the estimated benefit-cost ratio is only 1,1 to 1.0, and economic justification is marginal, 13, Under the assumptions used by the department in analyzing five alternative plans for developing the waters of the Middle Fork of the Feather River, none of the alternatives is economically justified at this time. Recommendations To aid in the implementation of a basin-wide master plan for multi- purpose water development for all beneficial uses it is recommended that: -26U- 1. In assigning or releasing from priority Applications Nos. 5629, 5630, lU4i+3, liiUi+U, and l4'+'t5, filed in furtherance of the Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects, a general reservation be made by the California Water Commission for use of such water as may be necessary for the development of the counties in which the water originates. 2. The plans for water resource development of the Upper Feather River Basin presented in this bulletin serve as a general guide to future development of the water resources of the basin, that the California Water Plan be modified accordingly, and fiirther, that the plans be reviewed and re-evaluated at that time in the future when economic and other conditions may so dictate. 3. In addition to taking all feasible measures, including adequate stream flow maintenance, for the preservation of the existing fish and wildlife reso\irces, in future water development projects provision should be made for the enhancement of such fish and wildlife resources and for the development of the recreational potential of the area to the maximum feasible extent. -265- ^^ ¥' ERSin o^ STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING r iiUJUk- u iiitt' i LIBRARY DftVlS COPY 2 BULLETIN NO. 59-2 INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT »1 APPENDIX A ^V^ RECREATIONAL BENEFITS FROM UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT EDMUND G. BROWN Governor July, 1959 HARVEY O. BANKS Director of Water Resources ■OMvuRSlTY Or <_ALiFOrv,.l. DAVIS SEP 1-^ 1959 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING BULLETIN NO. 59-2 INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX A RECREATIONAL BENEFITS FROM UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT EDMUND G. BROWN Mf"^^^^^ HARVEY O. BANKS Governor \p\\ ?* -..Jt^lls;/ Director of Water Resources July, 1959 EDMUND G. BROWN ._....,. GOVFRNOR iY O. BANKS ADDRESS REPLY TO lIRECTOn P. O. BOX 388 SACRAMENTO 2 1120 N STREET HI CKORV B<47tl STATE OF CALIFORNIA i^|jartttti?ut of Wain ^tBttrxmn SACRAMENTO INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT The Upper Feather River Basin Investigation was conducted under legislative authorization by the State of California, Department of Water Resovirces . The objective of the investigation was to develop a basin-wide master plan for multipurpose water development for all beneficial uses. As part of the economic studies conducted for the purposes of the investigation, a study was made of the recreational potential and benefits attributable to the features of the basin-wide plan. The recreational benefits would result from activities at the reservoir sites and from stream flow maintenance for the enhancement of fish and wildlife . The firm of Pacific Planning and Research, consulteuits in plemning and urban economics, was retained by the Department to conduct the recreational studies and analyses. This is their report. It sets forth data and conclusions relating to the recreational aspects of the features of the basin -wide plan. These data are the basis for the estimates of costs and benefits of the public recreational facilities presented in Bulletin No. 59-2 of the Department of Water Resoxirces, entitled "Investigation of the Upper Feather River Basin Development". RECREATION BENEFITS FROM THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT Report Prepared by Pacific Planning and Research Consultants in Planning, Natural Resource Development, and Economics for the State of California Department of Water Resources June 1959 Pacific Planning and Research, Inc, 707 Forum Bu'lding Sacramento 14, California GILBERT 2-4877 iCIFIC PLANNING AND RESEARCH AND REGIONAL PLANNING * URBAN RENEWAL • GOVERNMENT STUDIES ' RESOURCE PLANNING Mr. Harvey O. Banks, Director California State Department of Water Resources Sacramento 14, California Dear Mr. Banks: 707 FORUM BUILDING SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA July 1, 1959 This report on recreation benefits from the Upper Feather River Basin development completes the v^ork we began in 1956 under contract with your Department. The analysis of recreation benefits from Upper Feather River Basin development must be placed in the context of anticipated population growth and resulting outdoor recreation requiremehts as related to the recreation development potential of the Upper Feather River Basin. Irrespec- tive of recreation development stemming from water projects in the area, the Upper Basin will contribute appreciably to meeting the requirements of outdoor recreation. The purpose of these physical and economic evaluations was to determine the economic feasibility of public recrea- tional developments in conjunction with possible water development programs in the Basin. Public outdoor demand during the fifty-year payout period (1961 to 2010) of the proposed pro- jects will assure that use will keep pace with pulilic development programs projected for the fourteen recreation areas evaluated in this study. The analysis presented in this report indicates that if the reservoirs are built recreation use will, by itself, yield benefits which will sub- stantially outweigh the costs of the public facilities needed to make such use possible. Planned and protected public and private recreational development in the Upper Basin will permit greater use without destroying the area's natural beauty or its timber and water-producing capability. Some of the pioneering work in the development of the concepts, principles and standards util- ized in this report and in the measurement of recreation benefits would have been impossible without the full cooperation and sympathetic understanding of your staff. We further appreciate the efforts of the Division of Water Resources Planning in furnishing us engineering, operational and development data on the reservoir areas as rapidly as these were available. It is our belief that this study of recreation use and benefit in a full drainage basin of some 3,360 square miles will be useful not only to the area itself but to the state in further analyses of nat- ural resource areas and to other states struggling in their effort to keep pace with the rapidly increasing recreation demand. Sincerely yours. r" JL SAMUEL E. WOOD Director ?lOo^c{ OTHER OFFICES: 546 UNIVERSITY AVENUR, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA • 125 W. THIRD ST., TULSA, OKLAHOMA GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS In 1956, the consultants contracted with the Department of Water Resources to prepare a study on possible recreation benefits resulting from water development in the Upper Feather River Basin. The contract called for the determination of present recreation use in the study area and the projection of this use v/ithout water development to the year 2050. Additional recreation use was to be determined if new reservoir recreation areas were developed and folded into the sum of recreation use without water development. The contract further provided for the preparation of general site plans for each recrea- tion area, the costing of the public facility features of these plans for the payout period of the projects, the development and application of a dollar value for each visitor day as an indication of direct berrfit, and the preparation of benefit cost studies on the pub- lic recreation facilities for each reservoir recreation area and total benefits and costs for the full development. The entire investigation was to equal the feosibility standards of the state's own studies on the same reservoirs. A preliminary report of the investigations on the basin and five reservoirs was published as Appendix A of Bulletin 59 in January 1957. In May 1957 the studies thus inaugurated were substantially enlarged to conform with the most recent investigations of the Depart- ment of Water Resources and to provide for comparisons of alternate schemes of develop- ment on the Middle Fork of the Feather River. The character of the studies was again changed in September 1957 when more detailed investigations resulted in dropping two projects of doubtful engineering feasibility and including two additional reservoirs. The details substantiating the summary report submitted on five reservoir areas in 1957 are con- tained in this full study. These reservoirs (now authorized for construction) are Grizzly Valley, Antelope Valley, Abbey Bridge, Dixie Refuge and Frenchman. The nine ad- ditional recreation areas connected with water projects under study and covered in this report are Squaw Queen, Sheep Camp, Turntable, Meadow Valley, Genessee Valley Park, Swayne, Humbug, Nelson Point and Clio. Page CONTENTS Introductory Statement Letter of Transmittal General Contract Provisions Acknowledgement PARTI. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 5 Statewide Recreation Demand 5 Recreation in the Upper Feather River Basin 6 Recreation Use of Reservoir Areas 9 Potential Recreation Use of the Middle Fork of the Feather River 16 PART II. DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION 21 POPULATION GROWTH 21 FACTORS INFLUENCING RECREATION USE 23 TRENDS IN RECREATION USE 25 STATEWIDE RECREATION USE AND DEMAND 32 RECREATION USE AND DEMAND IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN 36 PART III. RECREATION RESOURCES OF THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN 43 RECREATION RESOURCES OF THE UPPER BASIN 43 Hydrographic Area No. 42 - North Fork, Feather River 43 Hydrographic Area No. 43 - East Branch, Feather River 45 Hydrographic Area No. 44 - Sierra Valley 46 Hydrographic Area No. 45 - Middle Fork, Feather River 47 Hydrographic Area No. 46 - South Fork, Feather River 48 Foothill Areas 49 MEASUREMENT OF POTENTIAL RECREATION USE 49 General Recreation Area Classifications 50 General Recreation Area Standards 53 CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page PART IV. RECREATION PLANNING PRINCIPLES, OBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS FOR THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN 57 RECREATION PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES 58 CRITERIA FOR LOCATING RECREATION FACILITIES 60 Camping and Picnicking 61 Organization Camps 61 Resorts 61 Permanent and Summer Homes 62 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 63 RECREATION USE STANDARDS 65 PART V. RECREATION USE OF RESERVOIR STUDY AREAS AND THE MIDDLE FORK OF THE FEATHER RIVER 69 FUTURE RECREATION USE WITHOUT WATER DEVELOPMENT 70 RECREATION USE OF RESERVOIR AREAS 73 Authorized Projects 74 Reservoirs Under Study 74 Squaw Queen Reservoir Area 74 Sheep Camp Reservoir Area 76 Turn Table Reservoir Area 78 Meadow Valley Reservoir Area 79 Genessee Valley Park and Reservoir Area 82 Swayne Reservoir Area 84 Humbug Reservoir Area 86 Nelson Point Reservoir Area 87 Clio Reservoir Area 88 RECREATION USE OF THE MIDDLE FORK OF THE FEATHER RIVER 90 Description of the Middle Fork Area 91 Present and Ultimate Recreation Use of the Middle Fork Area Without Additional Water Development 92 Ultimate Recreation Use of the Middle Fork Area With Additional State Water Development 93 Ultimate Recreation Use of the Middle Fork Area With Development of Richvale Irrigation District Plan 95 Comparison of Meadovv' Valley Plan With Richvale Irrigation District Plan 97 II CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page ULTIMATE ANNUAL RECREATION USE AND NET INCREASE WITH ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 97 PART VI. BENEFIT-COST EVALUATION OF RESERVOIR AREAS UNDER STUDY AND THE MIDDLE FORK OF FEATHER RIVER WITH AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 103 BENEFITS AND COSTS 103 BENEFITS AND COSTS - RESERVOIR AREAS 108 BENEFITS AND COSTS - MIDDLE FORK OF FEATHER RIVER 120 PART VII. ULTIMATE RECREATION USE OF THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER SERVICE AREA 125 ULTIMATE USE WITHOUT WATER DEVELOPMENT 127 ULTIMATE USEWITH ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT 128 TABLES 1 . Summary of Public Recreation Benefit-Cost Ratios of Reservoir Areas for the Fifty-year Payout Period, 1961-2010, Based on Probable Visitor-days Use 17 2. California Visitor-days Use (in millions) 33 3. Recreation Use of California National Parks and National Forests 1941-1955 and Projections to 2050 35 4. Recreation Use in Upper Feather River Basin, 1956 37 5. Recreation Facilities in Upper Feather River Basin by Hydrographic Area 1956 38 6. Visitor-days by Type of Recreation Use, Plumas National Forest, 1946-1956 and Upper Feather River Basin, 1956 39 7. Annual Visitor-days Recreation Use of Plumas National Forest, and Upper Feather River Basin 1946-1956 and Forecasts of Demand to 2050 40 {• • II CONTENTS (Cont'd) I Page 8. Percent of Developable Recreation Area of Each General Recreation Classification and Percent Distribution by Type of Recreation Facility at Ultimate Development, Year 2050 53 9. Site Development per Acre Density Standards by Type of Recreation Facility at Ultimate Development, Year 2050 64 10. Maximum and Minimum Recreation Unit Standards (Clusters) by Type of Recreation Facility at Ultimate Development, Year 2050 64 11 . Use Factors, Lengths of Season and Percentages of Capacity Use by Type of Recreation Facility at Ultimate Development, Year 2050 68 12. Estimated Present Recreation Use In Reservoir Areas in Upper Feather River Basin, 1956 69 13. Ultimate Minimum Recreation Visitor-days Annual Use of Reservoir Areas Without Additional Water Development by Recreation Facility 71 14. Ultimate Probable Recreation Visitor-days Annual Use of Reservoir Areas V/ithout Additional Water Development by Recreation Facility 72 15. Squaw Queen Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Develop- ment 76 16. Sheep Camp Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Develop- ment 78 17. Turntable Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Development 79 18. Meadow Valley Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Devel- opment 81 19. Genesee Valley Park Area Ultimate Recreation Development 84 20. Swayne Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Development 85 21 . Humbug Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Development 87 22. Nelson Point Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Devel- opment 88 Iv CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page 23. Clio Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Development 90 24. Ultimate Recreation Use of the Middle Fork Area Without Additional Water Development, Sloat to Orovllle Reservoir 93 25. Ultimate Recreation Use of the Middle Fork Area at Ultimate Development With Additional State Water Development, Turntable Dam to Oroville Reservoir 95 26. Ultimate Recreation Use of the Middle Fork Area with Rich- vole Irrigation District Water Development, Nelson Point Dam to Oroville Reservoir 96 27. Ultimate Recreation Use - Meadow Valley Plan and Richvale Plan 97 28. Ultimate Minimum Recreation Visitor-days Annual Use with Additional Water Development by Recreation Facility 99 29. Ultimate Probable Recreation Visitor-days Annual Use With Additional Water Development by Recreation Facility 100 30. Net Increases in Minimum Ultimate Recreation Visitor-days Annual Use Resulting from Additional Water Development by Recreation Facility 101 31 . Net Increases in Probable Ultimate Recreation Visitor-days Annual Use Resulting from Additional Water Development by Recreation Facility 102 32. Unit Costs of Public (Camp and Picnic) Recreation Facili- ties and Roods 107 33. Estimated Costs of Additional Facilities in Genesee Valley Park 109 34. Cumulative Public (Camp and Picnic) Recreation Visitor- days Annual Use of Reservoir Areas for the Fifty-year Payout Period, 1961-2010 112 35. Cumulative Total Recreation Visitor-days Annual Use of Reservoir Areas for the Fifty-year Payout Period, 1961-2010 113 CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page 36. Net Cumulative Total Public Recreation Benefits and Costs of Reservoir Areas for the Fifty-year Payout Period, 1961-2010 114 37. Net Cumulative Total Present Worth Public Recreation Benefits and Costs of Reservoir Areas for the Fifty-year Payout Period, 1961-2010 115 38. Average Annual Equivalent Present Worth Public Recreation Benefits and Costs of Reservoir Areas for the Net Cumu- lative Total Fifty-year Payout Period, 1961-2010 116 39. Net Cumulative Total Present Worth Public Recreation Benefit — Cost Ratios of Reservoir Areas for the Fifty- year Payout Period, 1961-2010 117 40. Net Cumulative Total Recreaiion Benefits and Total Present Worth Benefits of Reservoir Areas for the Fifty-year Payout Period, 1961-2010 118 41 . Average Annual Equivalent Present Worth Total Recreation Benefits and Present Worth Total Recreation Benefit- Public Cost Ratios of Reservoir Areas for the Fifty-year Payout Period, 1961-2010 119 41 . Average Annual Equivalent Present Worth Total Recreation Benefits and Present Worth Total Recreation Benefit-Public Cost Ratios of Reservoir Areas for the Fifty-year Payout Period, 1961-2010 119 42. Net Increase in Cumulative Total Annual Visitor-days Use for the Fifty-year Payout Period (1961-2010) Resulting from Additional S;ate Water Development for the Middle Fork Area and Meadov/ Valley Plan 121 43. Net Increase in Cumulative Total Annual Visitor-days Use for the Fifty-year Payout Period (1961-2010) Resulting from Richvale Irrigation District Development 121 44. Net Cumulative Total Benefits and Costs for the Middle Fork of Feather River Recreation Development for the Fifty-year Payout Period, 1961-2010 123 VI GRAPHS ( k CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page 45. Probable Annual Visltor-doy Use in the Upper Feather River Service Area Without Additional Water Development, 1956-2050 126 46. Probable Annual Visitor-day Use and Number of Units by Type of Recreation Facility in the Upper Feather River Service Area Without Additional Water Development, 1956-2050 126 47. Probable Annual Visitor-day Use in the Upper Feather River Service Area and Net Increase Resulting from State Water Development, 1956-2050 130 48. Annual Visitor-day Use and Number of Units by Type of Recreation Facility in the Upper Feather River Service Area With State Water Development, 1956-2050 130 49. Net increase in Probable Annual Recreation Visitor-day Use and Recreation Units by Recreation Facility Resulting from State Water Development in the Upper Feather River Basin, 1960-2050 131 1 . Percent Distribution of Visitor-days by Type of Recreation Use National Forest Lands in California, 1941-1955 30 2. Percent Distribution of Visitor-days by Type of Recreation Use Plumas National Forest, 1946-1956; Upper Feather River Basin, 1956 31 3. Per Capita Visitor-day Use, 1941-2050, National Forests and National Parks in California 34 4. Recreation Visitor-days and California Population/ 1941- 2050 42 VII CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page APPENDIX 133 PART VIII. MEASUREMENT OF RECREATION BENEFITS 135 THE PROBLEM 135 Primary and Secondary Benefits 137 The Nature of Primary Benefits 138 CURRENT METHODS OF VALUING RECREATION BENEFITS 140 Expenditure Approach to Estimating Recreational Benefits 140 Cost Approach to Estimating Recreational Benefits 142 METHOD USED IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN STUDY 143 The Nature of the Travel Cost Approach 144 Specific Applications of the Adopted Method 146 CONCLUSIONS 149 RECREATION RESOURCES AND POTENTIAL USE OF AUTHORIZED RESERVOIRS 157 Grizzly Valley Reservoir Area 157 Antelope Valley Reservoir Area 159 Abbey Bridge Reservoir Area 161 Dixie Refuge Reservoir Area 162 Frenchman Reservoir Area 163 CHECK SHEET - Existing Recreation Areas and Facilities 166 TABLES A. Expenditure of Tourists 152 B. Estimated Dollar Value of Recreation 156 50. Grizzly Valley Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Development 159 51 . Antelope Valley Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Development 160 vlii CONTENTS (Cont'd) TABLES Page 52. Abbey Bridge Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Development 162 53. Dixie Refuge Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Development 163 54. Frenchman Reservoir Area Ultimate Recreation Development 165 A-1 . Population of the United States 1900-1950 and Forecasts to 2050 167 A-2. Population of California 1900-1950 and Forecasts to 2050 168 A-3. Distribution of Visitor-day Use by Type of Recreation Use, National Forest Lands in California, 1941-1955 169 A-4. Percentage Distribution ot Visitor-day Use by Type of Recrea- tion Use, Plumas National Forest, 1946-1956, and Upper Feather River Basin, 1956 170 A-5. Recreation Use in Upper Feather River Basin by Hydrographic Area, 1956 171 A-6. Recreation Use Intensities (Use Factors), Annual Visitor- days Use and Normal Visito— day Capacity by Type of Recreation Use — National Forests in California, 1946, 1950, 1955, Plumas National Forest, 1950, 1955 and Upper Feather River Basin, 1956 172 A-7, Ultimate Potential Recreation Use Without Additional Water Development - 2050 - Hydrographic Area No. 42 - North Fork Feather River 173 A-8. Ultimate Potential Recreation Use Without Additional Water Development - 2050 - Hydrographic Area No, 43 - East Branch Feather River 174 A-9. Ultimate Potential Recreation Use Without Additional Water Development - 2050 - Hydrographic Area No. 44 - Sierra Valley 175 A-10. Ultimate Potential Recreation Use Without Additional Water Development - 2050 - Hydrographic Area No. 45 - Middle Fork Feather River 176 IX CONTENTS (Cont'd) TABLES Page A-ll- Ultimate Potential Recreation Use Without Additional Water Development - 2050 - Hydrographic Area No. 46 - South Fork Feather River 177 A-12. Ultimate Potential Recreation Use Without Additional Water Development - 2050 - Hydrographic Areas No. 41-49 - Upper Feather River Service Area 178 A-13. Ultimate Potential Recreation Use Without Additional Water Development - 2050 - Hydrographic Areas Nos. 41, 48 and 49 -Foothill Area 179 A-14. Ultimate Potential Recreation Use Without Additional Water Development - 2050 - Hydrographic Areas No, 42-46 - Upper Feather River Basin 180 A-15. Potential Recreation Use With Ultimate State Water De- velopment - 2050 - Hydrographic Area No. 42 - North Fork Feather River 181 A-16. Potential Recreation Use With Ultimate State Water De- velopment - 2050 - Hydrographic Area No. 43 - East Branch Feather River 182 A-17 Potential Recreation Use With Ultimate Stote Water De- velopment - 2050 - Hydrographic Area No. 44 - Sierra Valley 183 A-18. Potential Recreation Use With Ultimate State Water De- velopment - 2050 - Hydrographic Area No. 45 - Middle Fork Feather River 184 A-19. Potential Recreation Use With Ultimate State Water De- velopment - 2050 - Hydrographic Area No. 46 - South Fork Feather River 185 A-20. Potential Recreation Use With Ultimate State Water De- velopment - 2050 - Upper Feather River Basin (Areas No. 42 - 46) 186 A-21 . Potential Recreation Use With Ultimate State Water De- velopment - 2050 - Hydrographic Areas No. 41, 48 ond 49 - Foothill Areas 187 A- 22. Potential Recreation Use With Ultimate State Water De- velopment - 2050 - Hydrographic Areas 41 - 49 - Upper Feather River Service Area TABLES A- 23. A-24. A-25. GRAPH 5. PLATES CONTENTS (Cont'd) Percentages of General Land Uses in the Upper Feather River Basin, Upper Feather River Service Area With and Without Additional Water Development, 1956 and Ultimately, Year 2050 Gross and Net Recreation Use Densities on the Upper Feather River Service Area by Hydrographic Areas, With and Without Additional Water Development - 1956 and Ultimate 2050 Existing and Probable Percentages of Annual Visitor-days Use by Hydrographic Areas in the Upper Feather River Service Area, 1956 and Ultimately, 2050 Estimated Dollar Value of Recreation Page 189 A & B. Recreation Expenditures C. Travel Cost Zones 190 191 155 153 154 1. Existing Recreation Facilities Upper Feather River Basin, 1956 11 . Squaw Queen Reservoir 111. Sheep Camp Reservoir IV. Turntable and Nelson Reservoirs V. Meadov/ Valley Reservoir VI. Genesee Reservoir VI I . Swayne Reservoir VIII. Humbug Reservoir XI . Clio Reservoir X. General Recreation Plan Middle Fork Feather River, Sloat to Oroville, Plan Based on Turntable Reservoir Development CONTENTS (Cont'd) PLATES XI. General Recreation Plan Middle Fork Feather River, Sloat to Oroville, Plan Based on Nelson Point Reservoir Development XII. General Recreation Areas, Upper Feather River Service Area, Without Additional Water Development XIII. General Recreation Areas, Upper Feather River Service Area, Plan Based on Department of Water Resources Proposal XII ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Special recognition must go to those representing the commercial recreation interests In the Basin — the owners and operators of motels, hotels, resorts and other recrea- tional facilities who assisted in the inventory of existing resources. The following representatives of official agencies and private individuals, both within the Upper Feather River Basin and those interested in the development of the area, have assisted the consultants in the collection of data necessary tor this report. The evaluations and the conclusions, of course, are the responsibility of the Pacific Planning and Research. Aid in the delineation of areas, field reconnaissance, use of maps and equipment, and review of recreation area uses: Supervisor William A. Peterson and his staff of Plumas National Forest, particularly, Messrs. Fisher, Peckinpoh, Asplund, Crane, Barrett, Schubert and DeSoso V. A. Parker, Supervisor, and A. H. Mullen, District Ranger, Lassen National Forest L. A. Rickel, Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest Plumas County officials and citizens who extended valuable assistance in the survey and projections: Board of Supervisors (1956-57): A. C. Donnenwirth, Chairman, District 1 E.J. Humphrey, District 2 C. E. Blackman, District 3 J. C. Cloman, District 4 J. F. Flanagan, District 5 xiii Planning Commission (1956-57): Kenneth Brown Gene Guyer Helen Hollenbeck Ernest Leonhordt, Chairman Henry Magi 1 1 Joe Sheeley Warren Souders E. B. Bond, County Agricultural Commissioner William Cullen, County Sanitarian F. L. O'Rourke, County Road Commissioner A. J. Watson, County Supervisor Honorable Pauline L. Davis, California State Assembly, 2nd District L. G. Armon(J, Plumas Sierra Farm Bureau Robert Del linger, Quincy Pete Ferios, President, Quincy Ski Club Max Forbes, Manager, Plumas County Chamber of Commerce Ron Logon, Quincy Col . C . A. Lundy Harry Lutz, Rancher Earl C. Pederson, Owner, Forest Lodge Resort, Greenville Karl W. Traylor, Director, Chamber of Commerce, Lakes Basin Blairsden Area Sturgis Whitwell, Portola Chamber of Commerce For assistance at conferences in estimating recreation demand, the supply of recreation areas and facilities to meet this demand, and the recreation potential of the upper Feather River Basin: Clay Bernard, Vice President, Western Air Lines, Inc. Sterling Brubaker, Bank of America, National Trust and Savings Association J. E. (Jerry) Carpenter, California State Chamber of Commerce John J. Cuddy, Managing Director, Californians, Inc. XIV Ray Finegold, Sam Finegold Restaurant and Hotel Supply, Sacramento William S. Flynn, Sacramento Divisional Manager, California State Automobile Association Sam Grosch, President, Sacramento-Sierra Council of Sportsmen's Clubs Fred Hamann, California State Automobile Association Max M. Healton, District Sales Representative, Greyhound Bus Lines, Sacramento Theodore Muggins, Public Relations, Standard Oil Company Bob Lehman, Assistant Advertising Manager, Southern Pacific Company John E. McCarthy, Public Relations Director, Sacramento Chamber of Commerce P H. G. Stevens, Secretory-Manager, Associated Boat Industry of Northern California For critical and realistic conference assistance in developing a method for deriving a dollar value for recreation benefits: A. Graham Atkins, Sacramento District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Earl Bachman, Chief, Recreation Section, Forest Service, California Region I Edward F. Dolder, Deputy Director, California State Department of Natural Resources Edward N. Dwyer, California State Department of Fish and Game James N. Gibson, Planning Section, National Park Service, Region IV John C. Marcroft, Engineering Division, U. S. Corps of Engineers Robert M. Paul, California State Department of Fish and Game Everett A. Pesonen, Division of Project Planning, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Region II » I XV \ Henry J. Vaux, Division of Forestry, University of California, Berkeley Merrill Woodruff, Chief, Domestic Commerce, Bureau of Business and Defense Service, U. S. Department of Commerce John Zivnuska, Division of Forestry, University of California, Berkeley General consultation and loan of documents: M. M. Barnum, Earl E. Bochman, and K. W. Kennedy, U.S. Forest Service, California Region Raymond E. Hoyt, George L. Collins, James N. Gibson, and William Bigler, Planning Section, National Park Service, Region IV Everett A. Pesonen, L. B. Christiansen — Division of Project Planning and Maurice K. Strontz (formerly) Division of Operation and Maintenance, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Region 2, Sacramento Stanley Scott and Barbara Hudson, Bureau of Public Administration, University of California, Berkeley Kenneth Decker, Recreation and Economic Consultant, Berkeley Sterling S. Winans, Director, State of California Recreation Commission John F. Child, Jr., Director, and Fred M. Colland of the Child and Company, Business Survey and Research Service, Honolulu, Hawaii Warren H. Nord, Daniel W. Slater, and Paul F. Berg of River Basin Studies, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service XV I PACIFIC PLANNING AND RESEARCH, INC, Project Staff Samuel E . Wood Horry G - Holatyn William N. Roberts, Jr. Philip G . Simpson Bruce Waybur Margit K. Hummel Margaret Wiederhold Morjorie Greene Andrew H. Trice consulting economist XVII 1 i XVI II RECREATION BENEFITS FROM THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT PARTI. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The demand for public outdoor recreation has outstripped the development of California's great natural outdoor recreation resources. Population growth will continue to be one of the most significant factors influencing this demand, but the importance of population growth will be compounded by higher real incomes, more leisure time, and improved transportation which will increase the mobility of the population and its ability to enjoy recreational activities. The development of outdoor recreation facilities in California is Inadequate to meet safely present demand. Statewide recreation use increased from 2 visitor-days per cap- ita In 1941 to 2.4 days in 1956. During this time the total use of national forests in California doubled from 14,475,000 visitor-days in 1941 to 31,074,000 in 1956. This increase In use has resulted in overcrowding and overuse of older established outdoor re- creation areas in the state. Many recreationists who prefer the relaxed quiet charm of the "great outdoors" have been forced to look to new areas to satisfy their desires. California's population is expected to increase to 45 million at "ultimate" development by the year 2050, and projections indicate that growth will equal about one-half this fig- ure by 1970. Conservative forecasts indicate that outdoor recreation use will increase to at least 10 annual visitor-days per person in the state at ultimate development. It must be assumed that public policy will require the expansion of outdoor recreation fac- ilities to provide adequately for present and increasing future demands. The development 1 of every suitable outdoor recreation area will be necessary to meet future demand. The full resources of federal, state and local governments, semi-public organizations, and private individuals will be required to accomplish this task. This study of recreation benefits from the Upper Feather River Basin development must be placed in the context of anticipated population growth and resulting state outdoor recrea- tion requirements related to the potential for recreation development in the Upper Basin. This little known, undeveloped and unspoiled area is one of great natural beauty, variety of terrain, lakes and streams, and attractive tree cover. Recreation has played an Increasing role in the economic development of the natural re- sources of the Upper Feather River Basin. The decline In mining, reductions in manpower requirements for timber harvesting, and corresponding population losses have forced the residents to look toward the development of the area's great outdoor recreation resources as the foundation for c revitalized economy. The Upper Feather River Basin will contribute substantially toward meeting the statewide requirements for outdoor recreation, irrespective of recreation development related to water projects In the area. Planned and protected public and private recreation development of these water areas will permit su'ustcintially greater use without destroying the basin's prime purpose as a timber and water producing area. With increased pressure of use throughout the state, the rate of development in the Upper Basin can be expected to be very rapid and exceed the rates of growth of both population and recreation use of California's national forests and national parks. Already there are signs of increased recreation activity, and plans for recreation development to meet this demand are reaching the construction stage. 2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE In 1956, under contract with the Department of Water Resources, studies were inaugurated of present and projected recreation use in the Upper Feather River Basin, both with and without water projects then under investigation. Eleven proposed reservoirs were included, as follows: Grizzly Valley, Antelope Valley, Abbey Bridge, Dixie Refuge, Frenchman, Squaw Queen, Sheep Camp, Nelson Point, Meadow Valley, Genesee Valley and Indian Falls. The first five reservoirs were studied and findings outlined in summary fashion In the Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 59 . These reservoirs are now authorized for development. In May 1957, these studies were substantially enlarged to conform with the most recent in- vestigations of the Department and to provide comparisons of alternate schemes of develop- ment on the Middle Fork of the Feather River. The character of the studies was again changed in September 1957, when continued engineering investigations by the Department of Water Resources demonstrated the doubtful engineering feasibility of Genesee Valley and Indian Falls reservoirs. In addition to the five authorized reservoirs, the following nine reservoir areas were studied: Squaw Queen, Sheep Camp, Turntable (known previously as Nelson Point but changed to avoid confusion with Richvale Irrigation District's proposal). Meadow Valley, Swayne, Hum- bug and the two Richvale Irrigation District proposed reservoirs of Nelson Point and Clio. Genesee Valley was studied as a potential State Park with the development of a smaller re- servoir at the upper end of the valley. Studies comparing the effect of Richvale Irrigation District and Department of Water Resources plans on future recreation use of the lower Mid- dle Fork of the Feather River were also included. while the number of study areas have thus increased, the following objectives and scope of the studies for the entire Basin and the methods used in economic evaluations of designated reservoirs have remained constant: 1 . Determination of the relative magnitude of the demand for outdoor recreation in Calif- fornia and the Upper Basin as related to projected population growth and other factors and trends affecting outdoor recreation demand . 2. Assessment of present and the ultimate potential for recreational use of the Upper Feather River Basin without additional water development and with state water de- velopment. 3. Through an analysis of each reservoir area, utilizing illustrative site development plans controlled by basic planning principles and standards, determine the increase or loss in recreation use resulting from the water development program under study. 4. Develop standards, principles and processes to accomplish the evaluations and de- vise an acceptable method for expressing direct recreation benefits in economic terms . 5. Determine relative benefits and costs to feasibility standards for public recreation facilities for each reservoir area resulting from construction of projects under study. Economic feasibility studies of necessity consist of a series of projections based on existing conditions and controlled by reasonable assumptions, criteria and acceptable standards. The total structure of economic feasibility contains population and related recreation demand pro- jections for the State and Basin, number of visitor-day public recreation use determined for each study area both with and without additional water development, the costs directly re- sulting from public (camp and picnic) development and use, and relating the total net bene- fits to total net costs to determine relative economic justification. The projections and find- ings used in this study are considered conservative and yet reasonable because of the follow- ing controlling factors: o Since population growth is the most important single factor affecting recreation de- mand, use of the mean projection between high and low forecasts, when recent studies by the Bureau of the Census and the State Department of Finance indicate that the high forecast will be exceeded, attest to the conservative nature of re- creation demand estimates for both California and the Upper Feather River Basin. I I Further, present use figures in the national forests and parks, the prime basis for demand projections, were recorded under overload conditions with users compet- ing for available facilities. General site plans for each of the thirteen recreation areas and recreation pro- jections based on anticipated land use in the full study area recognize the prime purpose of the basin as a watershed timber producing area. Principles and stand- ards controlling site plans and land use densities are compatible with this purpose by [imiting the intensities of use according to the ability of the land to stand the pressure of use . Potential recreation use is measured in visitor-days which in turn is the number of days each type of recreation facility would be used in relationship to capacity at one time. The number of visitor-days anticipated, therefore, would vary with the density of development and intensity of use of planned facilities. Balanced public- private recreational land uses controlled by high planning standards and conserva- tion principles have resulted in relatively conservative visitor-day projections to determine dollor benefits. The projected densities and intensities of use are conr- servative in light of observed conditions in the basin and comparable recreation areas . The economic evaluation of individual stud) areas consists of the application of a dollar value to each visitor-day of public recreation use and the comparison of total benefits thus gained to total net costs cittributable to public development and use to determine economic justification. Critical to this comparison is the derivation of the quantitative value of a visitor-day. The controls set both to simplify the process and to rationalize the two-dollar benefit figure selected have resulted in a value that could be criticized from the standpoint of being conservative. Further lessening of this value resulted from the use of 1956 data In determination of the quantitative benefit, while 1958 costs were used for the proposed projects, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The purpose of the physical and economic evaluations, summarized in the following sec- tions, was to determine the economic feasibility of public recreation developments in con- junction with possible water development programs in the Upper Feather River Basin. Statewide Recreation Demand Levels of economic development and population growth determine recreation demand, with population as the most significant factor. Trend patterns Indicate that the state of Califor- nia and the Upper Feather River Basin will reach ultimate development between the years 5 2020 and 2050. A\ that time: o Population will have increased to 375,000,000 in the United States and 45,000,000 in California: o Economic conditions will have continued to improve resulting in: a shorter work week and more leisure time, median family incomes will at least double those at present. Increased life span, earlier retirement and assured life incomes will permit selection of attractive living environment and more recreational activity, improvement and extension of transportation routes and mode of transporta- tion will increase mobility; o Recreation demand and use of outdoor recreation areas and facilities will increase at a ratio related directly to population but at a rate geared to economic, social and tech- nological improvement resulting in: increase in recreation visits to all national forests and national parks in the United States from 96 million in 1944 to 1 .4 billion by 1962, increase of recreation visitor-day use of national forests and national parks in California from 35.6 million in 1955 to 450 million at ultimate develop- ment (total visitor-day use including other public and private areas will appreciably exceed this figure), increased use of existing areas will force rapid development of new areas such as the Upper Feather River Basin to meet state and national demand. Recreation in the Upper Feather River Basin Recreation is expected to expand during the period of study from its present relatively un- developed stage to the major industry in the Upper Feather River Basin. Approximately 70 percent of the Upper Basin is within national forest boundaries, consist- ing of all of Plumas National Forest and parts of Lassen and Tahoe National Forests. The major source of historical data to determine trends of recreation use are the records of Plumas National Forest. Recreation use and development of privately owned lands was de- termined by a field survey and personal interview survey conducted by Pacific Planning and Research in 1957. This survey covered 115 privately-owned or operated facilities. These and other sources of data are the basis for the asslssment of present recreation use and the projection of demand. o Present Recreation Use: Total visitor-day use of Plumas National Forest increased over 400 percent in the five-year period of 1950 to 1955 — from 342,500 visitor-days to 1,421,851 . Pub- lic camping and picnicking facilities in 1955 were used almost 70 percent beyond their safe, healthful use capacity. Based on the field survey and national forest and national park data, use of the full Upper Basin in 1956 totaled 3, 199,000 visitor-days. o Future Recreation Demand in the Upper Basin: It is assumed that future recreation demand and use in the Upper Feather River Basin will continue at its present ratio with recorded trends for Plumas National Forest which contributed about 50 percent of total use in 1956. It is likely that Plumas National Forest will have a relatively rapid build-up of use, but as the area approaches ultimate development the rate of increase will roughly parallel that of other national forests and parks. At ultimate development Plumas hJational Forest should receive at least 10 per- cent of total statewide demand or 45 million visitor-days. Recreation demand in the full Upper Basin will approximate 132 million visitor-days, of which some 30 million will be contributed by persons driving through the area but not using de- veloped facilities. Projected recreation demand, based on trends, is a statistic unrelated to the amount of de- velopable land, best land use, or the prime purpose of the basin. Sound management prac- tices and programs conserving timber and watershed resources and achieving fish and wild- life enhancement must be applied to maintain recreation attractiveness, and these factors set the limits on plans of development and on the "ultimate" potential for recreation use of the Upper Feather River Basin. General planning principles, criteria and standards for specific types of recreation use, facilities and areas were developed to assure that use of planned recreation areas would be compatible with the prime purpose of the Basin. Recreation use estimates based on these controlling factors related to best land use adequately reflect the effect of water develop- ment and are a more realistic evaluation of ultimate recreation use in the Upper Basin than the trend, or statistical, demand projections. o Ultimate recreation use without a dditional water development : Many existing recreation areas in the Basin can absorb higher densities of develop- ment, and major increases in use without additional water development, therefore, will result from more intensive use of existing and other presently undeveloped areas. A total of some 79,000 acres will be developed for intensive recreation use, com- pared to the present 2,603 acres™ Almost one-half of the ultimate recreation use will be oriented to rivers and stream areas, with camping and picnicking facilities furnishing 50 percent of the annual visitor-days use, summer homes 23.6 percent, resorts 22.1 percent, and organiza- tion camps 7.1 percent. Potential safe use of the Upper Basin without additional water development, based on a general plan related to best land use and conservation principles, will approx- imate 62 million visitor-days plus some 31 million highway "user" visitor-days. Forecasted demand would exceed such safe use by more than 64 percent. If this condition Is permitted to occur. It v/III seriously endanger the watershed timber producing capabilities and the continued recreation attraction of the Upper Basin. o Ultimate recreation use with State wate r development : Construction of proposed State water projects would double the existing water sur- face area and shift the predominant use orientation from rive/and stream areas to reservoirs and lakes. The additional reservoirs and enhanced downstream areas, with controlled firm water releases permitting increased use of these areas for fishing and other recreation, would create a more even distribution of recreation attractions and activities over the entire basin. The increased water areas would permit the development of 50,300 more ocres for recreation use. With more developable area, visitor-day use can be increased without increasing either the intensity of use or the average densities of developed areas. This additional use can be maintained through the preservation of ample open space and utilization of the "cluster" design principle suggested and illus- trated on the reservoir site plans. 8 With State water development the Upper Basin can safely accommodate almost 95 million annual visitor-days use which would generate about 47 million visitor-days by people driving through to enjoy the forest scenery and environment. Forecasted demand would exceed safe use with State water development by less than 11 per- cent as opposed to 64 percent without additional water development. Construction of State water projects, and the development of recreational facilities, therefore, will be necessary to meet forecasted demand in a safe, desirable, health- ful and uncrowded manner. Such development would be consistent with the prime purpose of the Basin and will permit the continued maximum enjoyment of its natural resources and great recreational opportunities by the people of California and the nation. Recreation Use of Reservoir Areas A summary of the evaluation of recreation benefits and costs on the five authorized projects was included as " Appendix A" of the Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 59, Feb- ruary 1957. Illustrative site plans and a summary of the benefit-cost analysis were included in that report, but the description or evaluation of the recreation areas as a basis for the site plans on which benefits and costs were determined was omitted because of space limita- tions. These factors are fully presented in Part IV of this report. The authorized units in- cluse the Indian Creek Recreation Project and the Frenchman and Grizzly Valley projects. Nine reservoir areas under investigation consisting of Squaw Queen, Sheep Camp, Turn- table, Meadow Valley, Genesee Valley Park, Swayne, Humbug, Nelson Point and Clio areas were studied and general site plans prepared. The plans were evaluated to determine the relative benefits and costs accruing from the construction and operation of public recrea- tion facilities projected for each area- The description of each area, the basis for the pub- lic and private facilities projected, and the number of units by type of recreation facility are discussed in detail in Part IV and will only be reviewed in this summary. Based on the site development plans, net benefits and costs attributable to and resulting from the public recreation use and construction of each reservoir recreation area were developed 9 for the fifty-year payout period. Unit capital construction and operation, maintenance and replacement costs for the public recreation facilities and necessary roads were applied to de- termine incremental yearly costs from 1961, the assumed date of reservoir completion, and 2010, the end of the payout period. Net visitor-day figures were derived as the difference between the use generated by public facilities with the construction and operation of the reservoirs and the use projected without construction and operation of the reservoirs. Dollar benefits obtained from recreation use were computed by the application of the quantitative benefit of $2.00 per visitor-day to this net increase in use. Both the benefit and cost totals were adjusted to present worth, and converted to average annual equivalent figures. These average annual equivalents were directly related to each other to produce a benefit-cost ratio for each of the recrea- tion areas under study. o Authorized Reservoirs: The Indian Creek Recreation Project in the Upper Indian Creek Basin is located in a mount- ainous area in northeastern Plumas County, The area, in spite of natural scenic beauty and suitable climate characteristics, now receives only limited recreation use. The project will include the three reservoirs or Antelope Valley on Indian Creek, Dixie Refuge on Last Chance Creek and public recreation facilities in each reservoir area. The projects of Frenchman on Little Lost Chance Creek and Grizzly Valley on Big Grizzly Creek ore located in the upper drainage of the Middle Fork of the Feather River in the east- ern portion of the Basin. Both projects will furnish irrigation water to Sierra Valley, down- stream flood control, and recreation benefits within their reservoir areas. 10 These authorized reservoirs were reported upon in 1957 before full analysis or research data and the results of the field survey hod been completed. Analysis of these data indicate that public recreation use estimated at that time was about 67 percent of probable use, and the benefits and costs for the five authorized projects have been re-evaluated to reflect this In- creased use as follows: The total cumulative probable net increase in use resulting from v^«ter development of the five study areas would approximate 12.2 million visitor-days during the 50- year payout period resulting in estimated total net benefits of 24.5 million dollars. Total cumulative capital and operating costs at 1956 prices for the combined areas studied is 6.1 million dollars. A favorable benefit-cost ratio of better than 3 to 1 for each area, with a total ratio for the five projects of 3.5 to 1, justifies public expenditures for construction of public outdoor recreation facilities at each of the reservoirs. o Reservoir Areas Under Study Squaw Queen Reservoir Area, located at the confluence of Last Chance and Squaw Queen Creeks, is in the Northeast portion of the basin a few miles drive from the authorized units of Antelope, Dixie Refuge and Abbey Bridge. The strategic location of the area, length of shoreline, good tree cover, vorietv of tooonrnphv ond n lorne amount of develooable land permits maximum development for balanced recreation use. Operation of the reservoir, with a normal pool of 2,700 acres, for power production will not seriously affect recreation use. The developmental plan utilizes 4,025 acres of land for public and private facilities with a total of 6,050 four-person units, 1,900 acres of which are for public camping and picnicking facilities. Probable annual visitor-day use of all facilities will exceed 1 .5 million by the year 2050, while use of public facilities alone will equal 640,000 visitor-days annually. Net cumulative probable visitor-day use for the payout period will exceed 6.4 mil- lion, resulting in a public benefit of over $12.9 million. Net cumulative costs at 1958 prices is less than $3.7 million. The resulting favorable benefit-cost ratio is better than 3 to 1 . 11 Sheep Camp Reservoir Area is located in the southeastern portion of the Basin on the west side of Sierra Valley. The lake will be some three miles long with a water surface of 1,630 acres at normal pool elevation. The development of a well balanced recreational area is per- mitted by the variety of topography, tree cover and a favorable recreation environment. The location of the reservoir adjacent to State Highway 89 only two miles from the summer home community of Calpine assures demand for recreation development of this reservoir site. The developmental plan identifies 1,605 acres for public and private recreation facilities. Probable annual use of public facilities is estimated at over 320,000 visitor-days by 2050, while total probable use of both public and private fccilities is about 700,000 visitor-days. The Sheep Camp project will increase recreation use by more than 4 million cumula- tive visitor-days over the payout period resulting in a net benefit of over $8 million. Cost of projected public facilities at 1958 prices is approximately $2.3 million. The benefit-cost ratio is better than 3.3 to 1 . Turntable Reservoir Area, on the Middle Foik of the Feather River, is about 8 miles south- east of Quincy. Located about 12 miles downstream from Sloat, the dam would back water some 6 miles in the deep Middle Fork Canyon and some 2 miles along Nelson Creek canyon. The steep canyon walls and rugged topography limit road access to an area just upstream from the dam on the Quincy side of the 640 acre reservoir. Many smaller potential camping and picnicking sites con be reached by foot or by boat. The topography requires that much of the area be retained in its original state which will preserve its outstanding "outdoor" charac- teristics. The development olan calls for a total of 1,53^ acres for all recreation purposes with 183 acres for camp and picnic areas. Public facilities will accommodate over 3,600 visitors per day with probable annual use of approximately 300,000 visitor- days . Construction of public camp and picnic facilities at Turntable is justified with a benefit-cost ratio of better than 3 to 1 . A cumulative net increase of 3.2 million visitor-days over the payout period will result in a net benefit of $6.5 million opposed to net costs of slightly over $1 .9 million at 1958 prices. Meadow Valley Reservoir Area, located on Spanish Creek some three miles upstream from Quincy, has ample tree cover and a variety of scenic advantages and topography suitable for all types of balanced recreation development. The dramatic eastern face of Spanish Peak rises to 3, 100 feet from the generally square shaped shore line. The reservoir, which will have a surface area of 5,750 acres, will contain one large island over a mile long and one-half mile wide as well as some smaller islands, all developable for varying recreation uses. Its immediate proximity to Quincy and U.S. Highway 40 Alternate, its scenic ad- vantages and the natural features of the reservoir itself make this area one of the most pro- mising in the Upper Basin for recreation development. Some 3,700 acres can be developed for all types of recreation use of which 1,700 are planned for public uses. At full development the area can accommodate over 22,000 persons per day with 7,000 of these in public camping and picnicking fac- ilities. Net visitor-days use of public recreation areas will be increased by a cumulative total of over $13 million during the fifty-year payout period. Net increase in cap- ital and operating costs of public areas is estimated at $3.7 million which compared to benefits results in a favorable benefit-cost ratio of better than 3 to 1 . Genesee Valley Park Area includes all of picturesque Genesee Valley which is about eight miles southeast of Taylorsville in the central portion of the Upper Basin. The developmental plan is related to full utilization of the non-fluctuating 675 acre reservoir and Indian Creek with a regulated full stream flow running the full length of the valley. Public recreation facilities are concentrated on the valley meadow near the water attractions. Park concepts controlled the design of the area to include an amphi-theatre, a nine-hole golf course, some resorts, and administration, control and other service facilities. The plan designates 280 acres for camping and picnicking facilities and 140 acres for resort establishments. A total of some 12,600 people can be accommodated per day, 11,200 of whom will be in public facilities. Ultimate use will exceed one million visitor-days annually with over 950,000 in public areas. 13 During the payout period cumulative visitor-days use of public areas will exceed 1 1 .4 million resulting In a benefit over $22.8 million . Total capital operating costs of all public installations is estimated at $9.3 million using 1958 prices. In spite of the higher standards and resulting additional costs, the development of Genesee Valley as a park is economically justified with a favorable benefit cost ratio of 2.3 to 1 . Swayne Reservoir Recreation Area is located on French Creek about three miles upstream from its junction with the North Fork of the Feather River in the southwestern portion of the Upper Basin. The reservoir will have a normal pool of 2,550 acres, and its operation for power production will not seriously affect its recreation use. The ruggedness of the terrain naturally reserves open space between developable areas assuring an uncrowded de- velopment. It is anticipated that the natural beauty and ample tree cover and its proximity to Orovllle reservoir will accelerate its recreation development. Out of the 1,000 developable acres, only 165 are suitable for public recreation facilities because of the rugged terrain. Some 730 acres on the steeper slopes overlooking the reservoir are designated for summer homes, which will be in de- mand because of the area's nearness to the population centers of the Sacramento Valley. More than half of the 500,000 ultimate annual visitor-days will be gen- erated by the public recreation areas „ Public investment in these facilities is justified with a favorable benefit cost ratio of 2.8 to 1. Cumulative net benefits will be over $4 million opposed to net costs of $1.3 million during the payout period . Humbug Reservoir Recreation Area is located on Yellow Creek north of its junction with the North Fork of the Feather River near Belden, but it is most accessible from State Route 89 via Prottville on Lake Almanor. The 1,790 acre reservoir will be comparatively shallow, and its operation for power production will not adversely affect the recreation development and use except in dry years. The developable area consistsof gentle slopes rising from the shore line with adequate tree cover for balanced recreation development. The nearness to the established Lake Almanor recreation area is expected to increase its rate of development and use . 14 Approximately 1,300 acres can be developed ultimately for all recreation uses, 140 acres of which will be for public recreation facilities. Public facilities can accommodate 2,800 visitors per day with probable annual use of 238,000 visitor- days out of the total for all facilities, public and private, of 530,000. A net cumulative public benefit of over $4.2 million will be generated by the more than 2 million visitor-day increased use resulting from reservoir construc- tion. Net costs of public facilities are in excess of $1.2 million. Development according to the general plan would provide facilities that are economically justi- fiable for state construction with a benefit-cost ratio in excess of 3 to 1 . Nelson Point Reservoir is proposed by Richvale Irrigation District as an alternate for the State's Turntable Reservoir. The two reservoir sites would differ only in that the Nelson Point dam site is some two and one-half miles farther downstream. The area between the two dam sites is extremely precipitous. Most of the additional development would be lo- cated on the canyon rims overlooking the reservoir, and would utilize foot trails and the dam maintenance road for access to the water. Some 230 additional acres are indicated for recreation development on the Nelson Point plan, bringing the total to 1,766 acres with 237 acres used for camp and pic- nic areas. Slightly more than 12,350 visitors per day can be accommodated at ul- timate development and approximately one-third will use public facilities creating a probable annual use of over 400,000 visitor-days. During the fifty-year payout period cumulative net increases in public use of Nel- son Point will exceed 3.6 million visitor-days, the resulting net benefit will be over $7.2 million, and net costs will approach $2.2 million at 1958 prices. The benefit-cost ratio of providing public recreation facilities will approximate 3 to 1 . Clio Reservoir Recreation Area is located some three miles upstream from Blairsden on the Middle Fork of the Feather River. Adjacent to the dam site is the recreation community of Graeagle. The town of Clio and the existing route of State Highway 89 will be inundated by the impounded water which will flood all of the upper portion of scenic Mohawk Valley, The tentative operation schedule of the reservoir for supplementary storage of water for hydro- electric power generation at Nelson Point downstream indicates the drawdown at the end of the recreation season will not seriously affect recreation use, but the normal pool of 2,200 15 acres will be reduced during drawdown periods exposing mud flats which will curtail recrea- tion development. Some 1,400 acres of suitable terrain with tree cover are available for balanced re- creation development, including both public and private facilities- The 165 acres set aside for public use will accommodate 3,300 visitors per day with total annual probable use of 289,000 visitor-Jays at ultimate development. Cumulative fifty-year public benefits will equal $4,3 million resulting from a net increase in public use of in excess of 2 million visitor-days. Net cumulative in- creases in costs of public facilities v/ill approach $1 .4 million during the payout period. The resulting benefit-cost ratio exceeds 2.8 to 1 . The relative standings of the fourteen study areas show wide variety in net visitor days and net costs found for each recreation area. These differences result from the physical charac- teristics of each area, size and operation schedules of each reservoir, general location of the area and its relationship with other recreation areas in the Basin, and the amount of de- velopable land suited to both public and private use within the area. The summary of these recreation areas in Table 1 while demonstrating this difference in benefits and costs, in- dicates that public expenditure for the costs of public facilities is economically justified for each area . Potential Recreation Use of the Mi ddle Fork of the Feather River The analysis of existing and potential recrection use of the Middle Fork of the Feather River Includes comparisons of development proposals by the Richvale Irrigation District and the California Department of Water Resources. Land that can be developed for recreation in the Middle Fork of the Feather River is very limited in area and relatively inaccessible. Steep canyon slopes along the stream beds and the surrounding area often reach 50 percent, while sheer rock cliffs rise from the bed of the river and constitute obstacles to travel along the river bottom. Below Sloat the Middle Fork is 16 o O 3 o o. i a: o ca o .^ •^ u- 0) en c ^^ a> m CO O O o *- > o 5{ J) '^ .^ - — z> u. o cr 0) c 0) C CQ < ^ t: > Q^ UJ t/> UJ ai u- o to o t— <■ o:: LU OO 1— 3 o u to y- Q LL. rv UJ z LU o CQ l/l z > o UJ — 1 5 ^ LU CO a: o LU a. Oi {) z _J o CO 3 Q II 1 a. LO U- < O 00 >- o 1 S o _) Ov CO ^- O c U a> lA 0) k. a. o 4- .J. 1. 11) u- E c 1/1 (U D CQ ^ O U tij Z (U c (1) CO •^ z o (/> (A > o Q 0) z — On O — — CO r^ o -— '^ •O lO -"i- -^ lO • • k • ■ CO CO CO CO CO -<3- CO C>4 lO lO C\J O CO MD t\ CM On O CN 00 TJ-" — "" CM 00 O CM CN CN — CM 00 IT) CO ,— CN IT) CO o 04 CO o CO CO ^ — p- On C<4 ^ CN MD 00 00 — (N O CO CO CO CO CM CN CM CO CO On CO CO — t^ O On IV^ O CO On [^ C) ^ CO 00 K ^ o oo" no"" o" iC rC lo CO CO m -^ m o CO CO nQ CO O CO CO CO o'on" CM — On CO o fco^ O 't CM >— CN CN '— CO CN nO CM 00 00 On O CO lO nQ o fN- CN nO MD nO CO nO lO lO -^ lO On OO cm" M3 CN -rf rv rx CO On lo CM •— no rv K 00 rv - *. •» ^ O- in — CN 00 On 1^ •<* NO rv 3 vn ^ — ^v |Ns On iji ->* C^J CM On CM On "■ ^ ^^ ^ CO 00 00 rv r- o '^ CM o in in NO CN o- rv CO On CO CM m •I. On *. »fc ^ n. *. •^ *« N. «. nO — CO CN — CO On o ^-^ ^— CN ^^^ ' CN V* ,— — r- lO o o rv On CO o On CO CN (N 1^ rv no cm"" CO CN -^ in in On in — o (vT Oo"" CN CO CN r- %n O U ^-^ Q. ,~~. o (U < 'o t 0) in 0) 'o a. 0) o Grizzly Valley Antelope Valley Abbey Bridge Dixie Refuge Frenchman Sub-total (1 o s. *o w CL. -o 0) l/> o w Queen p Camp table dow Valley esee Valley Sub-total (2 a: SI < Q- e Q- D « C o c J <- (1) (U OO l>0 H- ^ O CO J2 D o 4- S.1 Q c a. o v Q. n c > o -^2 o o 0) — oc ZU I l/> I 00 I r^ ) 00 CM CO CO I M3 I CD CO rv — CO in ^ nO CN r— o •— On rv On CO On o CM CO On CO NO O nO W- 00 CM ch NO o rv -* 00 CN O On m ■^ CO On in in MD hN m CN CM OO in On r>v o -»}• i— CO On CN nO CO CO Q rv CO "^ CN CO CO rv rv M3 1^ rv rv CO —• r- On CO On O CN On On CO CS On — in MD CM o in — nO nO rv CO nO 00 CN nO 00 CO o ■— o o ro CN 1 ^ n. 1 V CM 1 rv. ro CO in in CO rv MD O 00 CO '^ O CO 00 — CM CO On in CN O ^ CM O O On O rv CM o CO «— in 00 rv in in -^ in — On MD CM MD "^ in o ^ in o MD On o in cs On m m rv 00 o CO in rv« CM ^ nO CN CN O O CN O On nO CN o CN rv •O -^ ^ MD '^ CM CO m MD '^t On — in On ^N MD CM CO CO MD CO 00 in m On CO rv -t c^ CO nO o in nq m no CN CN .— — -- On "^ CO CN ^ CO s" '-"'-"' CO CN — ■^ "^ rv rv CO CN CO m MD :n in CN 1 1 k. 1 <■ 1 1 On 1 V CO MD Tj- ^ •* ro CO CN 00000 00 CM CM On C^ CN CO CM On 00000 ^ MD CN MD CM rv — IV -^ ';r in MD CO CO MD CN MD m CO '^ CN 00 000 CN nO CO Tf no in CM Nsf CO IV CO CN 00 MD 00 00 00 CO CO 00 -* rv -^ CO no in CO in IV m '^ CN in — 00 rv 00 CO — rv CM CN On CO CM — nQ CN CN CO CO 00 in — On CO c> i— -t m in -^ CO ■»!■ CM CN 00 MD CO CM .— r- CN CO NO •^ ^ 00 IV -^ ^ 00 CN MD 00 rv (> 00000 On nQ '- -^ N^ — On c^ 00000 rv 00 MD CO ■ — 00 00 CN rv m rv 00 ■>* MD 00 00 CO — rv 0^ 000 r- CO c^ rv CO tv nO CN On CO — ^ -* CO CN m -^ cs ^ 5 CN CO rv NO 00 CN On CN CO IV CN -^ CM in -^ 00 00 On MD CO r- 2 — CO MD NO — O^ rv '^ NO in in c^ On .— CN CM CN — CN CN nO "'t CO nO f— CO CN CM ^"" CO CM in ^ in 00 -^ CO -"t CM CO CO cm" ^ CM ^ "5 o 17 accessible to conventional passenger cars only at Nelson Point and Millsap Bar. Some jeep trails and foot trails/ both over steep slopes, have not been maintained sufficiently to prevent or lessen dangerous access to the river bottom. The concepts controlling the development plans for the Middle Fork preserve this limited ac- cess feature and the wilderness nature of the area. They also recognize that fishing Is and should remain the prime attraction to those who wish to attempt the physical exercise neces- sary In using the projected hiking and riding trails. Consequently, water releases Into the river from both development proposals are assumed to be sufficient to maintain both the fish- ing resources and the attractiveness of the stream. o Present and Ultimate Recreation Use Without Additional Water Development: Existing recreation facilities in 1956 in the Middle Fork area consisted of a 12-unit Forest Service campground at Millsap Bar and some 20 permanent or summer homes scattered along the canyon. Ultimate recreation use of the Middle Fork without water development neces- sarily assumes that future stream flows will continue unregulated, affecting accessibility and stream-side access to usable areas. Recreation developments In 1956 received an estimated 16,000 visitor days recrea- tion use. In addition is the unrecorded use generated at primitive or undeveloped camping areas located in the more accessible and usable areas along or above the river. A minimum of 225,000 annual visitor-day use and a probability of 337,000 annual visitor-day use would be generated by camping and picnicking facilities by the end of the fifty-year payout period. This use would result from stage development of some 980 camp and picnic units in developable areas along the 42 miles of river stream bed and the 26 miles of live streams flowing into the river from the upper end of either Turntable or Nelson Point reservoirs to Oroville Reservoir. o Ultimate Recreation Use W ith State Water Development: The Department of Water Resources study plan for the development of the Middle Fork of the Feather River consists of Turntable Reservoir, a diversion to Meadow Valley Reservoir, 18 Meadow Valley Reservoir, and alternate diversions either to Belden on the North Fork or Hartman Bar on the Middle Fork. This combination of reservoirs and diversions constitutes the Meadow Valley Plan. The general recreation plan for the Middle Fork has permitted stream bed access only by hik- ing and riding trails, and on strategically located jeep trails for service or emergency pur- poses. The State proposal permits a continuous streamslde foot trail system along the 35 miles of stream channel with existing rock outcroppings, primitive foot bridges, and shallow dams to cross the river at points where sheer canyon walls prevent continuous access along one side of the river bed. It Is contemplated that private resorts with clusters of public and private recreation develop- ment and private service facilities will be constrjcted along the canyon rim and will offer provisioning for those seeking access to the more primitive recreation areas of the canyon. Future public and private recreational development for the Meadow Valley and Turntable Reservoir recreational areas was based on Illustrative site developmental plans. The facilities provided In these plans are the basis for the projection of recreation benefits from the Meadow Valley Plan. Public recreation In the total Meadow Valley Plan, including Meadow Valley Reservoir, Middle Fork of the Feather River, and Turntable Reservoir, Indicate a probable net cumulative total annual visitor-day use for the fifty-year payout period of approximately 14.5 million, with a minimum visitor-day use of over 10 million. Total recreation use. Including both public and private for the Meadow Valley Plan, shows a 40 million probable and 25 million minimum net cumulative Increase in visitor-days use for the fifty-year payout period. 19 o Ultimate Recreation Use With D eve lop ment of Richvcle Irrigation District Plan . The Richvale development proposal consists of Clio and Nelson Point Reservoirs, Minerva Bar, Dogwood Bar, Hartman Bar, and Bald Rock Canyon diversion dams and diversion tun- nels. All the water developments are located on the Middle Fork. Clio Reservoir would be used to supplement the water stored at Nelson Point Reservoir. From Nelson Point Reservoir the water would pass through tunnels to the various diversion dams and eventually into Oro- ville Reservoir. The Richvale Plan suggests the type of development which presently exists on the North Fork of the Feather River, but it is assumed that water releases into the river will be properly controlled to maintain the recreation attraction of the Middle Fork. Net increase in cumulative total annual visitor-day use for the fifty-year payout per- iod resulting from the Richvale Irrigation District water development over no addi- tional water development for public recreation areas indicate a probable 9.3 million visitor-days use, and a minimum of 6,4 million visitor-days use can be expected. Total public and private development net Increases in cumulative visitor-days use from the Richvale proposal would be a minimum of 17.6 million visitor-days, and a probable visitor-day use of 28 million at the end of the fifty-year payout period. o Compa rison of Middle Fork Plan : At ultimate development the Meadow Valley Plan would create slightly more recreation use than the Richvale Plan considering only the Middle Fork Canyon and Turntable and Nelson Point Reservoirs. Clio and Meadow Valley Reservoirs significantly alter the comparative re- lationship of the total development of each proposed system. The total State Meadow Valley Plan would safely accommodate 30 percent more people at one time, and 53 percent more annual visitor-day use than the total Rich- vale Plan at ultimate development. The Meadow Valley system indicates that by the year 2050 the probable annual visitor-day use will be over 4,880,000 in contrast to the total Richvale system of some 3, 180,000 annual visitor-day use. 20 PART II. DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION Recreation, as an industry, has been ranked third in the United States, exceeded only by manufacturing and agriculture. The Importance of wholesome physical exercise, inspira- tion, enjoyment of the outdoors, and relaxation to the well being of the people is well re- cognized and accepted. All studies and projections point to greater demand for outdoor recreation throughout the country. The natural resources of the Upper Feather River Basin are uniquely well suited for "outdoor" recreational activity. Recreation demand depends on the levels of population and economic development. These factors in California are influenced by and closely related to those of the nation. In turn, they also affect recreation use and development in the Upper Feather River Basin. Popula- tion growth is beMeved to be the most significant factor influencing recreation demand. POPULATION GROWTH PoDulation estimates for the State and the Nation are the basis for projection of future re- 2 ere- t'^n use. Trends and patterns of economic development and population growth indicate that the Upper Feather River Basin will reach ultimate development between the years 2020 and 2050 based on potential development of the natural resources of the area, the projected growth of state and national populations, and expected changes in employment patterns of the state and the Upper Basin in light of established long term trends. The year 2050 was selected to represent probable "ultimate" or full development of the area's resources, and population growth was projected to that year. 1. U.S. Forest Service, Operation Outdoors, 1957. p. 1, source: Notional Association of Travel Organizations. 2. Pacific Planning and Research, formerly Harold F. Wise and Associates, "Future Popula- tion, Economic and Recreation Development of California's Northeastern Counties", Ap- pendix A of Bulletin 58 . Northeastern Counties Investigation; State of California, Depart- ment of Water Resources, Division of Resource Planning; July, 1957. 21 The population forecasts of the United States and California for the year 2050 are subject to wide variations because of the many factors that may accelerate or retard growth. The most logical approach to the problem was judged to be: (1) determination of the range with- in which the population can be expected to vary in the year 2050, and (2) adoption of a figure near the middle of this range. High, low and mean projections of the total popula- tions of the United States and California were developed, and are shown by ten year in- tervals from 1900 to 2050 in appendix Tables A-1 and A-2. All estimates and forecasts at ultimate development assume no major disaster, such as a de- vastating war, epidemic or other catastrophe will occur during the forecast period. It should be stressed that the forecasts presented In this report are the product of the assumptions about future conditions on which they are based. They Indicate what appears likely to occur, not predictions of what will occur. The 1956 population of the United Stales was 168,091,000 people according to the Bureau of the Census. By the year 2050, projections show that this population will increase to about 375 milll6tl, with a possible range from 300 to 450 million. California's 1956 population, estimated by the State Department of Finance, was 13,600,000 people or slightly over 8 percent of the national population. This figure Is expected to in- crease to between 26 and 46 million over the next 50 years. In 2050 California's population could range between 32 and 58 million with a "mean" projection of 45,000,000 people. At that time about 12 percent of the nation's population will be living In California. In effect, the high and low forecasts represent a reasonable upper and lower limit for the pop- ulation of the United States and California in the year 2050. It Is Impossible to predict whether 22 the population of California in 2050 will be close to the upper or lower limit of the indica- ted potential range. It appears entirely possible that this ultimate population figure might be reached at any time after the year 2020. The latest revised population estimates for the United States and California published in 1957 by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the California Department of Finance indicate that the "high" forecast could well prove to be a conservative estimate at the present rate of growth . FACTORS INFLUENCING RECREATION USE Recreation visits to outdoor areas have increased at a much faster rate than the population of the United States and California. The assumptions about future population growth, based on expected improvements in social and economic conditions, will also have a definite af- fect on future recreation demand. Recreation use will be influenced not only by increasing population but by technological developments in industry, transportation and communication, and improvements in conditions and increased productivity of labor leading to higher stand- ards of living with more leisure time. These factors will make it feasible for many persons to recreate in "outdoor" areas while their business and permanent residence is elsewhere* An important element affecting the magnitude of outdoor recreation activity is personal In- come that will be available to finance its enjoyment. With continuing social and economic advancement, it is expected that average personal income will increase. Recent trends in- dicate that the average worl<-v«d< and the average work-year will become shorter in the future, resulting in more "free time". All these trends, therefore, point toward more goods and ser- vices, more leisure time for people to travel, and more money for them to spend on recreation. The expansion of highway programs, improvement and extension of transportation routes, and 23 improved modes of transportation will increase mobility. Construction and improvement of more access roads and development of reservoirs will create additional pointeof entry into forest areas and provide many more areas for general recreation as well as hunting and fish- ing. These stimulants to recreation use are already being felt in many forest areas. Demand for "outdoor" recreation areas will continue to be equated to physical capabilities of these areas to meet adequately the preferences of all kinds of recreationists. Thus, the potential of outdoor recreation areas is the controlling factor limiting recreation use. As the pressure of population growth increases, every suitable area with reasonable recreation attraction will be required and used for recreation purposes irrespective of developmental conditions. Historical records of visits to national forests show the effect of notional disasters such as World War II. From the prewar peak of about 18 million visits to all national forests in 1941, recreation use dipped to about 6„2 million visits In 1943o it v/as not until 1946, when 18.2 million visits were recorded, that prewar levels of use were re-established. In California's national forests similar trends were observed, but prewar visitor-day use levels were exceeded In 1945. National outdoor recreation use steadily Increased during the period of economic depression of the '30's, although not at the same rate as the rapid Increase since the war. "It seems clear that increased recreation use of national forests is encouraged by high national income and employment, but takes place even under unfavorable economic conditions" . It is as- sumed, therefore, that recreation use can be expected to increase irrespective of economic conditions, but the rote of increase and the dollar expenditures of recreationists will be In TT Marian Clawson and Burnell Held, The Federal Lands - Their Use and Management (John Hopkins Press, 1957) p, 73. 24 relation to such conditions. TREMDS IN RECREATION USE Recreation visits to all the national parks and national forests in 1955 totaled 96,000,000 - a national increase of 140 percent over 1946. On a per capita basis, recreation visits more than doubled from 1946 to 1955. By 1962, recreation visits to the nation's "outdoor" rec- reation areas are expected to increase to 1 .4 billion. In California, visitor-days use of the national forests and national parks have grown from 23,085,000 in 1946 to 35,614,000 in 1955 — an increase of 54 percent. Camping and pic- nicking alone have increased 81 percent in the last five years, while state population in- creased only 36 percent during this period.' Demand for "outdoor" recreation facilities is perhap>s even greater than the above figures in- dicate. Existing developed recreation facilities in the state and the nation ore inadequate to provide safe use. For example, the nation's camping and picnicking facilities in the national forests in 1955 had a safe, uncrowded, healthful capacity of about 17,600,000 annua! visitor days. Actual use was 25,500,000 visitor days resulting in an overload on the available fac- ilities of 39 percent. At the rate of construction permitted by available funds this overload was expected to increase to 61 percent by 1958. The Forest Service estimates it will be 1962 before adequate facilities can be provided under the "Operation Outdoors" program. The National Park Service, faced with similar problems, is developing the "Mission 66" pro- 1» U.S. Forest Service, "Recreation in the California National Forests", California Recrea- tion Commission, Tenth Annual Report, Ten Years of Progress 1947-1957, February, 1958. p. 84. 25 gram which proposes to develop and staff all areas managed by the National Park Service, "... in order to permit their v^isest possible use and the preservation of scenic, scientific, and historic resources which give them distinction" . The State Park Commission has stated conservatively that "... during the past several years, the demand for camp and picnicking sites has far exceeded supply, and this will undoubtedly continue for some time in the future".'^ Camping and picnicking facilities in national forests in California were used to about 78 per- cent of their safe capacity in 1946. By 1950, the percentage of use increased to 87 percent. Then, with the intensity of use in 1955 almost 50 percent higher than for 1950, facilities were used to 131 percent of their safe ccpocity. Almost 4,000 additional camping and pic- nicking family units should have been provided to meet safely the 6,814,000 visitor days use the available facilities actually received. The deterioration of camping and picnicking facilities accelerated by over-use has reduced the number of available facilities. Instead of lessening demand or use, the apparent inade- quacy of facilities has resulted in overcrowding of developed areas and increased use of un- improved areas which lack sanitary facilities and fire prevention improvements. An indication of the magnitude of the trends in recreational use of reservoir recreation areas can be gained from the experience of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which has approx- imately 50,000 acres of reservoir land and water areas available for recreation use of corps projects in California. Activities include boating, fishing, camping, picnicking and golfing. \. National Park Service, "National Parks and Monuments", California Recreation Commis- sion, Ten Years of Progress , 1949-1959, op. cit. p. 84. 2. California State Park Commission, Five Yeor Master Plan, July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1961 . (March 1, 1956) p. 9. 26 1 Expenditures of about $2,700,000 In federal and non-federal funds were made for construc- tion of basic recreation facilities at the reservoirs over the past decade. From 1947 to 1957, the number of visitor days has increased from about 60,000 to 2, 150,000 - a 3,843.3 1 percent increase. Per capita use of outdoor recreation facilities in California is expected to increase rapidly, stimulated by higher incomes, a shorter work -week, longer vacations, improved transporta- tion, and the other benefits of an expanding technology. California must continue to pre- pare and provide for the needs of anticipated population growth. In addition, the state must also prepare for a large influx of out-of-state visitors. In 1953, for example, there was one 2 out-of-state tourist for every three California residents. Total visitor days use of Plumas National Forest, which covers about half of the Upper Feather River Basin, increased over four times in the five years from 1950 to 1955. Recreation use de- clined somewhat in 1956 "... because of highv/ay and Pacific Gas and Electric Company con- 3 struction. Highway conditions and traffic controls discouraged some travel". Even so, visi- tor days use in 1956 alone equaled two-thirds of the combined use for the five years of 1946 through 1950. The intensity of use of the available recreation facilities in Plumas Notional Forest increased from 44.3 annual visitor-days per person that could be accommodated in 1950 to 94.3 in 1955. During this period the intensity of use of camping and picnicking facilities was three times 1 . U.S. Army Engineer Division, Corps of Engineers, "Recreation Developments", California Recreation Commission, Ten Years of Progress 1947-1957, op. cit. p. 89. 2. Kenneth Decker, The Tourist Trade in California, Bureau of Public Administration, Univer- sity of California, 1955. 3. Plumas National Forest, Annual Statistical Report, Recreation Visits, 1956 (Preliminary) I 27 greater from 42.7 to 144.2 visitor days per person of capacity. In 1950 these facilities were used to about 51 percent of their safe, healthful capacity, and, only five years later, they were inadequate by 69.7 percent. The trends in recreation use of national forests and national parks provide a measure of state- wide outdoor recreation use of the type which will occur in the Upper Feather River Basin. They also reflect Forest Service policy regarding recreation development which is motivated by natural resource, timber management and conservation principles. The recreation re- sources of the national forests ore raade available for public use and enjoyment, to the degree that this is consistent with the overall management of the national forests for the greatest pub- 1 1 c good . Public recreation areas and facilities ';uch as camping and picnicking are provided by the For- est Service. Organization camps and public service facilities such as restaurants, resorts and motels, are not constructed by the Forest Service but by competent individuals or organizations encouraged to develop them under special use permit in locations where there is a public need for such facilities and services. Preferential private uses, such as summer homes, are permitted only where lands are clearly not needed for public use. The Forest Service has concentrctec its efforls on public recreation facilities, which is re- flected in the available records. Jemand for other types of outdoor recreation facilities has also been met to some degree on pr'vately owned lands adjacent to national Forest boundaries, and it can be reasonably assumed that this pattern will continue. Unfortunately, however, his- torical data of all statewide recreation use is not available. Recreation use on privately owned land should be recognized as an Importont part of the complete picture. 1 . U.S. Forest Service, Operation Outdoors, 1957, p. 6. 28 The distribution of visitor-day use of national forests over tlic period of record provides some measure of the trends in recreationists' preferences for each of the eight different categories of recreation use recorded L)y the Forest Service. This distribution, however, does not con- sider the demand which might have been satisfied on privately owned lands or the demand v^hlch was discouraged because of inadequate facilities. The trends in use distribution pro- vide a point of reference for estimating future demand for various types of recreation use. There are many unforeseeable factors, such as future Forest Service policy, which could af- fect future distribution. The graphs which follov/ give some Idea of the relation of one use to another. Annual percentages of distribution of visitor-days by type of recreation use for national forest lands in California and Plumas National Forest are shown In appendix Tables A-3and A-4. There is considerable fluctuation from one year to the next in the use distribution of Califor- nia's national forests. Over the past 15 years, an overage of 31 percent of total vlsltor-doy use has been In the form of highway users, or persons "driving through" the national forests to enjoy the scenery and environment. Persons driving through are not presently counted as users of public recreation facilities, but In many cases they may patronize private facilities adjacent to the national forests, such as hotels, motels, restaurants and stores. Visitor-day use In this classification has rapidly increased since wartime travel restrictions were removed In 1945, and this constitutes an important part of the total demand for recreation facilities. Of the total visitor-days less highway users, about two-thirds has been In public camping, pic- nicking, wilderness and other forest areas; one-third in resorts and summers homes; and one- twelfth in organization areas. The percentages of use distribution for Plumas National Forest show a greater yearly fluctua- tion than for California's total national forests. The percentage of highway users more than 29 GRAPH 1. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF VISITOR-DAYS iV TYPE OF RECREATION USE NATIONAL FOREST LANDS IN CALIFORNIA, 1741-1955 TOTAL VISITOR-DAYS annua use distribution /o 100 averages for periods shown i^ highways. a 1— roads and ■/— water routes'^ summer homes , , resorts-' i wilderness y| ^and other y forest areas *■ camping and 'picnicking .winter sports^ organization carnps 1941 1945 1950 1955 1941 1955 1941 1945 1946 1950 1951 1955 TOTAL VISITOR-DAYS LESS HIGHWAY USERS o/_ annual use distribution averages for periods shown summer homes resorts wilderness and other forest areas camping and picnicking winter sports ! ' Hill •" organization camps — 1941 1945 1950 1955 1946 1950 1951 1955 30 GRAPH 2. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF VISITOR-DAYS BY TYPE OF RECREATION USE PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, 1946-1956; UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN, 1956 PLUMAS TOTAL VISITOR-DAYS annual use oistribuTion NATIONAL FOREST averages for periods shown 1946 1955 1946 1950 UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN TOTAL VISITOR-DAYS LESS HIGHWAY USERS % annual use distribution averag es for peri ods shown 1951 1955 doubled from 21 .6 in 1946 to 47.7 percent in 1956 and averaged about 43 percent of total use. Over the 11 -year period of record, about 41 percent of total use has been in public camping and picnicking and other forest areas; roughly 5 percent in organizational areas; and 10 percent in resorts and summer homes. The latter group has declined from 45.7 per- cent of total use in 1946 to 5.6 percent in 1956. Considering the Upper Basin, however, summer homes and resorts had about 22.3 percent of total use which indicates that a larger number of the facilities are being located on privately owned land. The period of record reflects a rapid build-up of facilities as well as use. The use distribution for the total basin in 1956 is almost the same as that for Plumas National Forest for the 1946 through 1950 per- iod and for California's national forests for the 1951 through 1955 period. STATE-WIDE RECREATION USE AND DEMAND Use of California's great outdoor recreation resources has more than doubled in the past 15 years. A large percentage of these resources are within national forest and national park boundaries, which include the bulk of outdoor recreation areas in the state. Private recrea- tion facilities, either located on Forest Service land by special permit or on adjacent private lands, also receive considerable use and benefit from these resources. Forest Service records provide practically the only available historical annual record on which a projection of the trend of state-wide outdoor recreation use can be based. Reliable records of annual recreation use of California's national forests, measured in visitor-days, have been maintained since 1941 . Visitor-day use figures for National Parks in California are available for the years 1946, 1950 and 1955 only. This data, shown below, provides the only basis, though limited, for estimating and projecting state-wide outdoor recreation demand in visitor-days. In 1946, recreotion use was at o high level because of postwar 32 "boom" conditions; 1950 reflects a "leveling off" period; and from 1950 to 1955 there was a rapid increase in use. Fable 2. California Visitor-days Use (in millions) Year National Parks National Forests Total Per Capita Visitor-days* 1946 2,860 20, 255 23,085 2.42 1950 3,690 15,195 18,885 1.78 1955 4,5^10 31,074 35,613 2.73 * Total visitor days divided by California's population. Projections of per capita visitor-day use provide the most realistic long range measure of future recreation demand with the data presently available. Per capita use figures reflect ihu trends in social and economic change perhaps more accurately than any other available index. It can reasonably be assumed that recreation demand will generally follow popula- tion growth over the long run, but the level of recreation use may fluctuate above and be- low the meon projection depending upon economic conditions. Projections of per capita visitor-day use applied to projections of population growth provide a reasonable basis for measuring future state-wide outdoor recreation demand. From 1946 to 1955 use increased 0.31 visitor-days per person in the State, or 0.031 visitor- days annually. The period from 1950 to 1955 shows a greater total increase of 0.95 visitor- days per person, or 0.16 visitor-days annually. Projection of the 1946-55 annual increase per capita use would equal 5.74 visitor-days per capita by 2050. The 1946-55 projection was considered as low and the 1950-55 projection as high. The resulting per capita visitor- day mean, or mid-point between the high and low, was 1 1 .77 . As in the cose of population 33 < projections, future per capita visitor-days use could range anywhere between the low and the high. Projection of ultimate use by 2050 was based on 10 visitor-days per capita, which is conservatively below the mean. A curve showing per capita visitor-day use of California's National Forests and National Parks was drawn to 2050. The initial portion of this curve reflects the high rate of increase from 1950-55 and tapers off to the mean at ultimate development. GRAPH 3. PER CAPITA VISITOR-DAY USE, 1941-2050 NATIONAL FORESTS AND NATIONAL PARKS IN CALIFORNIA n 10 Q. O o_ m Q National Forests and L National Parks . 2 1 National Forests only 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 The percentage of highway users in California's national forests has increased from 20 percent of total visitor-day use in 1941 to 44 percent in 1955. The mean from 1941 to 1955 Is about one-third during the period of record and was assumed that the percentage of highway users will be about 33 percent by ultimate development. 34 The forecasts indicate a state population of 45,000,000 at ultimate development (Tables A-1 and A-2 of the Appendix). Demand for recreation use of national forests and national parks in California may reach 450,000,000 visitor-days at ultimate development compared with use of 35,000,000 in 1955. Excluding highway users, all other recreation users might approximate 300,000,000 visitor-days ultimately, compared with 22,750,000 visitor-days in 1955. These forecasts, from 1955 to 2050, are shown in Table 3- However, they do not include visitor- day use of private resorts and other types of private recreation facilities outside the notional parks and national forests. Experience In the Upper Basin indicates that inclusion of this addi- tional private use would increase these forecasts considerably. 3. RECREATION USE OF CALIFORNIA NATIONAL PARKS AND NATIONAL FORESTS 1941-1955 AND PROJECTIONS TO 2050. Total Visitor Days Total Visitor Days Year Total Visitor Days less highway users Year Total Visitor Days less Highway users 1941 14,475,541* 11,577,618* 1960 51,790,000 31,070,000 1942 9,460,150* 7,858,033* 1965 70,110,000 41,510,000 1943 5,004,130* 4,221,932 1970 87,800,000 51,800,000 1944 9,515,258* 8,301,035 1975 109,000,000 64,300,000 1945 15,640,901* 14,094,879* 1980 131,200,000 77,800,000 1946 20,225,025* 13,944,345 1990 178,400,000 107,600,000 23,085,000 16,804,000 2000 224,100,000 137,100,000 1947 21,468,111* 13,196,249* 2010 271,400,000 169,600,000 1948 18,207,339* 11,947,251* 2020 317,000,000 201,300,000 1949 15,877,493* 10,663,130* 2030 362,300,000 233,700,000 1950 15,195,143* 10,130,178* 2040 407,000,000 268,000,000 18,885,000 13,820,200 2050 450,000,000 300,000,000 1951 17,811,968* 12,750,393* 1952 18,876,884* 12,723,868* 1953 21,719,151* 14,153,333* 1954 26,483,094* 16,525,006* 1955 31,073,622* 35,613,000 17,216,556* 21,756,000 Includes National Forest only. All other figures include National Forests and National Parks. Source: U.S. Forest Service, Region 5, California 1941-1955, and National Park Service 1946, 1950 and 1955. 35 RECREATION USE AND DEMAND IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN Approximately 70 percent of the Upper Basin is within national forest boundaries. Plumas National Forest is entirely within the basin and accounts for almost one-half of its area. Also included are parts of Lassen and Tahoe National Forests and part of Lassen Volcanic National Park. Presently developed recreation facilities in the basin include the areas around Lake Almanor, Bucks Lake and along the forks of the Feather River and the Lakes Basin Area. Many of these facilities are located on privately owned land. Records of Plumas National Forest provide the only available historical trend of recreation use in the Upper Feather River Basin. These records, however, are also limited to facilities on Forest Service land. During the recreation season of 1957, Pacific Planning and Research conducted a survey of ali recreation oreas and facilities in the Upper Feather River Basin. The survey permitted first hand observation of the physical features and recreation attractions; and it provided factual data on present conditions and actual use of existing recreation facili- ties for 1956. The survey area included all of the Upper Basin, excluding Paradise, Challenge and Wyandotte Hydrogrophic Areas which constitute the remainder of the Service Area. In 1956, a total of 115 privately owned or operated recreation facilities open to the public were fielo checked by Pacific Planning and Research. Operation personnel at each facility were interviewed and resulting data were recorded on a questionnaire form. A copy of the questionnaire is shown in the Appendix. Data obtained from Plumas and Lassen National Forests and Lassen Volcanic National Park were used to estimate present use of public campgrounds, other forest areas and highway re- creation areas. Present use of summer homes was estimated using data obtained from the two national forests. State Highway Planning Survey Traffic Maps, U.S. Geological Survey 36 I Quadrangle Maps, Pacific Gas anJ Electric Company "Forfcign Improvement Lists", U.S. Census of Housing 1950, "Occupancy Characteristics for Plumas County", field survey and personal interview. These data have been summarized for the upper basin and are shown in Tables 4 and 5 and by hydrographic units in Table A-5 of the Appendix. 4. RECREATION USE IN UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN, 1956 Camp Resorts and Organization Hotels Summer Total Picnic Camps Motels Homes Area in acres Basin total 2,293,700 Developed 2,603 559 184 820 1,040 Number of facilities 1,197 63 11 89 1,040 Number of units 3,863 1,223 329 1,271 1,040 Capacity people 16,947 6,345 1,320 3,662 5,620 Capacity visitor-days 2,561,100 1,112,900 98,800 842, 700 506,700 Visitor-days use 1,544,90C 735,700 94, 800 480,900 233,500 Average length of season (days) 151 175 75 230 90 Percent use 60.3 66.1 95.9 57.1 46.8 Existing recreation use clearly reflects riie effect of water development on recreation de- velopment. All recreation development and use in the Upper Feather River Basin is oriented to water - rivers, live streams, natural lakes or man-rnade reservoirs. Accessibility and physical attraction ore also imporhant factors. The relation of present development to these factors is shown on Plate I, Existi ng Recreo tion Facilities. Recreation development of tlie upper basin in 1956 consisted of 0.1 1 percent of the total area of the basin - only 2,603 acres out of a total of 2,293,700 acres. Summer homes utilize the greatest amount of land (1,040 acres), followed by resorts, motels and hotels (820 acres), camp and picnic (559 acres) and organization camps (184 acres). There are 63 camp-picnic installations in the basin and most of them (35) are owned and operated by the U.S. Forest Service. From the standpoint of actual users, camping and picnicking facilities had the great- est number and provided the most capacity in visitor-days. 37 5 . RECREATION FACILITIES IN UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN BY HYDROGRAPHIC AREA - 1956 - Total 42 43 Upper North East Basin Fork Branch Camp and picnic (total) 43 31 6 Privately owned 8 8 - U.S. Forest Service 35 23 6 trailers not permitted 14 10 2 trailers permitted 21 13 4 Trailer Camps (total) 20 11 6 operated by resorts 11 9 - commercial o 2 6 Organization Camps 11 4 4 Resorts (total) 89 33 28 Lake resorts 15 13 1 Other resorts 36 11 5 Hotels 7 - 5 Motels 31 9 17 Summer homes 1,040 580 190 44 45 46 Sierra Middle South Branch Valley Fork Fork Total 1,197 659 230 2 1 70 74 5 2 3 2 1 1 2 23 1 16 1 5 150 180 1 1 2 50 54 Table 6 shows historical recreation use of Plumas National Forest from 1946 through 1956 and the data obtained from the survey of existing recreation areas and facilities in the Upper Feather River Basin. Plumas National Forest accounted for over one-half of the recreation use for the total Upper Feather River Basin in 1956. It is assumed that recreation use of the Upper Basin has increased at generally the same rate as that recorded for Plumas National Forest, and it is expected that this relationship will continue. 38 6 . VISITOR-DAYS BY TYPE OF RECREATION USE, PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, 1946-1956 AND UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN, 1956. Total Highway Other Winter Camp & Org. Hotels & Summer Year Visitor-Days users forest areas Sports Picnic Camps resorts Homes Plumas National Forest: 1946 402,390 87,000 40,880 775 75, 370 14,380 161,185 22,800 1947 355,013 130,000 89,625 50 60,887 9,920 54,351 10,980 1948 337,475 116,500 89,200 100 61,735 13,520 47,750 8,670 1949 353,960 125,400 78,550 200 74,500 14,340 51,900 9,070 1950 342,520 131,040 76,160 150 83,450 14,380 26,180 11,160 1951 420,355 150,965 81,405 200 110,975 19,800 42,600 14,410 1952 626,440 298,000 119,665 1,500 139,225 22,650 30,440 14,960 1953 760,197 300, 250 176,672 1,500 151,709 56,850 55,940 17,276 1954 1,283,678 653,037 278,496 1,400 208,425 64,500 59,250 18,570 1955 1,421,851 677,308 314,175 1,000 280, 288 72,188 55,012 21,880 1956 1,181,200 565,000 255,000 300 220,900 74,000 47,000 19,000 Upper Feather River Basin: 1956 3,199,000 1,138,800 514,000 1,300 735,700 94,800 480,900 233,500 Percent Plumas National Forest of Upper Feather River Basin: 1956 36.9 49.6 49.6 23.1 30.0 78.1 9.8 8.1 In 1955, Plumas National Forest accounted for about four percent of total visitor-days use of all national forests and national parks in California) and, excluding highway users, its portion was 1 .9 percent in 1946 and 3.4 percent in 1955 - an average annual increase of 0.5 percent. This annual increase, projected to the year 2050, indicates that Plumas National Forest might account for 18.1 percent of the total visitor-day demand for use of national forests and national parks in the State. The period of record, however, reflects a rapid build-up of recreation de- velopment and use brought about by the discovery by recreationists and developers of the area's recreation resources. During the immediate build-up period, Plumas National Forest will pro- bably have a higher rate of increase in demand than the State's national forests and national 39 I parks as a whole. As the basin approaches ultimate development it is expected that the rate of Increase will roughly parallel that of the state-wide increase. By ultimate development of the basin (2020-2050), Plumas National Forest should receive about ten percent of total visitor-day use of all notional forests and national parks in Colifornis. Present use trends for Plumas National Forest indicate that the percentage of highway users will increase somewhat during the facilities build-up period and then decline at ultimate development .to about 33 percent (roughly the present percentage of highway users in California's national forests). In 1956, Plumas Notional Forest accounted for almost one-third of the Upper Basin's total visi- tor-day use excluding highway users. Projections of future recreation demand for use of the Upper Basin were developed on the assumption that the above relationship will remain constant in the future. Highway users for the basin were projected at tv/Ice Plumas National Forest highway use, using the area ratio of the Forest \o the Basin. 7. ANNUAL VISITOR-DAYS RECREATION USE OF PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, AND UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN 1946-1956 AND FORECASTS OF DEMAND TO 2050. Plumas Notional Forest Upper Feather River Basin Total Visitor-Days Total Visitor-Days Less Highway Users Total Visitor-Days Less Highway Users 315,390 a/ ~- '^ 211,480 a/ 744,543 a/ 616,200 a/ 3,199,000 b/ 2,060,000 b/ 1,476,000 7,258,000 4,930,000 2,316,000 12,130,000 7,735,000 3,212,000 16,880,000 10,730,000 4,311,000 23,240,000 14,400,000 5,525,000 28,740,000 18,460,000 8,297,000 42,430,000 27,710,000 11,380,000 55,440,000 38,020,000 14,873,000 72,670,000 49,680,000 18,521,000 87,810,000 61,860,000 22,391,000 103,100,000 74,550,000 26,381,000 118,100,000 88,110,000 30,000,000 132,000,000 102,000,000 a/ Plumas National Forest, Annual Statistical Reports of Recreation Visits, for years shown, b/ Based on field survey of Existing Recreation Areas and Facilities; 1956 and expanded to Include "winter sports", other forest areas users, and highway users. 40 Year Total Visitor-Days 1946 402, 390 a/ 1950 342,520 a/ 1955 1,421,851 a/ 1956 1,181,200 a/ 1960 2,640,000 1965 4,515,000 1970 6,286,000 1975 8,387,000 1980 10,670,000 1990 15,660,000 2000 20,090,000 2010 26,370,000 2020 31,500,000 2030 36,660,000 2040 41,500,000 2050 45,000,000 The projections of state-wide recreation use trends show that by ultimate development (2050) total visitor-days will have increased over twelve-fold in California's national forests and nation- al parks. In addition, a similar increase in use can be reasonably assumed for other recreation areas outside forest boundaries. Total state-wide demand could exceed, perhaps by several times, the forecasted 450,000,000 total visitor-days for National Forest and National Park land in California. Many existing recreation areas are presently overcrowded. New additional areas are needed to permit development of uncrowded, safe, healthful facilities in o desirable environment for present and future outdoor recreation use. The great recreation resources and scenic grandeur of the Upper Feather River Basin will continue to attract an increasing number of recreationists from ail parts of the state and nation. The forecast of ultimate recreation demand in the Upper Feather River Basin is well over three times the combined visitor-day use of all California national forests and national parks In 1955. On the basis of past growth, however, the forecast appears conservative. It may be difficult to visualize this increase in terms of the present development of the Upper Basin, but a cen- tury ago the present use of California's recreation resources may have appeared equally incon- ceivable. The graph on page 42 shows the growth and forecasts of state population and recreation visitor- days for California's national forests and national parks, Plumas National Forest, and the Upper Feather River Basin. Future outdoor recreation demand will depend on many presently unpredictable factors. The key factor, however, will be the actual development of the "ultimate" potentials. The next sections of this report deal with the determination of the possible, desirable and practical "ultimate" re- creation use of the Upper Feather River Basin. 41 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 - 2.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20) 42 PART !il. RECREATION RESOURCES OF THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN The forecasts of recreation use of the Upper Feather River Basin, developed In Part II, are a measure of future demand based on the projection of past trends. This demand must be evaluated against the "ultimate" potential of the basin, or its supply of recreation resources, in terms of the recreation planning principles, objectives and standards. This part will deal with resources and the following part with the standards and principles developed to protect and enhance these resources. RECREATION RESOURCES OF THE UPPER BASIN The recreation resources of the Upper Basin are described by hydrographic areas In the sub- sequent paragraphs. Hydrogrophic Area No. 42 - North Fork, Feather River This hydrographic area contains slightly over one-third of the area in the upper basin and Is the largest of the five hydrographic areas In the basin. It covers the entire western side of the basin, and includes 94.8 percent of the water surface area within the basin. Perhaps this Is why almost one-half of the recreation facilities in the basin are located In this area and these facilities received approximately 55 percent of the basin's visitor-days use In 1956. About 0.15 percent of the gross area is developed in recreation facilities. The present de- velopment includes all types of facilities, but camping and picnicking account for over half the use. Almost 70 percent of all camping and over half of the summer home facilities and use within the basin occur in this hydrographic area. Existing water developments consist of Lake Almanor, Bucks Lake, Butt Valley and Mountain Meadows Reservoirs with a combined water area of 37,481 acres. These lakes and other fac- ilities on the North Fork of the Feather River are owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 43 I and are used for hydroelectric power generation. Unfortunately, the water released from these operations have not always been compatible with good stream-flow maintenance prac- tices. As a consequence, the recreation attraction of the North Fork of the Feather River as a fishable stream has been reduced. The resort operators and long-time residents of the area report that this river was, at one time, one of the best trout streams in the country. Fluctua- tion of the water level of the reservoirs resulting from power operation schedules has not appreciably lessened recreation use of the larger reservoirs, but neither has it increased re- creation attraction. Fluctuation of stored water behind diversion dams, lack of developable land, and extreme slopes of the canyon walls preclude development and use of these areas for recreation purposes . The North Fork area is accessible from U.S. Highway 40 Alternate, the "Feather River Route", which is cut into the steep slopes of the Feather River Canyon from O'.oville to Quincy. State Route 8? connects U.S. 40 Alternate with Lake Almanor and the towns of Westwood and Chester. The northern portion of the area is traversed by State Route 36 from Susanville to Red Bluff via Chester and Westwood. Other county. Forest Service, and private roads pro- vide access to almost every part of the area. Caribou Wild Area and the major portion of Lassen Volcanic National Park are located in the northernmost portion of the North Fork area, and much of the remaining portion is within Lassen and Plumas National Forest boundaries. The area has long been used for timber produc- tion and this is expected to continue as timber is harvested on a sustained-yield basis. The major sawmill in the area is located at Chester. For many years, Westwood was practically a "company town" housing employees of the Red River Lumber Company. With the closing of this plant, Westwood virtually became a ghost town. Recently the old houses were sold and 44 it has become a thriving summer home community almost overnight, and is now faced with problems of growth. The North Fork area has many recreation attractions. There is variety in topography, vege- tation, elevation and climate In combinations to satisfy almost all outdoor recreation interests. There are remote rugged scenic areas and large easily accessible areas suitable for intensive development. The area includes the proposed sites of Swayne and Humbug reservoirs which ore evaluated in this report and a large portion of the authorized Oroville Reservoir. Realization of maximum recreation opportunities in this area will depend considerably on the maintenance of suitable wildlife areas and fishable streams. Good stream flow maintenance programs must be adopted and followed. Existing water areas are capable of absorbing addi- tional use, but some improvements are required. For example, the snags in Lake Almanor are a definite hazard to boating and water skiing activities and should be removed. All of the water areas should be controlled to permit oil recreationists to fulfill their interests, whether it be pleasure boating, water skiing, fishing or swimming. Hydrographic Area No. 43 - East Branch, Feather River Second largest in area, the East Branch covers the central and northeastern portion of the basin and includes Indian and Spanish Creek drainage areas. Presently developed recreation areas are centered around Greenville and Quincy, the county seat of Plumas County. This development consists primarily of permanent and summer homes and hotel, motel, resort and commercial facilities catering to persons traveling U.S. Highway 40 Alternate and State Route 89. These facilities receive about one-fifth of the recreation use in the basin. The area does not presently contain any major recreation attractions, but the presently de- veloped areas are located within short driving time of almost any other area in the basin 45 and serve as a "base of operations" for many recreationists . Easily accessible from Quincy are Bucks Lake ancJ the rugged Middle Fork canyon at the proposed Turntable or Nelson Point reservoir sites. There is considerable potential for recreation Jevtlopment within the East Branch area. Plan- ned developments include the authorized Antelope Valley, Dixie Refuge and Abbey Bridge re- creation reservoirs, and the study areas of Squaw Queen and Meadow Valley reservoirs, and Genesee Pork. There is a variety of topography, cover, elevation and climate in the area which create an attractive background for recreation development and use. There is ample lend suitable for development of all kinds of facilities, including possible v/inter sports develop- ment around Spanish Peak. Wildlife is abundant and many streams in the area are fishable. Stream flows from operations of the authorized and the the reservoirs under study would be desirable for increasing the fishing potential. Hydrographic Area No. 44 - Sierra Valley Hunting is the major recreation attraction of this area, and there is some scattered recreation development in the mountains surrounding the valley. The town of Calp'ne is developing into a retirement center and is showing signs of continued growth. Developed recreation facilities in Sierra Valley received less than 2 percent of the basin's visitor-day use in 1956. The area is easily accessible from U.S. Highway 393, the "Eastside Sierra Route", via U.S. Highway 40 Alternate, and from Lake Tahoe, Donner Summit, and Yuba Pass via State Routes 89 and 49. The ease of motor vehicle.' access to nearby recreation attractions plus increased pressure of use in these other areas will unquestionably stimulate recreation development. Agriculture is the predominant land use in the valley and this land is primarily in private owner- ship. Remaining areas are owned by Plumas and Tahoe National Forests. 46 Existing water development is on a small scale and is related to the irrigation and drainage of agricultural land. The authorized Frenchman and Grizzly reservoir projects are proposed for irrigation purposes, but they can be expected to receive recreation use proportional to the effects of water level fluctuation brought about by irrigation water release schedules. Hydrographic Area No. 45 - Middle Fork, Feather River The Lakes Basin area at the eastern end of this hydrographic area Is one of the primary recrea- tion attractions of the Upper Feather River Basin. No less outstanding in attraction, although undeveloped and somewhat inaccessible by motor vehicle, is the rugged Middle Fork canyon, running from Sloct to ths confluence of the Middle and North Forks of the Feather River above Oroville. This hydrographic area received almost one-third of the visitor-days use of developed recreation facilities in the Upper Basin. The upper portion of the Middle Fork canyon jpens into Long Valley, Mohawk Valley and continues along Grizzly Creek to Grizzly Volley. These valleys are connected by and easily accessible from U. S. 40 Alternate, State Route 89 and the Western Pacific Railroad's trans-continental route. The Middle Fork canyon, however, is accessible by motor vehicle only at Nelson Point, Mllsap Bar and Bidwell Bar. Access to other portions of the canyon is limited to jeep, hiking and horseback trails. The Lakes Basin area has a long and colorful history beginning with the gold rush days. Several old mines exist around Johnsville, although mining activity has virtually stopped and the mines are deteriorating to the point of being unsafe. The area has been a popular resort area for over a quarter of a century. Recreation attractions include historic Gold Lake and numerous other smaller natural lakes and the Eureka Bowl winter sports area, which is being acquired for State Park development. Although the area is economically dependent 47 on recreation use, the residents ore concerned with the possibility that intensive recreation development would destroy the quiet atmosphere which gives the area much of its charm and attraction. There is good reason for this concern, and care should be exerted to insure the preservation of this atmosphere. Bloirsden, locale of the Feather River Inn, and Graeagle, Johnsville, C romberg and Sloat are rapidly developing recreation centers. The City of Portola at the upper end of the Middle Fork unit has been economically related to the Western Pacific Railroad. But here, as in the other communities, recreation is gaining in importance. The construction of State Water Plan projects will provide a definite boost to Portola's future growth and development. Hydrograpbic Area No. 46 - South Fork, Feather River Located in the southern central portion of the upper basin, this hydrograpbic area contains less than 5 percent of the land area in the basin. Developed recreation facilities received less than 3 percent of the basin's visltor-dcys usei in 1956. The area is not served by improved major roads and access is somewhat difficult. Included in this area is Lexington Hill, site of the world's first competitive ski race which took place in February, 1869. This event was sponsored by the Alturas Snowshoe Club, which presently operates a rope-tow at this historic site and has revived interest in the development of the area's winter sports potential. The area is also rich in history of the gold rush days that influenced much of its present development. Construction of proposed water developments along the Middle Fork of the Feather River and the authorized Oroville Reservoir may force the improvement of access roads. Construction of water projects in the South Fork basin would also contribute considerably to the potential recreation use of the area. The Upper Feather River Basin includes Hydrograpbic Areas 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46, described above . 48 These areas pius three additional hydrographic areas: No. 41 - Paradise, No. 48 - Challenge, and No. 49 - Wyandotte, constitute the full Upper Feather River Service Area. These latter three units are combined under the heading of Foothill Areas and, although not included in the Uppsr Basin survey of existing recreation areas and facilities, they presently receive con- siderable recreation use. This use is expected to continue at an accelerated rate with the construction of Oroville Reservoir, Foothill Areas The Foothill Areas cover slightly over one-tenth of the total service area and include the City of Oroville and several unincorporated communities. Irrigated agriculture is the pri- mary land use and this use will increase with abundant irrigation water made available from water development. Rapid development of summer homes and motels around Oroville and Paradise reflects the probable future recreation use of the Foothill Areas. The foothills are the transition zone between the recreation attractions of the Upper Basin and the metropolitan population centers in the Sacramento Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area and will continue to be used as major points of entry into the Upper Basin. MEASUREMENT OF POTENTIAL RECREATION USE The analysis of the reservoir areas and the Middle Fork of the Feather River which will be dis- cussed in Part V shows the effect of water development in increasing the recreation potential and use of particular areas. The development of these water projects and the resulting enhancer ment of downstream areas will cause a similar increase to radiate to other areas throughout the Uppsr Basin, the full Service Area, and perhaps even beyond the boundaries of these areas. 49 Procedures and methods of estimating the additional use beyonJ the immediate reservoir site areas were discussed and reviewed with the District Forest Ranger and his staff, county offi- cials and private individuals. To determine possible recreation use, the entire Service Area was examined using Forest Service data, maps, aerial photographs and stereoscopic equip- ment in the Plumas National Forest Headquarters In Q'jincy, All areas which appeared to be suitable for types of recreation use were plotted on U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle maps at scales of 1:62,500 ond 1:24,000. These areas were measured, recreation standards applied, and the total number of recreation units, capacity people and probable visitor-day use tenta- tively determined. It was concluded after this analysis that recreation developnent of all possible areas would not be compatible with the timber cn-i water producing ourpose of the Upper Basin and would destroy those features which make it attractive for outdoor recreation. Excessive amounts of land would be removed from timber production and op>?n space would be unduly reduced. Utilizing the illustrative site de»^eiopment plans, discussed in the next part, general recrea- tion areas were defined and general standards deterrrnned to estimate the potential recreation use of the full Upper Basin and Service Arec v/ith and without water development. The method thus developed and finally used reflects the planning principles, objectives and standards used In the preparation of the site development plans. This general planning approach assures balanced land uses and the reservotion of ample open, undeveloped space which accommodates relatively intensive recreation use with such uses as timber, water, and grazing in the Upper Basin. General Recreation Area Classifications The recreation resources of the Upper Sasin can be classified on the basis of recreation attrac- 50 tlon in terins of accessibility, phvsicjl feuti.res, existing jmJ p .tentiul v^uter development and natural rssoLTcs iranagerient objectivt-s . These clossificaticns ure described below. o Nature Reserves - Rerr. .te ureus jf major recreation attrjcrion which ure inac- cessible by vthicle because jf terrain onJ rernr.te areas of minor recreation attraction which are generally cccessiirle by vehicle c:;nst:tute this classi- fication. Retintljn and praservatl.n ^f the present character should be the recreation objective of these areas consistent with fjrest anJ range rnunge- r:ent objectives. There would be o minimum jx recreation development in public picnic and canp facilities. Riding ctnd hiking trails would be the principle means :if traverse and access; v/here vehicle access is possible it would be c^>ntrolled and not perr-.iitted to necjme extensive. Nature re- serves are siirllcr In charocter to primitive or wilderness areas except for size, vehicle access end roads. EKcept for i^m.e sfnall areas, such as por- tions of the Middle F^rk of the Feather River, the basin is presently acces- sible and traversable by vehicle. There is no single area in the basin which con be called a true primitive or wilderness area. o Natural Areas - This classification consists of areas suitable for less intensive recreation developm.ent because of access and terrain limitations which are not OS great as for nature reserves. Possessing recreation attractions of var- ious kinds, these areas are adjacent to or provide access to major recreation attractions, although limitations of terrain ore controlling. All types of re- creation facilities are included but at lower density and lesser intensity than for the following classifications. Intensive development is discouraged to pre- serve the open "outdoor" character and scenic beauty. 51 o River and Stream Areas - Areas with rivers and live streams accessible by motor vehicle characterize this category. Good stream flow maintenance is necessary for recreation attraction. Some small lake basins are also included where it appeared that some fishing would be possible, and where intensive recreation use is not justified. All types of recreation facilities are included, and the development governed by the ability of the water area to absorb recreation use. o Lake and Reservoir Areas - These areas are capable of intensive recreation develop- ment and use resulting from the attraction to bodies of water. In every case the areas are, or will be, accessible to vehicles and boats. All types of recreation facilities are included in proper balance as permitted by terrain. The open "outdoor" character is retained through design and density standards and emphasis is placed on public use of shoreline and water areas. Such areas will attract recreationists to the other recrea- tion classification areas in the basin. o Urban Areas - Areas with urban characteristics and use, house the resident population, and which are generally the centers of trade and commercial entertainment, are in- cluded in this classification. Intensive commercial recreation is foreseen for these tireas, but camp and picnic and summer home areas are included in relation to the other surrounding recreation attractions. o Winter Sports Areas - These areas have suitable snowfall, climate, terrain and are accessible by vehicle during the winter season. Such areas overlap the other recrea- tion classification areas. Balanced recreation use with the inclusion of other recrea- tion facilities is desirable during the summer season. It is anticipated that some nearby resorts, urban areas and summer home areas will be utilized as a result of the develop- ment of winter sports areas. 52 In addition \o the preceding recreation area classifications, the classification of agricultural and open areas was recognized. These areas are generally more suitable for other non-recreation uses or ore not suitable for recreation use be- cause of lack of attraction, land ownership patterns, or conflict with the best land use practices. General Recreation Area Standards Sample general recreation areas, based on the classifications defined above, were mapped, measured, and compared with the developable areas of the reservoirs and the Middle Fork. This comparison resulted in the derivation of the general recreation standards which ore shown in Table 8, expressed as percentages of developable recreation area for each re- creation area classification and per cent distribution of that developable area by type of recreation facility. Site development and use standards, discussed in Part IV, were applied to these areas to estimate the ultimate potential development and use. 8. PERCENT OF DEVELOPABLE RECREATION AREA OF EACH GENERAL RECREATION CLASSIFICATION AND PERCENT DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF RECREATION FACILITY AT ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT, YEAR 2050. General Recreation Area Classification Nature Reserves Natural Areas River & Stream Areas Reservoir Areas Urban Areas Winter Sports Areas Percent distribution of developable Developable area by type of recreation facil ity recreation Camp Org. Summer area percent Total & picnic zation Resort home 0.0225 100 100 - - - 3.5000 100 15 11 19 55 7.0000 100 15 11 14 60 25.0000 100 10 11 7 72 20.0000 100 10 - 30 60 0.6000 100 - - 100 - 53 It should be noted that the amounts of land for intensive recreation development are rela- tively lev/ in proportion to the gross areas of each general classification. The areas not intensively developed for recreation would provide the necessary open space between re- creation areas and preserve the outdoor recreation character. In addition, the undeveloped land would receive other multi-purpose uses such as timber production on a sustained-yield basis, grazing and other similar uses consistent v^ith conservation and forest land management principles and practices. In urban areas, the land not developed for recreation would be used for residential, commercial, industrial and public facilities as required by both the resident and seasonal populations. In addition to developed facilities, the U.S. Forest Service uses two other recreation use categories - highways, roads and water routes and other forest areas. The nature of these classifications is such that estimates of potential visitor-days use intensity in terms of "safe, desirable, uncrowded and healthful" use is dif- ficult if not impossible. Historically, these categories have accounted for the major portion of "outdoor" recreation use, and estimates of ultimate potential use of the Upper Basin would not be complete without including them. Presumably, highway and other forest area users are either permanent residents of the area or those who recreate in tne area but do not use the developed facilities (or who may use de- veloped facilities on privately owned land and hence are not included as users of facilities in Forest Service tabulations). It is possible that users of developed facilities in national forests are duplicated to some extent in the recorded visitor-days use figures for these two categories. The recreation activities of users of other forest areas include swimming, hiking, and gather- ing forest products for pleasure; but the primary activities are hunting and fishing. Safe use 54 for hunting ultimately should be determined by the ability of the game to replenish, the number of hunters who can safely shoot game without iiarrning each other or property and not destroy the natural habitat. Safe use of fishable streams probably would be determined by the number of anglers who can fish the stream without destroying its fishable use and character . With the increased recreation attraction of the Upper Feather River Basin resulting from water or other recreation development, the use of other forest areas will increase accord- ingly. However, unless properly controlled, this use can pose a serious threat to manage- ment and conservation principles and objectives. Campers should be required to use developed campgrounds and "squatter" camps in the undeveloped portions of the upper basin should be prohibited, consistent with the management and conservation objectives and principles. Present trends indicate that potential use of other forest areas might equal about 42 percent of total visitor-days use less highway users. It was pointed out in Part II that highway users, or persons driving through forest areas to enjoy thD iceneiy and environment, constitute a major portion of the total recreation use. The problem of what consitutes safe, healthful, desirable highway use has perplexed traffic engineers, high- way engineers, traffic enforcement agencies, pedestrians and the drivers themselves. If present trends continue, this problem will become even more perplexing. The available research in- dicates that at least a partial solution to this problem may be found in providing properly plan- ned routes capable of carrying the traffic loads related to the present or future land uses - the real "traffic generators" . It is assumed that these requirements will be met in the Upper Feather River Basin to permit safe accommodation of the anticipated highway users and other recreation- ists. It is estimated that potential use of highways, roads and water routes in the Service Area 55 will approximate 33 percent of total visitor-days. It Is recognized, however, that the actual percentage at ultimate development will be affected considerably by development and exten- sion of transportation routes and possible improvement of the modes of transportation which cannot be foreseen over the course of the next century. 56 PART IV. RECREATION PLANNING PRINCIPLES, OBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS FOR THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN The prime purpose of the Upper Feather River Basin should be recognized as the controlling factor in the ultimate development of its recreation resources. The character, geographic features and existing land use of the upper basin - its elevation and rugged topography, cli- mate, rainfall, snowfall and its water and timber producing ability - unmistakably character- ise the Upper Feath er River Basin as a water and timber producing area. The preservation of this purpose makes the upper basin attractive for outdoor recreation use - the lakes, live streams, big trees, mountains, clean air and open space. Development of recreation opportunities will require emphasis on safeguarding soil, vegetation, water and air. Prior to the Northeastern Counties investigation estimation of the "ultimate" recreation poten- tial of a large watershed area had not been attempted. The methods used in the Northeastern Counties study were developed to cover several watershed areas and the resulting standards were related to the entire 15-county area as a whole. Based on the knowledge gained in the Northeastern Counties study, a review of other possible methods and experience gained in the field survey, certain planning principles, objectives and standards were developed to reflect the special recreation characteristics of the Upper Feather River Basin. These principles and standards were applied in measuring potential re- creation use, using a general land use planning approach, similar to that used by the Depart- ment of Water Resources in estimating irrigable lands and irrigation benefits. 1 . Appendix A of Bulletin Number 58, Northeastern Counties Investigation, op. cit. 57 Analysis of past and present recreation in light of future demand provides a basis for develop- ing the planning principles, objectives, criteria and standards which are necessary in deter- mining the desirable ultimate recreation use of the Upper Feather River Basin. Experience and knowledge of the basin acquired in the course of the investigation shows that various areas of the basin have similar recreation attractions and capabilities for recreation development. Water, in lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams, is the greatest single factor in attracting and influenc- ing recreation in the basin. Other factors Include scenic beauty, climate, elevation, tree cover, available water supply, motor vehicle accessibility, and relationship to urban centers. Future recreation development will continue to be influenced by these factors. RECREATION PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES Planning for recreation facilities and projecting recreation uses in the Upper Feather River Basin must recognize the basin as a watershed and a timber producing area» These purposes are related and interdependent. All of the land n the basin contributes to this purpose; and all of the land has an appropriate recreation use in full compatibility with this purpose — provided such use does not destroy the watershed, timber-producing ability of the land and thereby destroy the recreation resource. Planning for recreation must also recognize and not conflict with general, long-term objectives of promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare for the present and future Inhabitants of the basin, the state and the nation. Physical development programs, therefore, must be related to the prime purpose of the basin by varying intensities of use determined by land characteristics and the ability of the land to with- stand the pressure of use. They must also be within the limits of what Is desirable, safe and healthful for continued enjoyment of "outdoor" recreation. The following clearly points out 58 the effects of excessive recreation use on public health, safety and property which the U.S. Forest Service learned from practical experience: Overcrowding of the developed areas and the resultant use of unimproved areas en- danger the water supplies of nearby towns and cities; constitute a fire threat to val- uable stands of timber, and a threat to streams and lakes. Spread of human disease and forest fires can result from these conditions. The potential damage to public health and public (and private) property could easily exceed the cost of adequate sanitation and care at public (or private) recreation areas. A single disastrous fire by one 'roadside camper' who couldn't find space in a developed area in the big timber country has cost $500,000 to suppress, and in addition caused damages to timber and soil, and watersheds running into millions of dollars. Sound management practices and programs conserving timber resources and achieving fish and wildlife enhancement add to the recreation attractiveness of the basin and set the limits on plans of development and on the "ultimate" potential for recreation use. Potential recreation development and use should be compatible with the following management objectives: (1) to obtain maximum production of water from the snowpock area; (2) to obtain maximum produc- tion of forest products for harvest on a sustained bases; and (3) to maintain or Improve forage production for wildlife or livestock on lands unsuited for timber. From these concepts, defining the basic planning goals and objectives which are of foremost importance in the Upper Feather River Basin, certain general planning principles were de- veloped: o Recreation use and development plans must be related to the best manage- ment principles to assure preservation of natural beauty and recreation re- sources through controlled densities and open-space reservation; prevention and control of air and water pollution; prevention and control of fire; and prevention of soil erosion by relating land uses to land characteristics and use capabilities. 1. U. S. Forest Service, Operation Outdoors, p. 4-5, 1957. 2. U.S. Forest Service, Region 5, Handbook, Management Direction for the Westside Sierra Subregion (Westside Intermediate Zone), 1946, p. 26. 59 o Development of recreation facilities should be staged and based on an over- all plan to meet adequately the anticipated demand, prevent overcrowding of facilities that are provided, and to discourage use of undeveloped areas lack- ing proper sanitary facilities and fire control . o Water development programs in the upper basin should be planned, constructed, and administered to enhance the economy of the area with full recognition that recreation constitutes a major industry. o Balanced development to satisfy projected future needs must be considered in the proposed uses for each area, especially those adjacent to proposed reser- voirs. Best land use must control projected development in any single area, but the overall developmental plan should be so balanced as to enhance the attractiveness of the area to recreationists of many interests. o Recreational areas should be planned to take advantage of the natural features of each watershed as well as those of the reservoir areas. o Recognizing the economic impact and the demands which will be made upon local governments to provide services, developmental plans should provide for a balanced between private (either complete or "leasehold") and public owner- ship of recreation facilities available for public use to enhance the local tax base to enable local governments to finance the services they must provide. o Public recreation facilities should be planned to contribute to repayment of costs. CRITERIA FOR LOCATING RECREATION FACILITIES Most existing recreation uses in the basin have developed as the result of a number of phys- ical, economic and social factors. Examination of existing uses related to the planning goals, objectives and principles provided a "framework" for the preparation of criteria gov- erning or influencing the development of specific types of recreation areas and facilities in the basin. These criteria are the basis for development standards which are applied In meas- uring potential recreation use, and in designing reservoir recreation areas. It should be noted, however, that these criteria do not preclude reasonable revisions In the final loca- tions of specific uses. But In no case should recreation development be in violation of sound management practices. The following paragraphs include the general criteria used in locating specific types of recreation facilities. 60 Camping and Picnicking - Units should be a minimum of 100 feet apart in order to preserve the forest cover, provide privacy and a sense of being in the "great outdoors". Water sys- tem and sanitation facilities are required. Areas should be easily accessible to existing or future roads or trails. Terrain in site areas should not exceed 20 percent slope and a 10 per- cent slope is preferable. Area requirements should be based on provision of uncrowded, safe healthful conditions. Densities should be controlled to avoid overcrowding, either by doubl- ing up at units or by persons camping In between units, to prevent damage to the ground cover, destruction of screening shrubs and young trees, excessive ground compaction, the menace of dust, and the use of sanitary facilities in excess of capacity. Site areas should be related to compatible recreation ureas such as wildlife areas, primitive areas and, in some cases, organization carnps. l.:)cation on rivers, streams and lakes is preferable, but not neces- sary in each cose. They sh:>uld olso be related to "control" and service installations to facili- tate operation, maintenance, and administration . Organization Camps- A water system, sanitation facilities and easy access by present or future roads are required. Terrain in site areas should not exceed 20 percent slope, but relatively flat areas should be available for play and recreation activities. Locations on or within short distances of streams and lakes with opportunities for swimming and possible boating are prefer- able, but not necessary in each case. Organization camps should be separate from other types of facilities where conflicts in purpose and intensity of use may arise, but they should be eas- ily accessible to foresf areas and other areas of recreation attraction. Resorts* - These facilities can serve as control points, and provide other commercial facilities such as restaurants, bars and amusements. Limited general retail facilities, groceries, sporting * Includes hotels and motels. 61 goods, gasoline and oil, and other services may be either Incorporated or located nearby. Location on a stream, river or lake is desirable but not mandatory. A potable water supply Is essential, either from underground sources, spring, or distribution system, and sanitary dis- posal of waste is necessary. Site areas should have buildable slopes not exceeding 20 percent. Consideration should be given to other recreation facilities which would Increase normal site areas such as golf courses, equestrian facilities and possible winter sports facilities. Adequate off-street parking should be provided to serve the needs of not only those people staying at the resort but also for the people who will seek the additional commercial facilities that may be provided. Easy accessibility to roads and major circulation routes are necessary. String loca- tion of resorts along roads or highways should be prevented to avoid traffic hazards and the des- truction of the area's natural beauty. Resorts con be compatibly related to permanent and sum- mer home areas, commercial areas, winter sport; areas and, with proper design, to camp and picnic areas by providing service and goods to these areas. Resorts are desirable within urban areas provided suitable sites are available adjacent to compatible land uses. Permanent and Summer Homes - Site areas not exceeding slopes of 35 percent can be utilized. (Slopes of less than 5 to 10 percent may have greater potential for other recreation uses). Sites should be adequate to maintain privacy and the feeling of openness. "Scatteratlon" should be avoided since this results In excessive and unreasonable costs in extending roads and services and complicates timber management programs. Location on a stream or lake is desirable but not necessary and should not be permitted at the expense of public use. A potable water sup- ply is necessary, and disposal of waste by sanitary means is required. Septic tanks, chemical systems, small disposal plant or privies can be used (as permitted by Forest Service in the case of U . S. Forest Land, or county health department, in the case of private land). Summer homes should be related to resorts, commercial areas and recreation attractions and easily accessible to existing or future roads. 62 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Research in outdoor recreation use and practices, the recreation survey of the basin and the criteria for locating recreation facilities provided the basis for deriving site development standards. The normal capacity of a "recreation unit" should be based on the average size of party. The overage size of party using National Park and Forest Service outdoor recreation facilities is 2.3 persons; and for California State Parks the average size of party ranges from 3.7 to 4.3 persons. The U.S. Forest Service considers a family group of five a desirable capacity per 2 unit and uses that figure to calculate safe capacity of camp and picnic areas. The average capacity for four persons per recreation unit was adopted for this investigation and applied to all types of facilities as a reasonably conservative standard for safe, uncrowded use. Experience and research demonstrate that there are minimum, maximum and optimum density standards that can be applied to development areas. For example, camp and picnic units (or family units) should be spaced no closer than 100 feet apart, or 5 per acre in staggered arrange- ment in the forest areas and in more Intensive areas no closer than 50 feet apart or 10 per acre. Practical per acre site development density standards based on average conditions are shown in Table 9. The site density standards must be applied In relation to a desirable pattern of development and overall use density considerations. It is generally recognized and accepted that scattered TT Kenneth Decker, Natural~Resources of Northwestern California (Preliminary Report Appendix), June, 1957, p. 20^ 2. U.S. Forest Service, Operation Outdoors, 1957, p. 11. 63 development is harmful and undesirable from the standpoint of aesthetics, economics in con- struction, maintenance, and administration and contrary to good forest and land management conservation principles. Cluster standards were developed based on economy derived In con- struction and administration to prevent both scatteratlon and overcrowding. These standards are shown in Table 10. The minimum cluster is considered to be adequate for economical development, while the max- imum cluster is a reasonable limit to avoid overcrowding and maintain the natural areas. In actual development, design considerations would govern the exact cluster standard or modifi- cation that would be used. The rugged topography and forest cover will provide natural bar- riers helping to prevent sprawling, congested or over-Intensified development. 9- SITE DEVELOPMENT PER ACRE DENSITY STANDARDS BY TYPE OF RECREATION FAC- ILITY AT ULTIMATE DEVELOPM.ENT, YEAR 2050. Recreation Use Camp and Picnic Camp and Picnic - Genesee Park Organization Camp Resort, hotel, motel Summer home Units per net C( apaclty People per Developed acre ne it Developed acre 5 20 10 40 1.25 5 2.5 10 1.0 4 10. MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM', RECREATION UNIT STANDARDS (CLUSTERS) BY TYPE OF RECREATION FACILITY AT ULTIM^ATE DEVELOPMENT, YEAR 2050. Recreation Use Camp and Picnic Organization Camp 25 Resort, hotel, motel Summer Home Summer home clusters should be large enough to justify the provision of services, and num- ber and size of areas permitted should be based on the ability of the land to support them and maintain the "outdoor" character. 64 Site Arei 3 (acres) Units pel r Cluster per CI uster Minimum Maximum M inimum Maximum 25 50 5 10 25 100 20 125 6 100 2.4 40 1 * 1 * RECREATIONUSt STANDARDS Potential recreation use in terms of visitor-days requires determination of the number of days each different type of facility would be used in relation to its normal capacity (the total number of people that can be accommodated at one time). In the preliminary recreation studies for the Department of Water Resources, prior to the actual field survey, porenriol use was deterinined by multiplying a length of season (the total number of days a recreation faciiiiy would be available for use) by its normal capacity to obtain capacity visitor-days use. This v/os then multiplied by on estimated percentage of capacity use (50 percv::nr) to give a conservative probable annual visitor-days use. Any length of season not greater than 365 days can be applied to estimate annual visitor- days use provided it is adjusted by a reasonable percentage of capacity use. During the course of the survey of the basin, interviews of resort owners indicated that lengths of season in the basin are affected by many immeasurable factors, but are primarily controlled by: o Weather - the number of days suitable for outdoor travel and recreation use. o Administrative Policies - the time and length of hunting and fishing seasons; the vacation periods permitting recreation use; and the school year. In the case of privately owned facilities, a resort operator, for example, may make his re- sort dvailable for use only during the period of time that his seasonal liquor license is valid. The length of season for organization camps is controlled by administrative policy which re- quires advance registration so that efficient operation and high percentage of use Is achieved, usually during a short season. The length of season for summer homes is determined to some extent by the school vacation period and "long week-ends" and holidays. Many retired people live in "summer" homes the full year, and this practice is expected to become more prevalent in the future. 65 Average lengths of season and percentages of capacity use for the Upper Feather River Basin in 1956 obtained from the survey of existing recreation areas and facilities in the basin ore '. Average length Percent of Recreation Use of season (days) Capacity Use Camping and picnicking 175.4 66.1 Organization camps 74.8 95.1 Resorts, hotels, motels 230.0 57.1 Summer homes 90.2 46.1 All facilities 91.2 60.3 Camping and picnicking provide perhaps the most realistic measure of the "outdoor" length of season. These public facilities are usually available whenever people desire to use them, un- less the intensity of use becomes so great as to impair sanitation and safety conditions requir- ing closure. Many resorts, hotels and motels presently operate at full capacity from one to three months during the summer season. Several of the hotels and motels stay open all year but operate on a limited basis during the winter months. During the 175-day camping and picnicking season these "indoor" facilities operate at a much higher percent use than shown above . Analysis and evaluation of available U.S. Forest Service recreation data and research ap- plicable to the basin resulted in the adoption of a use factor which can be applied to meas- ure the overall ultimate recreation visitor-days use. The use foctor combines the annuo) length of season and the percentage of capacity use into one factor. It is a measure of the intensity of annual use and averages the effects of peak and low use periods. Intensities of visitor-day use compiled from available records and survey are contained in Table A-6 in the Appendix. Examination of these data indicate certain pressures of recreation use which 1 . John Zivnuska and Ann Shiedler, "A Proiection of the Recreation Use of Public Forest Areas In Callfornis to 1965". Forest Science , Vol. 3, No, 3, September, 1957. 66 influence decisions on the provision of future use. The Forest Service states that " . . .the capacity of camp and picnic areas should be calculated on the basis of five persons per family unit and that the safe capacity should be 85 percent of maximum capacity. Use of such volume can be accommodated without damage to the area and will enable people to enjoy the forest environment. On this basis one family sized unit is needed to accommodate 425 man days (visitor-days) use in a 100-day season." ' In effect, this means a use factor of 85 can be considered as a safe, desirable, healthful, uncrowded 2 intensity of use for camping and picnicking facilities. Safe use intensities of summer homes and organization camps can be best controlled by the density of development. The available trends shov/ that the intensity of use for summer homes has been steadily increasing in California and this trend is expected to continue with the im- provement of social and economic conditions. The intensity of use of organized camps is also expected to increase ultimately. Many resort, hotel and motel operators in the Upper Basin complain that their facilities are not presently used to an optimum intensity. It is expected that with the development of planned reservoirs and winter spxjrts areas the Intensity of use will be much higher over a longer recreation season. Determination of future winter sports use intensities presents a different problem since exist- ing intensities are relatively low and areas for winter sports throughout California are in the process of rapid development. The facilities under construction for the 1960 Olympic Gomes at Squaw Valley are expected to stimulate winter sports development and use of other nearby 1. U.S. Forest Service, Operation Outdoors. 1957, p. 13. 2. The use factor of 85 was used as on index to determine percentages of adequacy or in- adequacy of existing camping and picnicking facilities in Part II. 67 areas such as the Eureka Bowl area near Johnsville. Trends do not adequately reflect the above anticipated conditions so that estimates of future winter sports use intensities in the basin may appear to be high. Safe winter sports use will depend primarily on accessibility, adequate snow removal, provision of appropriate off-highway parking areas, shelter facili- ties and safety equipment, and proper enforcement of safety measures. Table 11 includes the recreation use factors (recreation use intensities) and comparable lengths of season and percentages of capacity use by type of recreation facility which were developed and applied in obtaining the ultimate recreation use of the basin. The "probable" figures correspond to the trends tempered by considerations of safe, uncrowded use. In addition, they ore considered to be conservative and therefore reasonable figures for such long range projections as ore used in this study. The "minimum" figures are comparable to those used in previous studies for the Department of Water Resources. They are considered to be ultra-con- servative • 11. USE FACTORS, LENGTHS OF SEASON AND PERCENTAGES OF CAPACITY USE BY TYPE OF RECREATION FACILITY AT ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT, YEAR 2050. Recreation Use Use Factor Length of Percent of Capacity Use Probable Minimum Season Probable Minimum. Camp & Picnic 85 57.5 115 73.9 50.0 Organization Camp 70 57.5 115 60.9 50.0 Resort, hotel, motel 90 57.5 115 78.3 50.0 Summer Home 45 22.5 115 39.1 19.6 Winter Sport 40 25.0 80 50.0 31.3 68 PART V. RECREATION USE OF RESERVOIR STUDY AREAS AND THE MIDDLE FORK OF THE FEATHER RIVER PcBt trends show that recreation use is affected by water development to such an extent that potential use of the study areas without additional water development would appear very small indeed. Water development would create much greater use by virtue of the vastly increased potential for use and the enhancement of the recreation attraction. With the assistance of the State Department of Fish and Game, estimates of present visitor- day use of each study area were developed as the beginning point for projections of poten- tial use. Present recreation use of these areas is small and almost entirely limited to hunting and fishing with practically no development of recreation facilities, as shown in Table 12. Most of the present use is in the "other forest areas" classification. 12. ESTIMATED PRESENT RECREATION USE IN RESERVOIR AREAS IN UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN, 1956„ Fishing Total Reservoir Area Hunting Authorized Projects: Grizzly Valley 700 Antelope Valley 500 Abbey Bridge 500 Dixie Refuge 500 Frenchman 1,000 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 600 Sheep Camp 500 Turntable 100 Meadow Valley 300 Swayne 400 Humbug 700 Genesee Valley 100 200 900 500 1,000 100 600 100 600 100 1,100 300 900 100 600 600 700 400 700 700 1,100 1,300 2,000 500 600 Total 5,900 4,900 10,800 Richvale Projects: Nelson Point 200 800 1,000 Clio 500 1,500 2,000 69 Economic evaluation of recreation develop;nent requires that benefits be based on visitoj'- doy use of the developable facilities for which custs are aetermlned. Use of developed facilities historically accounts for less than half :>f the total visitor-days, and the estimates of potential use of the study areas con be considered conservative in terms of the total use, which includes "other forest areus" ana "highway users" in addition to use of developable facilities. FUTURE RECREATION USE WITHOUT WATER DEVELOPMENT Estimates of potential visitor-Jay use of each study area without additional water develop- ment are required to provide a reasonable base f ^r determining the net increase in develop- ment and use which would result from reservoir construction = It is anticipated that without the construction of the dams and reservoirs the use of the study areas by hunters and fisher- men would increase each year provided the areas were properly managed to maintain fish and wildlife. Along with this increase, there is the likellho^a that there would be increased development one: use for other recreational activities . Liberal estimates of potential visitor- day use without additional water development were obtained by using the broad standards de- veloped in the Njrtheastem Counties Investigation (Bulletin No« 58, Appendix A). Ultimate recreoti jh jse without additional water development is expected to reach a mini- mum of 222, 30C annual visitor-day use by 2050 for the five authorized reservoir areas and most likely a probable annual use of 349,177 visitor-days. The resei-voir areas under study, excluding Swayne and Humbug, are expected to have an ultimate minimum and probable visitor-day annual use of 550,024 and 862,394, respectively. Total ultimate recreation use for all project areas, Including authorized, studied and Swayne and Humbug, would be a minimum of 945,006 and a probable 1,481,276 visitor-day annual use by 2050. The 70 proposed Richvale project areas of Nelson Point and Clio would hove a minimum and probable 220,017 and 345,645 total visitor-day annual use. Table 13 shows the minimum ultimate recreation visitor-day annual use for each reservoir area by type of recreation facil- ity estimated using the preliminary use standards developed in Appendix A of Bulletin 59. Table 14 shows the probable ultimate use estimated, based on the updated use standards de- veloped In Part IV. 13. ULTIMATE MINIMUM RECREATION VISITOR-DAYS ANNUAL USE OF RESERVOIR AREAS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT BY RECREATION FACILITY, 2050. Camp & Organization Summer Reservoir Area Picnic Camps Resorts Homes Total Authorized Projects: Grizzly Valley 54,280 865 4,320 12,060 71,525 Antelope Valley 34,040 446 3,024 7,560 45,070 Abbey Bridge 30,820 430 2,160 6,930 40,340 Dixie Refuge 23,184 313 2,073 5,220 30,790 Frenchman 26,220 345 2,160 5,850 34,575 Sub-total(l) 168,554 2,399 13,737 37,620 222,300 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 111,320 1,553 9,936 24,840 147,649 Sheep Camp 22,080 690 1,080 1,710 25,560 Turntable 66,240 863 5,940 14,760 87,803 Meadow Valley 112,240 2,070 10,004 25,200 149,514 Genesee Valley Park 105,340 1,380 9,288 23,490 139,498 Sub-total (2) 417,220 6,556 36,248 90,000 550,024 Swayne 81,926 1,035 9,384 18,324 110,669 Humbug 42,504 5,175 4,830 9,504 62,013 Sub-total (3) 124,430 6,210 14,214 27,828 172,682 Richvale Projects: Nelson Point 85,468 1,208 9,798 19,116 115,590 Clio 77,280 1,035 8,832 17,280 104,427 Sub-total (4) 162,748 2,243 18,630 36,396 220,017 Total - (1) & (2) 585,764 8,955 49,985 127,620 772, 324 Total - (1), (2) & (3) 710,194 15,165 64,199 155,448 945,006 71 14. ULTIMATE PROBABLE RECREATION VISITOR-DAYS ANNUAL USE OF RESERVOIR AREAS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT BY RECREATION FACILITY, 2050. Camp & Organization Summer Reservoir Area Picnic Camps Resorts Homes Total Authorized Projects: Grizzly Valley 80,334 1,053 6,782 24,120 112,289 Antelope Valley 50,379 547 4,748 15,120 70,794 Abbey Bridge 45,614 526 3,391 13,860 63,391 Dixie Refuge 34,312 378 3,255 10,440 48,385 Frenchman 38,806 421 3,391 11,700 54,318 Sub-total (1) 249,445 2,925 21,567 75,240 349,177 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 164,754 1,895 15,600 49,680 231,929 Sheep Camp 32,678 842 1,696 3,420 38,636 Turntable 98,035 1,053 9,326 29,520 137,934 Meadow Valley 166,115 2,525 15,706 50,400 234,746 Genesee Valley Pork 155, 903 1,684 14,582 46,980 219,149 Sub-total (2) 617,485 7,999 56,910 180,000 862,394 Swayne 121,250 1,263 14,733 36,648 173,894 Humbug 62, 906 6,314 7,583 19,008 95,811 Sub-total (3) 184,156 7,577 22,316 55,656 269,705 Richvaie Projects: Nelson Point 126,493 1,474 15,383 38,232 181,582 Clio 114,374 1,263 13,866 34,560 164,063 Sub-total (4) 240,867 2,737 29,249 72,792 345,645 Total - (1) & (2) 866,930 10,924 78,477 255,240 1,311,571 Total -{]), (2) &(3)1 ,051,086 18,501 100,793 310,896 1,480,276 72 RECREATION USE OF RESERVOIR AREAS Site Utilization studies were prepared to determine potential visitor-day use of each of the fourteen reservoirs and the Middle Fork of the Feather River. These studies were based on field survey, available topographic maps and both aerial and ground photographs. Suitable recreation areas were delineated using the criteria for locating facilities evaluated against the recreation planning principles and objectives developed in Port IV. Site development standards were applied to the developable acreages to determine the number of areas and units for camp and picnic facilities, organization camps, resorts and summer homes that could be de- veloped. Recreation u%e standards were then applied to determine potential safe visitor-day use of these facilities. A description and evaluation of each reservoir area, currently under study, and illustrative site development plans are presented in subsequent pages. Included in the Appendix is the description and evaluation of the authorized Grizzly Valley, Antelope Valley, Abbey Bridge, Dixie Refuge, and Frenchman reservoir areas. Illustrative site plans and a summary of the evaluation of recreation benefits and costs of these authorized projects were presented in Appendix A of Department of Water Resources Bulletin No.. 59, February 1957. Limitations on the size of that report prevented full description and evaluation at that time. Only sum- maries of these evaluations are contained in the sections and tables that folloWa Reservoir areas presently under investigation include Squaw Queen, Sheep Camp, Turntable, Meadow Valley, Genesee Valley Park, Swayne and Humbug reservoirs. Also included are the Richvale Irrigation District reservoir areas of Nelson Point and Clio. Authorized projects and areas presently under investigation are discussed below. The findings for the fourteen study areas are summarized in tables 28 through 31 at the end of this section. Illustrative site development plans for areas under study are shown on Plates II through IX- 73 Authorized Projects A total of 4,200 visitor-days use by hunters and fishermen was estimated for the five author- ized reservoir areas in 1956- At ultimate development (2020-2050) probable use would be almost 349,200 annual visitor-days without reservoir construction. Recreation development of these projects will increase their probable use almost four time to more than 1,651,900 annual visitor-days- A net increase of 1,302,700 annual visitor-days will result from water development • Reservoirs Under Study 1 o Squaw Queen Reservoir Area: The location of Squuw Queen Reservoir area is in the northeast portion of the Upper Feather River Basin at the confluence of Squaw Queen and Last Chance Creeks. It is almost equi- distant from the authorized reservoirs of Antelope Valley in the north. Abbey Bridge in the south and the Genesee Valley Park area on the west. Each of these areos is from three to four miles from Squaw Queen "as the crow flies" . The reservoir location can best be reached from U.S. Highway 40 Alternate from Portolo and Beckwourth. It can also be reached from Indian Valley and Taylorsvllle by a 20 mile trip over county roads. The area lies at an elevation of 5,300 feet and has a variety of topographic conditions. There are areas of relatively smooth terrain surrounded by slopes ranging from 15 to 30 per- cent. The reservoir area is shaped like a block "C" . The southeast neck of the reservoir extends into Squaw Valley which has a flat floor averaging one-half mile in width with gradually increasing slopes on either side. While this valley, itself, is dry with little or no cover, the major northern portion of the area is well covered with second growth timber. 1- See Plate II, p. 31 74 while power production Is the primary purpose of the reservoir, it will also provide water for irrigation in Indian Valley. The normal pool elevation of 5,471 feet will drop very gradually during the summer recreation season but this drawdov.'n will have little adverse affect on recreation use. At normal pool elevation the water surface area will cover 2,700 acres. The reservoir will have several unusual features, notably on extremely irregular shoreline with numerous inlets and peninsulas. The north-south axis of the lake extends about six miles. The southeast arm of the lake is a little over four miles long. The width of the reservoir varies from 500 to 3,000 feet, although the existence of several inlets causes the effective width at these locations to be in the neighborhood of a mile. The relationship of Squaw Queen Reservoir to three other reservoir recreation areas will in- fluence its development. Antelope Valley, Abbey Bridge, Genesee Park and Dixie Refuge reservoirs are all within a few miles drive of Squaw Queen. It can be assumed that the cumulative effect on recreation demand found in an area containing three reservoirs and one park will be felt in all four areas, with more demand at Squaw Queen because of its natural characteristics and location in the center of the area. Practically ail of the 35 miles of shoreline is usably permitting maximum development of balanced recreation densities. The construction of a perimeter road completely around the reservoir is planned to provide access to any point. The gradual, well -covered slopes of the north-south arm of the reservoir permit extensive and varied recreational uses. The steeper slopes immediately overlooking the shore are suitable for summer homes. The many inlets of the lake serve as ideal boat harbors and protected swimming areas. The southeast arm of the reservoir reaching into Squaw Valley has broad and gradually sloping sandy 75 beach areas, although It lacks natural cover. The narrow width of the reservoir in several places limits intensive boating activities to particular areas of the reservoir such as the lower southeasterly portion. Camping and picnicking sites are located about the shoreline where the slope, presence of natural cover and access by road are most suitable for this use. Such development is poss- ible along most of the lakeshore. The lake extension into Squaw Valley, which lacks natural cover, is best suited as open beach area for swimming and boating activities. Organizational camping is provided both at sheltered inlets on the shoreline and upon the covered slopes some distance from the shoreline. Resorts, or lodge and commercial areas, are located along the shoreline related to camping and picnicking and summer home development. Summer homes are located on the slopes back from the lokefront, affording these sites a view of the lake and surrounding terrain. 15„ SQUAW QUEEN RESERVOIR AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050. Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp & Picnic 380 1,900 7,600 874,000 437,000 646,760 Organizational Camps 490 6l3 2,450 281,750 140,875 171,870 Resort-Commercial 255 638 2,550 293,250 146,625 230,200 Summer Homes 2,900 2,900 11,600 522,000 261,000 522,000 Total 4,025 6,050 24,200 1,971,000 985,500 1,570,830 o Sheep Camp Reservoir Area: Sheep Camp Reservoir area is located in the southeastern portion of the Upper Basin on the western edge of Sierra Valley. The reservoir site may be reached by county road from State Highway 89 via Calpine or Blairsden and from U.S. Highway 40 Alternate via Beck- wourth. The reservoir is two miles northwest of Calpine; nine miles south of Beckwourth and Portola. The area lies at an elevation of 4,900 feet, and is separated from Sierra Valley by 1. See Plate III. 76 a hilly ridge with two connecting openings. The reservoir will be created by obstructing one of these canyons with a dam and the other with a spillway, resulting In an Irregular but generally oblong water surface. It is approximately three miles long ranging from one mile to one-half mile in width and tapering at both ends. At the southwestern end a small Inlet exists as a narrow-necked extension of the lake. The main purpose for the reservoir is irrigation for Sierra Valley. The normal pool elevation of 4,997 feet will drop gradually during the summer recreation season; however, the drop will not significantly affect recreation use. The water surface area will cover 1,630 acres at normal pool elevation. The development of recreation areas on the lakeshore is restricted to the northwestern shore and portions of the eastern and southern shores., Although there Is sufficient tree cover about the area, the terrain is rough in several locations causing developmental limitations. Installation of a perimeter road adjacent to the lakeshore Is planned to permit access to most any point on the lake. A ridge behind the northwest shore separates the reservoir from another adjacent valley-like area. This creates two distinct yet complementary recrea- tional environments. The area northwest of the ridge contains fairly level ground, two run- ning streams, and sufficient cover to permit favorable development for recreational use. This area is then connected by rood to the reservoir and its lakeshore recreational development. The result is a well balanced recreational development of the entire reservoir area. The recreational development of Sheep Camp Reservoir will be influenced by its relative loca- tion to Calpine and the State highway system. Calplne is a growing summer home and resort area only 2 miles from the dam site on State Highway 89, which is well travelled by visitors to the area. 77 The northeastern shore and a portion of the southern shore are planned for camping and pic- nicking development. Organization camps have been located on the northern end and a portion of the eastern shore of the reservoir as well as in the valley north of the ridge. The upper portion of the eastern shore has been reserved for beach purposes. Lodge and com- mercial areas have been located about the reservoir and adjacent valley in relation to the other recreational development. Some summer homes have been placed on the slopes at the northern end of the reservoir and in the adjacent valley. 16. SHEEP CAMP RESERVOIR AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050. Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum ProbabJe Camp & Picnic 190 950 3,800 437,000 218,500 323,380 Organizational Camps 205 256 1,024 117,760 58,500 71,830 Resort-Commercial 120 300 1,200 138,000 69,000 108,330 Summer Homes 1,090 1,090 4,360 196,200 98,100 196,20 Total 1,605 2,596 10,384 888,960 444,480' 699,7^0 o Turntable Reservoir Area: This reservoir area is at an elevation of 3,780 feet, located on the Middle Fork of the Feather River in the south-central portion of the basin. The darn site would be about twelve rniles downstream from Sloat on the Av^iiddle Fork of the Feather River. The area is eight miles southeast of Quincy and twenty miles northeast of La Porte on the Quincy La Porte county road . The reservoir^ constructed for power production with a normal pool elevation of 4,024 feet, would have a water surface area of 650 acres. The reservoir will be relatively narrow and will exceed six miles in length. Near the dam site water will be backed up into two canyons which ore perpendicular to the river. The largest of these, formed by Nelson Creek, is two miles long and the smaller one less than one-half mile long. The reservoir will have a width of 1,100 feet near the dam site. The power releases, lowering the normal pool elcvotion, r See Plat IV. 78 after the recreation season will huve no appreciable affect on recreation use. The reservoir area Is character! zuc! by very rugged topography with deep canyons rising straight from the river's edge. The steep slopes on both sides of the reservoir for the most part prohibit the development of roads. Many sites along the slopes suitable for camping and picnicking can be reached only by foot or by boat. This rugged terrain suggests a recreation development plan which will retain much of the area In its original state giv- ing the site a "wilderness" character. The rugged, scenic quality of this area with develop- ment designed to preserve more fully its original character will draw many recreatlonists seeking this "secluded" environment,, Camp and picnic sites ore iocoted along the slopes and bonks of the reservoir where the ter- rain is suitable. A system of foot trails and boat facilities provide access to those recrea- tion areas otherwise inaccessible. Boat launching sites and lodge and commercial facili- ties are provided at locations whicti can be reached by roads. Several large areas close to the reservoir are planned for sumrier homes as well as public recreation. Summer home sites accessible by existing roads are also located at suitable higher elevations overlooking the lake, 17. TURNTABLE RESERVOIR AREA ULTIK^'ATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050. Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp & Picnic '■.63 91.S 3,660 420,900 210,450 311,470 Organizational Camps _ _ _ Resort-Commercial 147 367 5 1,470 169,050 84,525 132,700 Summer Homes 1,204 1,204 4,816 216,720 108,360 216,720 Total 1,534 2,486.5 9,946 806,670 403,335 660,890 Meadow Valley Reservoir Area: The Mieadow Valley Reservoir area is at an elevation of 3,480 feet situated In the center of the Upper Feather River Basin, approximately seven miles northeast of Bucks Lake. The 1 . See Plate V. 79 dam site is located three miles west of Quincy on Spanish Creek . it is easily accessible from Cuincy on U.S. Highway 40 Alternate, via Bucks Lake Road- The area about the reservoir is rich in tree cover and scenic beauty. The trees are mainly second growth tem- ber. The scenery is typical of Sierra forests and woodlands with a mixture of rock forma- tions. Immediately west of this location, Spanish Peak rises to a height of 7,000 feet forming on impressive backdrop. The "square" shaped reservoir has a norma! pool elevation of 3,898 feet. At this elevation the surface area of the reservoir Vv^Ili be 5,750 acres, or nine square miles. Its maximum length and width will be four miles and three miles, respectively. There will be a number of Islands, the largest of which will be over a mile long and almost one-half mile wide, its location, size, shape and natural features make this reservoir area one of the most promis- ing sites in the entire basin for recreation development. The primary purpose of this reservoir is production of hydroelectric power; Irrigation, stream- flow maintenance and domestic water supply are secondary. Cperation of this reservoir as water storage for power production will not affect appreciably recreation use and development, The outstandiny characteristic of the reservoir area is the variety of topography which creates a varied recreation environment . Bluffs and abruptly descending slopes at the north- east and west shoreline restrict access and development, for-ing preservation of these areas for scenic purposes. Pockets of usable, less steep land separated by the rugged terrain sur- round the reservoir in sufficient size and quantity for excellent well-balanced recreation development. Recreation development of Meadow Valley Reservoir area is influenced by its location 80 to other recreation areas and urban development. Bucks Lake, with long established bal- anced recreational development, is close by to the southwest. Snake Lake and Silver Lake, both good fishing lakes, are within hiking distance of the reservoir. Spanish Peak, which slopes directly to the shore of the reservoir, has potential for winter sports. Most important is Quincy, the county seat of Plumas County and a growing urban community, which is situated just below the dam site. Finally, the reservoir area is situated on the only direct route between Quincy and Bucks Lake. The development plan for Meadow Valley Reservoir presents a balance of public and private recreation use. The ruggedness of the terrain requires that the development of the shore- line be reserved for public use, and public camp and picnic sites are located along the shoreline where terrain and access permit. Organizational camps are proposed along the southern shore; and, because of greater area requirements for this type of development and for balanced use, some organizational camps have been located a short distance from the shoreline in the isolated northeastern portion of the reservoir. Resorts which include commercial and boating facilities ore suitably located about the reservoir in relationship to the other kinds of recreational development they will serve. Summer homes are located on the slopes away from the shoreline thereby affording a view of the lake and the surrounding terrain, but with easy access by road to the public lakeshore and resort ureas. The main island in the reservoir is proposed for resort, camp and picnic de- velopment. 18. MEADOW VALLEY RESERVOIR AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050, Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp & Picnic 350 1,750 7,000 805,000 402,500 595,700 Organizational Camps 515 644 2,576 296,240 140,120 180,710 Resort-Commercial 185 462.5 1,850 212,750 106,375 167,010 Summer Homes 2,700 2,700 1 0, 800 486,000 243,000 486,000 Total 3,750 5,556„5 22,226 1,799,990 899,995 1,429,420 81 o Genesee Vulley Park Area:' Genesee Valley, at an elevation jf 3,670 feet, is located in the central portion of the basin approximately eight miles southeast of Taylorsville The picturesque valley is long and flat, bordered by steep slopes rising sharply from the valley floor. Two smaller valleys extend laterally njrth and south frj.n a'i:'wt the middle of Genesee Valley. Some tree cover is scattered in various locations on the valley floor. This area was originally investigated as the site for a large reservoir, but additional en- gineering studies proved the infeasibility of the large dam site. The decision to locate the re-regulating reservoir for Squaw Queen Reservoir at the upper end of Genesee Valley, based both on engineering factors and the enhancement of the recreation area, led to further recreation and economic studies to judue Its park capobilitles. The reservoir will be over two miles in length end about one-half mile wide at Its widest point. The normal pool will be at 3,720 feet elevation end will cover an area of 675 acres. There will be virtually no water level fluctuation so that recreation use will not be affected by drawdown, and water will be constantly released to maintain full stream-flow of Indian Creek. The creek will be a recreation attraction running the length of the valley floor. Most of the valley floor is open meadow and provision for some tree cover must be made in some areas. The walls of the valley are steep and for the most part not developable but they provide great scenic richness in their natural state. A few areas have developable terrain ranging from ten percent to twenty-five percent slope. These areas are suitable for resorts or lodges but not for campsites. The entrance to the valley from Taylorsville Is a narrow canyon which opens into the meadow, and the upper end of the valley is defined 1. See Plate VL 82 by the proposed dam, reservoir and valley walls. The enclosed space immediately west of the dam is ideal as an entertainment area. Genesee Valley will receive recreationists and highway visitors because of its location, and the reservoir and park would be developed to accommodate them. The county rood passing through Genesee Valley serves as a route to Squaw Queen, Antelope, Grizzly and Abbey Bridge reservoirs, in fact, Genesee Volley is the western gateway to the recreation areas in the northeastern portion of the Upper Basin, and is only 16 miles from the Indian Creek Junction of the U.S. Highway 40 Alternate and State Highway 89. Since this area is proposed as a public park, development should be for public recreation use with lodge-commercial facilities included to support the public areas and facilitieSo Administrative and maintenance stations ore placed at either end of the road running through the valley. Two more such stations are placed on control roads entering the valley from the southeast and the south. Camping and picnicking grounds are developed at those sites in the valley where tree cover exists. More sites can be developed as adequate cover is pro- vided. All development is kept some distance from the creek so as to keep its banks open for maximum use. Camping sites connected by riding and hiking trails are planned for the two valleys joining Genesee. The extension of these trails up the surrounding slopes would allov/ the development of camp sites and observation points on the summits overlooking the valley. Both sides of the reservoir hove sandy beaches for swimming and water activities, and picnic grounds have been provided to serve these areas. Lodge and commercial facilities have been located at appropriate spots to serve the other recreation activities. One has been suggested on the south shore of the reservoir, another below the dam site, and several along the slopes of the valley. In keeping with park concepts, 83 facilities not found at the other reservoir projects are included here. The enclosed space below the dam site has been planned for an ompitheater and music area with surrounding picnic grounds, other facilities for entertainment, and a park administration center. The small valley along Hosselkus Creek entering Genesee from the north Is the location for a nine-hole golf course associated with the lodge. 19, GENESEE VALLEY PARK AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050 Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp & Picnic 280 2,,800 11,200 1,288,000 644,000 953,120 Resort-Commercial 140 350 1,400 bl,000 80,500 126,390 Total 420 3,150 12,600 1,449,000 724,500 1,079,510 o Swayne Reservoir Area: Swayne Reservoir area is located in the southwest portion of the Upper Feather River Basin, about ten air-miles northeast of the proposed Oroville Dam,, The dam site, at an elevation of 1,930 feet, is on French Creek approximately three miles upstream from its junction with the North Fork of the Feather River which will be inundated by Oroville Reservoir at this point. The reservoir site is on the Quincy-Oroville Road, four and one-half miles north- west of the Brush Creek Ranger Station, 21 miles northeast of 0''oville and 22 and 38 miles southeast of BucksLake and Quincy, respectively. The site is also accessible by forest service roads from Pulga in the North Fork Canyon on U.S. Highway 40 Alternate. This reservoir will have an irregular shape, meandering through the canyons back of the dam. From the dam site to the farthest tip of the reservoir by boat is over four miles. The reservoir is approximately three-fourths of a mile across at its widest point near the dam site. The terrain about the reservoir is rugged and rises rapidly from the shoreline. There is a variety of tree cover in the area including both evergreen and some deciduous trees. The ruggedness 1, See Plate VII. 84 of the terrain limits the availability of usable land and disperses and separates these develop- able areas with large open space areas so that uncrovvvled recreation use Is enforced by the topography. Water storage for power production is the prime purpose for the construction of Swayne Res- ervoir. The normal pool elevation of 2,368 feet will cover an area of 2,550 acres. The tentative operation schedule inJicates the draw-down will hove little or no adverse affect on recreation use and development. Of ail the proposed reservoirs in the Upper Feather River Basin, excluding Oroville, Swayne is the closest reservoir to a moderately large center of population, the City of Oroville. Swayne vvill become a part of the Oroville Reservoir recreational complex, and demand for recreational development at Swayne will increase because of this relationship. Recreational development is located about the reservoir area in pockets of suitable land, as permitted by the rugged terrain. Public camp and picnic sites and organizational camp areas are suggested near the shoreline Other organizational carnps and most summer home sites are located on slopes overlooklnij portions of the lake. Resort and commercial developments ore proposed in appropriate relationship to the other recreational developments. 20. SWAYNE RESERVOIR AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050. Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp & Picnic 165 825 3,300 379,500 189,750 280,830 Organizational Camps 75 94 375 43,125 21,563 26,380 Resort-Commercial 72 180 720 82,800 41,400 65,000 Summer Homes 730 730 2,920 131,400 65,70 131,400 Total 1,042 1,829 7,315 636,825 318,413 503,610 85 o Humbug Reservoir Area : Humbug Reservoir is located on Yellow Creek in the western portion of the Upper Basin some 15 miles south of Chester, eight miles southeast of Prattville on Lake Almanor and ten miles north of Belden In the Feather River North Fork canyon. The reservoir site Is connected to all of these locations by roads. The area is presently a wide, flat valley at an elevation of 4,240 feet, surrounded by low, rolling hills. The valley floor is covered with grasses and a few trees. The surrounding hills, however, are covered with dense growths of timber. The pear-shaped reservoir will be approximately 3.5 miles long and one mile across at Its greatest width, tapering to less than 700 feet at the dam site. The surrounding terrain slopes gradually up from the lakeshore, except for an area on the lower east side of the reservoir. The shoreline is also well forested, except for a section on the northwestern tip of the reser- voir where a forest fire has destroyed much of the tree cover. Humbug reservoir, designed for power production, will be comparatively shallow due to the topographic conditions. For these reasons the extent and elevation of the lake surface may be expected to drop during dry years. Tentative operation schedules, however, indicate that variation from normal pool elevation of 4,357 feet, covering an area of 1,790 acres, will not be so great under normal, average conditions as to prevent recreation development. The surrounding gentle sloping terrain, particularly to the north and west, provide ample space for various kinds of recreation development. The existence of sufficient tree cover around the reservoir permits a balanced and integrated recreation development. Development will be in- fluenced by the area's orientation to the Lake Almanor area, twelve miles to the northeast, with its well established and growing recreation community of Chester. The attraction of visi- tors to the Lake Almanor area can be expected to increase the use of Humbug for Recreation. 1 . See Plate VIII. 86 Camp and picnic sites are located mainly around the northern end of the reservoir and near the dam site at the southern end. Organizational camps are indicated near the middle on both sides of the lake where the slope of the terrain, access to the lake, and cover are best suited for this use. Lodge and commercial developments are located in several spots around the lakeshore in relation to other recreational development. Summer homes are pro- vided on the slopes overlooking the reservoir. 21 . HUK'.BUG RESERVOIR AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050 Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp & Picnic 140 700 2,800 322,000 161,000 238,280 Organizational Camps 120 150 600 69,000 34,500 42,090 Resort-Commercial 85 212.5 850 97,750 48,875 76,730 Summer Homes 960 960 3,840 172,800 86,400 172,800 Total 1,305 2,022.5 8,090 661,550 330,775 529,900 o Nelson Point Reservoir Area: Nelson Point Reservoir area, at an elevation of 3,680 feet, is located on the Middle Fork of the Feather River, with the dam site twelve miles downstream from Sloat. This reservoir, pro- posed by the Richvole Irrigation District, has the same location as Turntable Reservoir with the dam site located about two and one-half miles farther downstream than the Turntable site. The reservoir would be constructed for power purposes. The normal pool elevation of 4,030 feet will have a water surface area of 1, 140 acres, almost twice the surface area of Turn- table Reservoir. The tentative operation schedule indicates that the drawdown will have little appreciable affect on recreation use and development- Nelson Point and Turntable Reservoirs are identical in the development plan upstream from Torntable. Nelson Point has an additional 5 miles of shoreline and a greater water surface area, and therefore possibilities of added recreation use and development. The area between 1. See Plate IV. 87 the two dam sites is extremely rugged. Slopes to the waterline are precipitous except for a few isolated locations. Some additional public camping and picnicking development is provided at these locations served by trails and a dam maintenance road. Most of the addi- tional development is located overlooking the reservoir on the canyon rims. 22. NELSON POINT RESERVOIR AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050 Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp & Picnic 237 1 J 85 4,740 545,100 272,550 403,370 Organizational Camps _ _ - _ _ _ Resort-Commercial 250 625 2,500 287,500 143,750 225,690 Summer hbmes 1,279 1,279 5,116 230, 220 115,110 230, 220 Total 1,766 3,089 12,356 1,062,820 531,410 859,280 o Clio Reservoir Area: Clio Reservoir area, also a proposed Richvale Irrigation District project, is located in the southeast portion of the Upper Feather River Basin at Mohawk Valley, three and one-half miles southeast of Blairsden. The reservoir site, at an elevation of 4,360 feet, is on State Highway 89, which would have to be re-routed around the reservoir. State Highway 89 and U.S. Highway 40 Alternate meet at Blairsden. The reservoir is about eight miles from Portola and less than thirty miles from Quincy. Mohawk Valley is part of the Lakes Basin Recreation Area, including Gold Lake which Is seven miles to the southwest over a county road. The Johnsville-Eureka Bowl winter sports area, eight miles to the west by county road, and the recreation communities of Graeogle and Mohawk, northwest of the reservoir dam site and near Blairsden, are also included in the Lakes Basin complex. The reservoir site sits in a fairly large triangular shaped valley surrounded by steep slopes. The reservoir will also be triangular in shape roughly two miles by three and one-half miles. 1 . See Plate IX. 88 The shoreline is generally regular with the exception of two narrow Inlets at the northeast tip. The normal pool elevation of 4,487 feet will cover an area of 2,200 acres. The reservoir will be constructed primarily for supplementary water storage for production of power at Nelson Point downstream on the Middle Fork. Tentative operation schedules indicate that the drawdown at the end of the summer recreation season will not seriously affect recreation use. However, because of the size, shape and depth of the valley, a heavy drawdown will expose extensive mud flats at the upper end of the valley and affect recreation use and de- velopment in that area. The reservoir area has gradually sloping terrain suitable for recreation development averag- ing about one-half mile in depth along the southern and western shores. Beyond these areas and on the northern shore the terrain is too steep for most recreational uses, with the excep- tion of some slopes suitable for summer home development. The varied cover consists for the most part of second growth timber with scattered areas of low shrubs and some open areas. The adequacy of suitable terrain and the variety of cover permit a well-balanced recreational development. Camp and picnic sites are properly located along the southern and eastern shoreline. Organ- izational camps have been provided mainly at thesoutheastern end of the reservoir with other locations at the northern tip, and on the southern shore. There are open stretches scattered along the southern lakeshore suitable for beach areas. Lodge and commercial uses have been located at spots around the reservoir easily accessible from the road and other recreational developments. Summer home sites are located back from the reservoir on the slopes which are suitable for such development. 89 165 825 3,300 379,500 189,750 280,830 150 187.5 750 86, 250 43, 1 25 52,620 80 200 800 92,000 46,000 72,220 1,089 1 , 089 4,356 196,020 98,010 196,020 23. CLIO RESERVOIR AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050 Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annua! Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp & Picnic Organizational Camps Resort-Commercial Summer Homes Total 17484 2730T.5 9,206 753,770 376,885 601,7)90 RECREATION USE OF THE MIDDLE FORK OF THE FEATHER RIVER Plans for development of the Middle Fork of the Feather River have been proposed by the Richvale Irrigation District and the California Department of Water Resources. This section contains an analysis and evaluation of the effect of both plans on the ultimate recreation use of the area. The Richvale development proposal consists of Grizzly, Clio and Nelson Point Reservoirs, and Minerva Bar, Dogwood Bar, Hartman Bar and Bald Rock Canyon diversion dams and diversion tunnels. Except for Grizzly Reservoir all of the water developments are located on the Middle Fork. Water releases from Grizzly reservoir would flow down Grizzly Creek into the Middle Fork of the Feather River to Clio reservoir. The water stored In Clio would be used to supplement Nelson Point Reservoir storage. Water released from Nelson Point would flow into a diversion tunnel to a power plant and then Into M.inerva Bar diversion reservoir. From this point, water would subsequently be diverted into tunnels to each power house and diversion dam . This cycle would continue along the Middle Fork until Its entrance into Oroville reservoir. The Richvale plan suggests the type of development presently existing on the North Fork of the Feather River. Unless adequate streamflow releases into the river arc provided the recreation attraction and use of the Middle Fork will be seriously impaired, 90 The Department of Water Resources proposed plan consists of Turntable reservoir on the Middle Fork which would be about one-half the size of Richvale's Nelson Point reservoir. The dam would be about rwo ano Dno-half niles further upstream from the dam proposed for Nelson Point reservoir. From Turntoble water will be diverted in a tunnel to the proposed /^ieodow Valley reservoir, end from tiiis point water woulJ be again diverted In a tunnel to power plants either on the h-iorth Fork or to alternate power plants on the Middle Fork. This combination of reservoirs and diversion tunnels constitutes the Meadow Valley Plan. Description of the K.Iddle F^rk Area The N'jddle Fork area Is extrernouth Canyon Rim 140 700 2,800 322,000 238,000 161,000 Sub-total 435 2,175 8,700 1,000,500 739, 500 500, 250 Organization Camps 470 585 2,340 269, 100 163,800 134,500 Resorts North Canyon Rim 270 675 2,700 310,500 243,000 155,250 South Canyon Rim 254 635 2,540 292, 100 228,600 146,050 Sub-total 524 1,310 5,240 602,600 471,600 301,300 Summer Homes North Canyon Rim 660 660 2,640 303,600 118,800 59,400 South Canyon Rim 1,275 1,275 5,100 586,500 229,500 114,750 Sub-total 1,935 1,935 7,740 890,100 348,300 174,150 Totals 3,364 6,005 24,020 2,762,300 96 1,721,200 1,110,200 Comparison of A/\eadow Valley Plan With Richvale Irrigation District Plan: At ultimate development the /v eadow Valley Plan would create slightly more recreation use than the Richvale Plan considering only the Middle Fork of the Feather River from Sloat to Oroville Reservoir and Turntable and Nelson Point Reservoirs. The development of Clio and Meadow Valley Reservoirs significantly alters the comparative relationship of the total development of each proposed system. The total Meadow-Valley Plan would safely accommodate thirty percent more people at one time and fifty-three percent more annual visitor-days use than the total Richvale Plan at ultimate development. Recreation facilities and use for each plan can be compared by examining Table 27. 27. ULTIMATE RECREATION USE - MEADOW VALLEY PLAN AND RICHVALE PLAN, 2050 Middle Fotk- Sloat to Oroville Total System Recreation Use Meadow Valley Richvule Meadow Valley Richvale Camp and Picnic Units 3,535 3,360 5,285 4,185 Organization Camp Units 585 585 1,229 773 Resort Units 1,988 1,935 2,451 2,135 Summer Home Units 3,174 3,214 5,874 4,303 Total Units 9,282 9,094 14,839 11,396 Capacity People 37,126 36,376 59,352 45,584 Capacity Visitor-days Use 4,269,490 4,183,240 6,825,480 5,242,160 Annual Visitor-days Use Probable 2,652,520 2,579,320 4,880,340 3,180,340 Minimum 1,690,435 1,641,610 2,590,430 2,018,495 ULTIMATE ANNUAL RECREATION USE AND NET INCREASES V/ITH ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT By the year 2050 recreation use with additional development is expected to reach a minimum of 1,039,525 visitor-days annual use and probably 1,651,910 visitor-do/s nnnual use for the 97 five authorized reservoir areas. The reservoir areas under study, excluding Swayne and Hum- bug, are expected to have minimum and probable visitor-days annual use of 3,457,810 and 5^440,390, respectively. Total ultimate recreation use for all project areas, including authorized, those under study, and Swayne and Humbug, will reach a minimum of 5, 146,580 and probably 7,092,300 visitor-days annual use by 2050. The proposed Richvale projects of Nelson Point and Clio Reservoirs are expected to have an ultimate recreation use of 908,300 and 1,460,970, minimum and probable visitor-days use, respectively. Table 28 summarizes the minimum and Table 29 the probable ultimate recreation visitor-days annual use for each reservoir area by type of recreation facility. Net increase in ultimate, minimum, and probable recreation visitor-days annual use of reservoir areas v/ith additional water develop- ment are shown in Tables 30 and 31 , These increases are based on the reservoir site develop- ment plans . V\/ith additional water development ultimate minimum recreation use for the five authorized projects is expected to increase four and one-half times the recreation use that may develop without additional water development, or a net increase of 817,225 visitor-days annual use. Ultimate probable use will have about the same percentage increase of 1,302,733 visitor-days annual use for the five authorized reservoir areas. The proposed reservoir areas, excluding Swayne and Humbug, will increase in recreation use over six times or a net minimum and probable increase of 2,907,786 and 4,577,996 visitor-days annual use, respectively. All project areas, except Nelson Point and Clio, will have a net minimum and probable increase of five and one-half times with additional water development, or 4,201,574 minimum and 6,644,534 probable visitor-days annual use by 2050. The Richvale projects would have a net increase of 688,283 and 1,115,325 minlnum and probable visitor-days annual use or more than five times the recreation use expected without additional water development. 98 28. ULTIMATE MINIMUM RECREATION VISITOR-DAYS ANNUAL USE WITH ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT BY RECREATION FACILITY, 2050 Camp & Organizati on Summer Picnic Camps Resorts Homes Total Authorized Projects Grizzly Valley 176,180 21,900 28,080 71,310 297,470 Antelope Valley 117,300 18,900 12,960 45,510 194,670 Abbey Bridge 107,640 15,175 16,200 42,740 181,755 Dixie Refuge 60,500 12,675 9,720 31,830 134,725 Frenchman 1 37, 080 17,675 21,600 54,550 230,905 Sub-total (1) 618,700 86,325 88,560 245,940 1,039,525 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 437,000 140,875 146,625 261,000 985,500 Sheep Camp 218,500 58,880 69,000 98,100 444,480 Turntable 210,450 - 84,525 108,360 403,335 Meadow Valley 402,500 148,120 106,375 243,000 899,995 Genesee Valley Pork 644,000 1,912,450 - 80,500 487,025 - 724,500 Sub-total (2) 347, 875 710,460 3,457,810 Swayne 189,750 21,620 41,400 65,700 318,470 Humbug 161,000 34,500 48, 875 86,400 330,775 Sub-total (3) 350,750 56,120 90, 275 152,100 649,245 Richvale Projects Nelson Point 272,550 - 143,750 115,110 531,410 Clio 189,750 43,130 46,000 98,010 376,890 Sub-total (4) 462,300 43,130 189,750 213,120 908,300 Total (1) &(2) 2,531,150 434, 200 575,585 956,400 4,497,335 Total (1), (2)&(3) 2,881,900 490,320 665,860 1,108,500 5,146,580 99 29. ULTIMATE PROBABLE RECREATION VISITOR-DAYS ANNUAL USE WITH ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT BY RECREATION FACILITY, 2050 Camp & Organization Summer Picnic Camps Resorts Homes Total Authorized Projects Grizzly Valley 260, 750 26,720 44, 090 142,620 474,180 Antelope Valley 173,600 23,060 20,350 91,020 308,030 Abbey Bridge 159,310 18,510 25,430 85,480 288, 730 Dixie Refuge 119,140 15,460 15,260 63,660 213,520 Frenchman 202,880 21,560 33,910 109,100 367,450 Sub-total (1) 915,680 105,310 139,040 491,880 1,651,910 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 646,760 171,870 230, 200 522,000 1,570,830 Sheep Camp 323, 380 71,830 108,330 196,200 699,740 Turntable 311,470 - 132,700 216,720 660,890 Meadow Valley 595,700 180,710 167,010 486,000 1,429,420 Genesee Valley Park 953,120 2,830,430 - 126,390 764,630 - 1,079,510 Sub-total (2) 424,410 1,420,920 5,440,390 Swayne 280,830 26, 380 65,000 131,400 503,610 Humbug 238,280 42,090 76, 730 172,800 529,900 Sub-total (3) 519,110 68,470 141,730 304,200 1,035,510 Richvaie Projects Nelson Point 403,370 - 225,690 230,220 859,280 Clio 280,830 52,620 72,220 196,020 601,690 Sub-total (4) 684, 200 52,620 297,910 426,240 1,460,970 Total (1) & (2) 3,746,110 529,720 903,670 1,912,800 7,092,300 Total (1), (2) & (3) 4,265,220 598,190 1 ,045,400 2,217,000 8,125,810 100 30. NET INCREASES IN MINIMUM ULTIMATE RECREATION VISITOR -DAYS ANNUAL USE RESULTING FROM ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT BY RECREATION FACILITY, 2050 Camp & Organization Summer Reservoir Area Picnic Camps Resorts Homes Total Authorized Projects Grizzly Valley 121,900 21,035 23,760 59,250 225,945 Antelope Valley 83, 260 18,454 9,936 37,950 149,600 Abbey Bridge 76,820 14,745 14,040 35,810 141,415 Dixie Refuge 57,316 12,362 7,647 26,610 103,935 Frenchman 110,860 17,330 19,440 48,700 196,330 Sub-total (1) 450,156 83,926 74,823 208,320 817,225 Reservoirs under study Squaw Oueen 325,680 139,322 136,689 236,160 837,851 Sheep Camp 196,420 58, 190 67,920 96,390 418,920 Turntable 144,210 - 863 78,585 93,600 315,532 Meadov^ Valley 290, 260 146,050 96,371 217,800 750,481 Genesee Valley Park 538,660 - 1,380 71,212 -23,490 585,003 Sub-total (2) 1,495,230 341,319 450,777 620,460 2,907,786 Swayne 107,824 20,585 32,016 47,376 207,801 Humbug 118,496 29,325 44,045 76,896 268,762 Sub-total (3) 226,320 49,910 76,061 124,272 476,563 Richvale Projects Nelson Point 187,082 -1,208 133,952 95,994 415,820 Clio 112,470 42,095 37,168 80,730 272,463 Sub-total (4) 299,552 40,887 171,120 176,724 688,283 Total (1) & (2) 1,945,386 425, 245 525,600 828,780 3,725,011 Total (1), (2)&(3) 2,171,706 475, 155 601,661 953,052 4,201,574 101 31. NET INCREASES IN PROBABLE ULTIMATE RECREATION VISITOR-DAYS ANNUAL USE RESULTING FROM ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT BY RECREATION FACILITY, 2050 Camp & Organizatior 1 Summer Reservoir Area Picnic Camps Resorts Homes Total Authorized Projects Grizzly Valley 180,416 25,667 37,308 118,500 361,891 Antelope Valley 123,221 22,513 15,602 75,900 237,236 Abbey Bridge 113,696 17,984 22,039 71,620 225,339 Dixie Refuge 84,828 15,082 12,005 53,220 165,135 Frenchman 164,074 21,139 30,519 97, 400 313,132 Sub-total (1) 666,235 102,385 117,473 416,640 1,302,733 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 482,006 169,975 214,600 472,320 1,338,901 Sheep Camp 290,702 70,988 106,634 192,780 661,104 Turntable 213,435 - 1,053 123,374 1 87, 200 522,956 Meadow Valley 429,585 178,185 151,304 435,600 1,194,674 Genesee Valley Park 797,217 - 1,684 1 1 1 , 808 -46,980 860,361 Sub-total (2) 2,212,945 416,411 707,720 1,240,920 4,577,996 Swayne 159,580 25,117 50,267 94,752 329,716 Humbug 175,374 35,776 69,147 153,792 434, 089 Sub-total (3) 334,954 60,893 119,414 248,544 763,805 Richvale Projects Nelson Point 276, 877 -1,474 210,307 191,988 677,698 Clio 166,456 51,357 58,354 161,460 437,627 Sub-total (4) 443,333 49,883 268,661 353,448 1,115,325 Total <1) & (2) 2,879,180 518,796 825,193 1,657,560 5,880,729 Total (1), (2) & (3) 3,214,134 579, 689 944, 607 1,906,104 6,644,534 I 102 PART VI. BENEFIT-COST EVALUATION OF RESERVOIR AREAS UNDER STUDY AND THE MIDDLE FORK OF FEATHER RIVER WITH AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT A comparison of the estimated cost of a project to the estimated net benefits accruing from Its operation can be stated simply in the form of a benefit-cost ratio. This benefit-cost ratio is used as an indicator of the economic justification for incurring the costs of a pro- ject in order to receive the benefits. For that project to be economically justified, the dollar benefits estimated to be derived from the operation of a water reservoir, all other conditions favorable, must be the same as or greater than the estimated dollar cost of con- struction and operation. The evaluation in this Part is concerned with those net dollar bene- fits and costs directly attributable to and resulting from the public (camp and picnic) recrea- tion use and development at the site of each of the reservoirs for the fifty-year pay-out per- iod to determine whether the recreational development at each reservoir is economically justified. Indirect effects of the project development in adjacent portions of the Upper Basin are not considered. The basis for benefit-cost evaluation of the recreation use and development is the site develop- ment plan, prepared for each reservoir area, and the general development plan prepared for that portion of the Middle Fork of the Featiier River from Sloat to Oroville Reservoir. BENEFITS AND COSTS At the time the first five reservoirs (now authorized) were studied in 1956, and the summary report on them published in early 1957, final analysis of research data and field survey cover- ing probable recreation use (measured as a percentage of capacity use) had not been completed. Enough information had been gathered and analyzed to indicate that a conservative (thereby reasonable) probable use would be fifty percent of capacity use and this percentage was applied to the five authorized reservoir areas. Final analysis showed the percentage of use 103 and the capacity for use to be much too conservative. All of the reservoirs subsequently studied and the Middle Fork of the Feather River included the new probable recreation use figures. The older probable recreation use figures that were applied to the five reservoirs were retained as minimum recreation use . Both probable and minimum benefits are shown for the reservoirs under study and for the five authorized reservoirs as a basis for direct comparisons. The new probable benefits are signifi- cantly greater (by 48%) than the former probable benefits. The dollar benefits obtained from recreation use were computed by applying the $2.00 per visitor-day figure to the net Increase in use due to the construction and operation of the reservoirs and public (camp and picnic) recreation facilities. Derivation of the $2.00 figure Is discussed in Part VIII contained in the Appendix. Recreation costs are construed to be those for the installation of public facilities (camp and picnic) and the construction of the additional roods required to serve these facilities. Unit capital construction costs and unit operating, maintenance and replacement costs of these facilities and roads were developed and are discussed in a subsequent section. Capital costs were computed for each year from 1961 to 2010 by application of the unit costs to the number of new camp and picnic units and miles of road constructed. Operating, maintenance and replacement costs were computed for each year by applying unit costs to the net Increase in number of camp and picnic units resulting from reservoir construction and miles of road con- structed. Ail the costs were then combined for each year. The dollar benefits and costs were adjusted to "present worth" by discounting both benefits and costs for each year at three percent, cumulatively, beginning in the year 1961 . Thus 104 the present worth of benefits and costs in the year 1961 are computed at 97.1 percent of actual dollar value for that year. For the year 2010 - the end of the fifty-year pay-out period - the present worth factor is 22.8 percent. Cumulative 50 year present worth benefits and costs were then converted to annual equivalents. The annual equivalent cost represents the annual sum required to amortize the capital investment and to pay operating, maintenance and replacement expenses, which would be offset by the annual equivalent benefit. The benefit-cost ratio is a mathematical statement of the direct relationship of present worth costs or their annual equivalents. The fifty-year cumulative total present worth benefits and costs and their annuo! equivalents were computed for the reservoir areas but not for the Middle Fork of the Feather River — or what has been, and will be, referred to as the total Meadow Valley Plan and the total Rich- vale Irrigation District Plan. Fifty-year cumulative total benefits and costs for the Middle Fork could not be adjusted to present worth and their annual equivalents because of the general nature of plan and the primary interest in the proposed reservoir project areas them- selves . Recreation costs that were used in 1956 when the five authorized reservoirs were studied have Increased approximately twenty percent in two years. Unit construction (capital) costs for public recreation facilities and roads were $750 for one camp or picnic unit and $25,000 per mile of road. Annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs were $105 for one camp or picnic unit and $400 per mile of road. These costs were developed after interviews and discussions with State and Federal officials concerned with providing similar facilities in State and National parks and forests; the consultant's experience and knowledge in the 1 . Appendix A, Bulletin No. 59, op. cit. 105 field of landscape architecture, and the experience of other practicing landscape architects, both in public and private practice. Development costs of camp and picnic areas includes preparation of the site, removal of dangerous trees, installation of traffic control barriers, water systems, sanitary facilities, laundry and shower facilities, tables, fireplaces, food lockers, parking spurs, and tent and trailer sites. The cost per unit varies with topography, locality, improvements included and availability of water. However, the big variable is the cost of providing safe water. Subsequent discussions with Federal officials disclosed that costs have risen in the past few years. The U.S. Forest Service in its Operation Outdoors program, has estimated that a reasonable average cost nationally for developing one new camp and picnic family unit to be $860. Further discussions and analysis led to the adoption of camp and picnic costs of $1,000 per unit capital cost and $126 per unit annual operation, maintenance and replace- ment cost. Road capital costs were also increased to $42,000 per mile for major feeder roads and $20,000 per mile for access (service) roads. Capital cost for a trail is estimated to be $700 per mile. Road and trail annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs are now estimated to be $500 and $34 per mile, respectively . A breakdown of the unit costs is contained in Table 32. Unit capital costs and unit annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs for public facilities in Genesee Valley Park were increased to $1,316 end $208 per unit respectively because of the addition of other necessary recreation and utility developments to serve the ultimate designed capacity of the area. The development plan for the area shows that there will ultimately be 2,800 camp and picnic units and 350 lodge units having a daily capacity 1. U. S. Forest Service, Operation Outdoors, 1957, p. 13. 106 32. UNIT COSTS OF PUBLIC (CAMP AND PICNIC) RECREATION FACILITIES AND ROADS Capitol Costs of One Camp and Picnic Unit ; Clearing and grading $ 30 Paved parking area for one car and traffic control barriers 130 Table, food locker, and fireplace 125 Water supply and lines 55 Electric lines 30 Comfort station (five toilets, two urinals, septic tank and drain lines) — one for each fifty units 160 Comfort station, shower and laundry (five toilets, two urinals, four showers, two laundry tubs, septic tank and drain lines) — one for each fifty units 260 Shop and equipment building — one for each 200 units 40 Office and housing for personnel — one for each 200 units 80 Miscellaneous (signs, garbage cans, etc.) 90 Total capital cost $ 1,000 Capital Costs per Mile of Road and Trail Construction ; Major Feeder Road — Sixty feet of right-of-way; two eleven-foot wide aspholtic concrete travel lanes, two Inches thick; base course of crushed rocks or gravel covering travel lanes and two six-foot wide shoulders, six inches thick $42,000 Improving Existing Major Feeder Road 20,000 Access (Service) Road — Fifty feet of right-of-way; two ten-foot wide travel lanes, armor coat; base course of crushed rock or grave! covering travel lanes and two two-foot wide shoulders, four inches thick 20,000 Improving Existing Access Road 10,000 Trail 700 Annua! Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Costs : Camp and Picnic Unit: Power and Supplies Salaries Maintenance Replacement in twenty-five years Totoi Road maintenance and replacement in twenty-five years (per mile) Trail maintenance (per mile) 107 $ 14 57 15 40 $ 126 $ 500 $ 34 of 12,600 visitors. With a designed increased density of recreation development and use, consideration will have to be given to the need for a more highly developed water system and sewerage system. Liberal use of water should be deliberately included in this consideration, because of in- creased consumption and use which will reach an estimated 150 gallons per person per day. The usual one and one-half day's supply and adequate volume of water to meet fire require- ments must also be considered. Table 33 shows the estimated additional costs of developing the added facilities. Road and trail costs remain the same as for the other reservoir areas and are not included in this table. Although Table 33 specifically shows $190,000 for water and sewer systems, there are addi- tional funds for these purposes incorporated in the other developments such as beaches, play areas and amphitheatre area, amounting to $160,000. In addition, there would be the other camp and picnic funds for water and sewerage purposes which can be combined with the aforementioned amounts to pay for the installation of a first-class water and sewerage system. Detailed design study would, of course, take this into consideration as well as the other facilities, needs and requirements. BENEFITS AND COSTS - RESERVOIR AREAS Recreation use of the reservoir areas was projected over a ninety-year period begining In 1960, when necessary roads and camp and picnic facilities will have been installed and reser- voirs will be at operating levels, and extending to year 2050„ It was assumed that use, meas- ured in visitor-days, will increase at a fairly uniform rate over the ninety-year period, the rate of increase being somewhat greater in the first half of the period than the second period when saturation will be approached. 108 33. ESTIMATED COSTS OF ADDITIONAL FACILITIES IN GENESEE VALLEY PARK Cosh per Camp Additional Capital Costs Estimated Total qnd Picnic Unit Water and Sewer System $190,000 $68 Beaches — including clearing and grading 14 acres; transporting sand; 162 picnic tables; parking areas for 280 cars; water and sewer lines and equipment 103,000 37 Play Areas — including clearing and grading 28 acres; play equipment; shelters; turf; parking areas for 280 cars; water and sewer lines and equipment 190,000 68 Amphitheatre (seating 1500 persons) — including clear- ing, grading, turfing and landscaping four acres; seats; stage, rooms and equipment; parking areas for 300 cars; lighting and electrical equipment; water and sewer lines and equipment Power and Telephone Lines Administration Building, Area and Equipment Control Station Buildings and Equipment (four) Service and Maintenance Building, Area and Equipment — including trucks, grading equipment, boats, and tools 110,000 39 Total additional capital cost $ 885,000 $ 316 Additional Annual Op eration, Maintenance and Replacement Costs: Maintenance Expenses $ 17,000 $ 6 Replacement in twenty-five years (five years for maintenance equipment) 56,000 20 Salaries for Personnel — including 14 administrative, twelve lifeguards, sixteen recreation supervisors, ten maintenance 158,000 56 Total additional annual operation, maintenance and replacement cost $ 231,000 $ 82 109 112,000 40 110,000 39 40,000 14 30,000 11 Recreation benefits from the proposed reservoir projects are based on use during the first fifty years of the life of the projects, or from 1960 to 2010, and for project feasibility purposes only the use of facilities constructed with public funds is considered (camp and picnic fdcilities and necessary roads). Cumulative minimum and probable use during this fifty-year pay-out period has been calculated, both with and without additional water development, for "public" facilities and all facilities as shown in Tables 34 and 35. The difference between use without additional water development and use with additional water development is the basis for measuring the net recreation benefit from the construction of the reservoirs. This is shown as the net increase in the tables. Net benefits and costs resulting from additional water development of the reservoir areas are the net cumulative totals for the fifty-year pay-out period for both public recreation and all recreotion. Both probable and minimum benefits, and 1958 and 1956 costs have been included except for the first five authorized reservoirs and Genesee Valley Park. In the case of the first five authorized reservoirs, 1958 costs were not computed; and in the case of Genesee Valley Park 1956 costs were not shown, since they have no application to the in- creased unit costs which were developed in 1958 and which are not comparable to the "normal" reservoir unit costs. Table 36 shows the net cumulative total public recreation probable and minimum benefits and 1958, and 1956 costs. The total net cumulative probable benefit for the seven reservoir areas under study would be $72,000,000 at the end of the year 2010; minimum benefit would be $48,587,000. The 1958 cost for these reservoir areas wouid be $20,924,000. Table 37 contains the benefits and costs with the same arrangement as in Table 36, but the total figures have been adjusted to present wor'/h benefits and costs. Table 38 is arranged in no the same manner as Table 37, but the figures have been adjusted to average annual equivalents. Table 39 contains the benefit-cost ratios for the various combinations of probable and minimum benefits to 1958 and 1956 costs. Tables 40 and 41 contain the same general arrangement as in the preceding tables, but deal with total recreation benefits which include, in addition to public (camp and picnic) bene- fits, the benefits that will be obtained from organization camps, resort and commercial uses, and summer homes. Total recreation benefits have also been related to public costs to show the total effect of public expenditures in the development of the reservoir areas. Ill 34. CUMULATIVE PUBLIC (CAMP & PICNIC) RECREATION VISITOR-DAYS ANNUAL USE OF RESERVOIR AREAS FOR THE FIFTY-YEAR PAYOUT PERIOD, 1961-2010 Minimum Visilor-days Use Probable Visitor-days Use Without With Net Without With Net Reservoir Area Reservoir, Reservoir Increase Reservoir Reservoir Increase Authorized Projects Grizzly Valley 237,550 2,208,150 1,970,600 351,570 3,268,060 2,916,490 Antelope Valley 101,500 1,882,350 1,690,850 283,420 2,785,880 2,502,460 Abbey Bridge 163,850 1,818,650 1,654,800 242,500 2,691,600 2,449,100 Dixie Refuge 162,600 1,476,050 1,313,450 240,650 2,184,550 1,943,900 Frenchman 177,950 1,819,850 1,641,900 263, 370 2,693,380 2,430,010 Sub-total (1) 933,450 9,205,050 8,271,600 1,381,510 13,623,470 12,241,960 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 891,000 5,278,750 4,387,750 1,318,680 7,812,550 6,493,870 Sheep Camp 160,750 2,881,750 2,721,000 237,910 4,264,990 4,027,080 Turntable 424,650 2,645,500 2,220,850 628,480 3,915,340 3,286,860 Meadow Valley 560,500 5,005,250 4,444,750 829,540 7,407,770 6,578,230 Genesee Valley Park 500, 700 8,218,750 7,718,050 741,040 12,163,750 11,422,710 Sub-total (2) 2,537,6Q0 24,030,000 21,492,400 3,755,650 35,564,400 31,808,750 Swayne 926,300 2,284,000 1,357,700 1,370,920 3,380,320 2,009,400 Humbug 428, 300 1,872,000 1 ,^ H3,700 633,880 2,770,560 2,136,680 Sub-total (3) 1,354,600 4,156,000 2,,801,400 2,004,800 6,150,880 4,146,080 Richvale Projects Nelson Point 901,750 3,355,250 2,453,500 1,334,590 4,965,770 3,631,180 Clio 838,800 2,298,750 1,459,950 1,241,420 3,402,150 2,160,730 Sub-total (4) 1,740,550 5,654,000 3,913,450 2,576,010 8,367,920 5,791,910 Total (1) & (2) 3,471,050 33,235,050 29,764,000 5,137,160 49,187,870 44,050,710 Total (1),. (2) & (3) 4,825,65037,391,050 32,565,400 7,141,960 55,338,750 48,196,790 112 35. CUMULATIVE TOTAL RECREATION VISITOR-DAYS ANNUAL USE OF RESERVOIR AREAS FOR THE FIFTY-YEAR PAYOUT PERIOD, 1961-2010 Minimum Visitor-days Use Probable Visitor-days Use Without With Net Without With Net Reservoir Area Reservoir Reservoir Increase Reservoir Reservoir Increase Authorized Projects Grizzly Valley 338,100 3,357,650 3,119,550 530,820 5,511,490 4,980,670 Antelope Valley 247,200 2,951,650 2,704,450 388,350 4,669,510 4,281,160 Abbey Bridge 241,750 2,383,250 2,141,500 379,790 3,786,980 3,407,190 Dixie Refuge 204,650 2,349,450 2,144,800 321,500 3,723,880 3,402,380 Frenchman 232,750 2,764,550 2,531,800 365,650 4,398,400 4,032,750 Sub-total (1) 1,264,450 13,906,550 12,642,100 1,986,110 22,090,260 20,104,150 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 1,208,500 11,544,750 10,336,250 1,898,550 18,402,330 16,503,780 Sheep Camp 193,900 5,653,500 5,459,600 292,980 8,898,610 8,605,630 Turntable 579,600 5,093,250 4,513,650 910,550 8,347,840 7,437,290 Meadow Valley 969,000 10,862,250 9,893,250 1,521,330 17,249,250 15,727,920 Genesee Valley Park 687,900 9,453,750 8,765,850 1,080,690 14,086,090 13,005,400 Sub-total (2) 3,638,900 42,607,500 38,968,600 5,704,100 66,984,120 61,280,020 Swayne 1,176,050 4,009,250 2,833,200 1,847,570 6,338,620 4,491,050 Humbug 757,500 4,060,750 3,303,250 1,170,340 6,505,320 5,334,980 Sub-total (3) 1,933,550 8,070,000 6,136,450 3,017,910 12,843,940 9,826,030 Xichvaie Projects Nelson Point 1,218,500 6,516,000 5,297,500 1,914,260 10,536,370 8,622,110 Clio 1,208,700 4,530,750 3,322,050 1,898,870 7,231,080 5,332,210 Sub-total (4) 2,427,000 11,046,750 8,619,550 3,813,130 17,767,450 13,954,320 Iota! (1) & (2) 4,903,350 56,514,050 51,610,700 7,690,210 89,074,380 81,384,170 Total (1), (2) & (3) 6,836,900 64,584,050 57,747,!50 10,708,120 101,918,320 91,210,200 113 36. NET CUMULATIVE TOTAL PUBLIC RECREATION BENEFITS AND COSTS OF RESER- VOIR AREAS FOR THE FIFTY-YEa^R PAYOUT PERIOD, 1961 -2010* Ber lefits Costs Reservoir Area Probable Minimum 1958 1956 Authorized Projects Grizzly Valley $ 5,832,980 $ 3,941,200 $ — $ 1,445,175 Antelope Valley 5,004,920 3,381,700 1,211,895 Abbey Bridge 4,893,200 3,309,600 1,272,150 Dixie Refuge 3,887,800 2,626,900 978,490 Frenchman 4,860,020 3,283,800 1,229,740 Sub-total (1) 24,483,920 16,543,200 6,137,450 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen $12,987,740 $ 8,775,500 $ 3,689,343 $ 2,983,076 Sheep Camp 8,054,160 5,442,000 2,274,019 1,846,986 Turntable 6,573,720 4,441,700 1,913,049 1,549,400 Meadow Valley 13,156,460 8,889,500 3,707,149 2,977,298 Genesee Valley Park 22,845,420 63,617,500 15,436,100 42,984,800 9,341,293 20,924,853 Sub-total (2) 9,356,760 Swayne $ 4,018,800 $ 2,715,400 $ 1,306,252 $ 1,049,569 Humbug 4, 173, 360 2,887,400 1,257,951 1,014,092 Sub-total (3) 8,392,160 5,602,800 2, 564, 203 2,063,661 Richvale Projects Nelson Point $ 7,262,360 $ 4,907,000 $ 2,277,174 $ 1,839,319 Clio 4,321,452 2,919,900 1,398,051 1,124,677 Sub-total (4) 11,583,812 7,826,900 3,675,225 2,963,996 Total (1) & (2) 88,101,420 59,528,000 Total (2) & (3) 72,009,660 48,587,600 23,489,056 Total (1), (2)&(3) 96,493,580 65,130,800 Not adjusted to present worth v 114 37. NET CUMULATIVE TOTAL PRESENT WORTH PUBLIC RECREATION BENEFITS AND COSTS OF RESERVOIR AREAS FOR THE FIFTY-YEAR PAYOUT PERIOD, 1961-2010 Benel Fits Co: 5tS Reservoir Area Probable Minimum 1958 1956 Authorized Projects Grizzly Valley $ 2,263,133 $ 1,529,144 $ — 1 5 623, 220 Antelope Valley 2,025,247 1,368,410 565,814 Abbey Bridge 1,927,306 1,302,234 566,832 Dixie Refuge 1,602,930 1,083,061 469,921 Frenchman 1,901,588 9,720,204 1,284,857 6,567,706 537,062 Sub-total (1) ~- 2,762,849 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 4,926,390 3,328,642 1,494,754 1,203,970 Sheep Camp 3,134,104 2,117,638 934,827 755,655 Turntable 2,554,572 1,726,062 794,717 645,728 Meadow Valley 4,966,820 3,355,960 1,485,463 1,189,715 Genesee Valley Pork 8,744,700 24,326,586 5,908,581 16,436,883 3,793,079 8,503,840 — Sub-total (2) 3,795,068 Swayne 1,533,155 1,035,916 535,284 428,709 Humbug 1,586,114 1,071,699 498,396 400,311 Sub-total (3) 3,119,269 2,107,615 1,033,660 829,120 Richvale Projects Nelson Point 2,843,456 1,921,254 946,152 762, 209 Clio 1,697,504 1,146,962 585,978 469,909 Sub-total (4) 4,540,960 3,068,216 1,532,130 1,232,118 Total (1)& (2) 34,046,790 23,004,589 — Total (2) & (3) 27,445,855 18,544,498 9,537,520 Total (1), (2) & (3) 37,166,059 25,112,204 — — 115 38. AVERAGE ANNUAL EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH PUBLIC RECREATION BENEFITS AND COSTS OF RESERVOIR AREAS FOR THE NET CUMULATIVE TOTAL FIFTY-YEAR PAYOUT PERIOD, 1961-2010 Benef its Costs Resei^oir Area Probable Minimum 1958 1956 AuthorizecJ Projects Grizzly Valley 87,967 59,437 24, 224 Antelope Valley 78,721 52,190 21,993 Abbey Bridge 74,913 50,617 22,032 Dixie Refuge 62,305 42,098 18,265 Frenchman 73,914 377,820 49,942 255,284 20,875 Sub-total (1) 107,389 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 191,489 129,384 58,101 46,798 Sheep Camp 121,823 82,313 36, 337 29,372 Turntable 99,296 67,092 30,890 25,099 Meadow Valley 193,060 130,446 57,779 46,244 Genesee Valley Park 339,906 945,574 229,667 638,902 147,437 330,544 Sub-total (2) 147,513 Swayne 59,594 40, 266 20,806 16,664 Humbug 61,653 41,657 19,333 15,560 Sub-total (3) 121,247 81,923 40,139 32,224 Richvale Projects Nelson Point 110,525 74,679 36,7/7 29,627 Clio 65,982 44,582 22,777 18,265 Sub-total (4) 176,507 119,261 59,554 47,892 Total (1) & (2) 1,323,394 894,186 Total (2) & (3) 1,066,821 720,825 370,683 Total (1), (2) & (3) 1,444,641 976,109 — — — __ 116 39. NET CUMULATIVE TOTAL PRESENT WORTH PUBLIC RECREATION BENEFIT — COST RATIOS OF RESERVOIR AREAS FOR THE FIFTY-YEAR PAYOUT PERIOD, 1961-2010. Probable Benefits Minimum Benefits Reservoir Area 1958 Costs 1956 Costs 1958 Costs 1956 Costs Authorized Projects Grizzly Valley 3,631:1 2.454:1 Antelope Valley 3.579:1 2.418:1 Abbey Bridge 3.400:1 2.297:1 Dixie Refuge 3.411:1 2.305:1 Frenchman 3.541:1 3.518:1 2.392:1 Sub-total (1) — - — 2.377:1 Reservoirs under study Squaw Queen 3.295:1 4.092:1 2.227:1 2.765:1 Sheep Camp 3.352:1 4.147:1 2.265:1 2.802:1 Turntable 3.206:1 3.956:1 2.172:1 2.673:1 Meadow Valley 3.341:1 4.175:1 2.257:1 2.820:1 Genesee Valley Park 2.305:1 2.861:1 1 .558:1 1.933:1 — Sub-total (2) — Swayne 2.864:1 3.576:1 1 .934:1 2.416:1 Humbug 3.182:1 3.962:1 2.150:1 2.677:1 Sub-total (3) 3.021:1 3.762:1 2.041:1 2.542:1 Richvale Projects Nelson Point 3.005:1 3.730:1 2.031:1 2.521:1 Clio 2.897:1 3.612:1 1.975:1 2.441:1 Sub total (4) 2.964:1 2.963:1 2.002:1 2.490:1 Total (1) & (2) Total (2) & (3) 2.878:1 1.945:1 Total (1), (2) & (3) — — ««_ ___ 117 40. NET CUMULATIVE TOTAL RECREATION BENEFITS AND TOTAL PRESENT WORTH BENEFITS OF RESERVOIR AREAS FOR THE FIFTY-YEAR PAYOUT PERIOD, 1961-2010. Total Benefits Present Worth Benefits Reservoir Area Probable Minimum Probable Minimum Authorized Projects: Grizzly Valley $ 9,961,340 $ 6,239,100 $ 3,701,888 $ 2,318,609 Antelope Valley 8,562,320 5,408,900 3,417,114 2,158,624 Abbey Bridge 6,814,380 4,283,000 2,663,729 1,674,217 Dixie Refuge 6,804,760 4,289,600 2,745,312 1,730,596 Frenchman 8,065,500 5,063,600 3,014,265 1,892,385 Sub-total (1) 40,208,300 25,284,200 15,542,308 9,774,431 Reservoirs under study: Squaw Queen 33,007,560 20,672,500 12,084,396 7,568,405 Sheep Camp 17,211,260 10,919,200 6,603,435 4,189,359 Turntable 14,874,580 9,027,300 5,749,701 3,489,458 Meadow Valley 31,455,840 19,786,500 11,924,653 7,500,914 Genesee Valley Park 26,010,800 17,531,700 10,019,818 6,753,524 Sub-total (2) 122,560,040 77,937,200 46,382,003 29,501,670 Swayne 8,982,100 5,299,100 3,436,094 2,027,170 Humbug 10,669,960 6,606,500 3,976,240 2,461,962 Sub-total (3) 19,652,060 11,905,600 7,412,334 4,489,132 Richvaie Projects: Nelson Point 17,244,220 10,595,000 6,611,636 4,062,250 Clio 10,664,420 6,644,100 4,015,902 2,501,970 Sub-total (4) 27,908,640 17,239,100 10,627,538 6,564,220 Total (1) and (2) 162,768,340 103,221,400 61,924,311 39,276,101 Total (2) and (3) 142,212,100 89,842,800 53,794,337 33,990,802 Total (1), (2) and (3) 182,420,400 115,127,000 69,336,645 43,765,233 118 41. AVERAGE ANNUAL EQUIVALENT PRESENT WORTH TOTAL RECREATION BENEFITS AND PRESENT WORTH TOTAL RECREATION BENEFIT-PUBLIC COST RATIOS OF RESERVOIR AREAS FOR THE FIFTY-YEAR PAYOUT PERIOD, 1961-2010 Reservoir Area Authorized Projech: Grizzly Valley Antelope Valley Abbey Bridge Dixie Refuge Frenchman Sub-total (1) Reservoirs under study: Squaw Queen Sheep Camp Turntable Meadow Valley Genesee Valley Park Sub-total (2) Swayne Humbug Sub-total (3) Richvale Projects: Nelson Point Clio Sub-total (4) Total (1) and (2) Total (2) and (3) Total (1), (2) and (3) Probable Benefits Average Benefit-Cost Ratio Annual 1958 1956 Equivalent Costs Costs $ 143,892 132,823 103,539 106,710 117,164 604,128 469,720 256,676 223,490 463,511 389,470 1,802,367 133,561 154,556 Minimum Benefits Average Benefit-Cost Ratio Annual 1958 1956 Equivalent Costs Costs 256,994 156,098 413,092 2,406,995 2,090,984 2,695,112 8.084:1 7. .064:1 7.235:1 6 ,,839:1 2^42J_ 5 .,454: 1 6.419:1 7.978:1 5,940:1 $ 90,124 6.039:1 83,905 4.699:1 65,076 5.842:1 67,268 5.613:1 73,557 5„626:1 379,930 10.037:1 8.739:1 8.904:1 10.023:1 294,183 162,840 135,635 291,561 262,509 5„063:1 4.48U1 4.391:1 5.046.:1 1.780:1 — 1,146,728 3.469:1 8.015:1 9.933:1 78,796 95,696 3.787:1 4„939:1 6.988:1 d . 853:1 6„936u1 5.641:1 8.674:1 157,900 8.546:1 97.252 4.293:1 4.270:1 8„625:1 255,152 1,526,658 1,321,220 — 1,701,150 3.720:1 3.959:1 2.954:1 3.683:1 3.524:1 3.538:1 6.735:1 5.544:1 5.404:1 6. .304:1 4„729:1 6.150:1 288,117 7.,178:1 8.941.1 174,492 4.347:1 5.415:1 5.330:1 5.325:1 4.284:1 5-328:1 3.564:1 119 BENEFITS AND COSTS - MIDDLE FORK OF FEATHER RIVER Estimates of the "build-up" of recreation use of the Middle Fork area were made using con- stants developed from the more detailed reservoir studies without additional water develop- ment. A minimum of 225,000 annual visitor-day use and probably 337,000 visitor-day use would be generated by camping and picnicking facilities by the end of the 50-year pay-out period (1960-2010). Staged development of 980 camp and picnic units would be required to meet the probable annual use. Minimum annual use of all facilities by year 2010 Is expected to be 319,000 visitor-days and probable use 475,000 visitor-days. Total annual visitor-day use accumulating over the fifty-year pay-out period (1960-2010) without additional water development are as follows: probable use minimum use Camping and picnicking 8,750,000 5,820,000 All Recreation Use 12,270,000 8,370,000 Net increases in cumulative total annual visitor-day use resulting from additional State water development over no additional water development from Turntable Dam to Oroville Reservoir, and for the Meadow Valley Plan were prepared for the fifty-year pay-out period (1961-2010) and are shown in Table 42. Net increases in cumulative total annual visitor- day use resulting from the Richvale Irrigation District water development over no additional water development for the fifty-year pay-out period (1961-2010) are shown in Table 43. 120 N ■ INCREASES IN CUMULATIVE TOTAL ANNUAL VISITOR-DAYS USE FOR THE FIFTY-YEAR PAYOUT PERIOD (1961-2010) RESULTING FROM ADDITIONAL STATE WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MIDDLE FORK AREA AND MEADOW VALLEY PLAN Visitor-days Use Probable Minimum Public recreation - camp and picnic: Middle Fork-Turntable Dam to Orov i 1 1 e Turntable Reservoir sub-total Sloat to Oroville Meadow Valley Reservoir Total public recreation All recreation uses - public and private: Middle Fork-Turntable Dam to Oroville Turntable Reservoir sub-total Sloat to Oroville Meadow Valley Reservoir Total all recreation uses 4,714,380 3,286,820 8,001,200 6,578,260 14,579,460 16,906,000 7,409,900 24,315,900 15,706,100 40,022,000 3,435,750 2,220,850 5,656,600 4,444,750 10,101,350 10,663,800 4,513,650 15,187,450 9,893,350 25,070,800 TABLE 43. NET INCREASES IN CUMULATIVE TOTAL ANNUAL VISITOR-DAYS USE FOR THE FIFTY-YEAR PAYOUT PERIOD (1961-2010) RESULTING FROM RICHVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT Probable Minimum Public Recreation - camp and picnic: Middle Fork-Nelson Point Dam to Oroville Nelson Point Reservoir sub-total Sloat to Oroville Clio Reservoir Total public recreation All Recreation Uses - public and private: Middle Fork-Nelson Point Dam to Oroville Nelson Point Reservoir sub-total Sloat to Oroville Clio Reservoir Total all recreation uses 3,559,600 2,483,750 3,631,200 2,453,500 7,190,800 4,937,250 2,162,600 1,453,500 9,353,400 6,397,200 14,120,180 9,050,500 8,614,840 5,297,500 22,735,020 14,348,000 5,328,360 3,322,050 28,053,400 17,670,050 121 Net benefits and costs resulting from additional water development of the Middle Fork of the Feather River were estimated for both the Meadow Valley Plan and the alternate Richvale Plan. These minimum and probable benefits and 1956 and 1958 costs are shown for the fifty- year pay-out period as cumulative totals not adjusted to present worth. Annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs were estimated, using ratios developed from the reser- voir studies. Table 44 shows these benefits and costs. Comparison of the benefits and costs of both plans discloses that the Meadow Valley Plan Is more economically feasible because the benefit-cost ratios for all combinations of probable and minimum benefits to 1958 and 1956 costs are higher than those for the Richvale Plan. In terms of public recreation benefits, the Meadow Valley Plan would have 56% greater probable benefit than the Richvale Plan and 58% greater minimum benefit. Total probable and minimum recreation benefits from the Meadow Valley Plan would be 43% and 42% greater than that obtained from the Richvale Plan. However, public recreation costs are greater for the Meadow Valley Plan. Examination of the economic feasibility of Meadow Valley Plan and Richvale Plan discloses an advantage of from 18% to 20% for Meadow Valley Plan over Richvale Plan for the various combinations of resulting benefit-cost ratios. 122 z CD o O o Q o o o o o O o O o ^) o o o o o •— • E CN MD -7 r^; o o o •».. "~^ CD CM 3 fv. rx lO o ^- tv." in — lO t CN CN IT) 00 -^ :? lO O CN CN •^ ^— CN LU *c CO o CO r^ o r- lO ■o o CO • « Q£ 42 ^ ^ V •fc ■» • ^ k- «k •. "t m u ■ 1 i o-" o o O -«* VO CO o co"" MD m UJ 9) CN CO lO f— t— CN CO cm c ^i^ ai. LU (U CO > "p 4) o o o o o o o o o o a: o J— o o o o o O 00 ■^ CM MD ^_ _, ,, Qi J3 o o CO c» CN o 't: •— CO o o r\ rx 00 UJ _Q CN Cn" ^— CM CN 00 o'cn" o" •o" •o CN X o ^— c^ ^— O- CN ^ hv CM I^ CM m CO 1 — k oo CO o 'tt o O CD CM CM m o ^— • • < UJ LU a. S, «h ■ V ■» •« •»> «o 00 oo '^"' oo" ^— o rv CN CO 1^ lO o" ■o CO •^ CO CO CN ^ ^51- •— m w*^ U- o o o CD CO o o- CN r^ ^ ^ o o o R3 c^ o — ^— IX CN o Tj- IT) rv •^ CO rv SD CO >o ^ ^ ^ K •^ •* ^ K «* ^ !£> o* o CO r^x lO hN CN o "* pa* 1 1 LJJ O cs CO "* CO CN •o 1 1 ■v C^ K 00 CN -^ 1 1 '" CO lO CO CN 00 1 1 1 1 <) ^*" 1 1 Q§ ■^"' ■~ in cn"" 00 CO — in '"■ •o Q J. •*- 8 u 4^ HE M , 196 o o o- CN 00 O 'Si- ■<;J- ,_ in o 'ct- '^ -"t o- o rx f^ lO rvj CO o 00 o- 00 — CN o o GO IT) •», *. »» go "^ CO K 1^ -* 1 1 CN r^ CN K CN CO CO 1 1 u-) r^- o o tv. t 1 c- CN CN 1 1 vO o LO t^ CN 1 1 Ov CN CO m 1 1 •• •fc ^ -^ »• u_ Q^ UJ IT) — rv CO >— •^ CM rv — 00 t/l Q_ */^ "" t^^- 8S E D E o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o § ^_ ^_ _ >- m R CN m n! in o m CN • • .• Q < Z Q- ^ .1^ •« ^ •h ,, ,, ^ ^ •». ^ K. CO 00 'c r^ ^— CO CN CM CM CN tv. l-v ■^ CN ^ 00 CN rv 5 p-« CO O CN rx o o tv. o -^ 00 FITS /> -YEAR 4- is CX) CO CO CN rv CvJ CN CN CO o^ IX o • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ■ • ^ ^ fc. ^ ^ 1— ^^ c Q) o '^ 00 o CN "" CN -«* ^ CN CM CM zt. ca o 0) o o o o O o o o o o UJ u. •^ o "». ^ .« ^ ^ ■« ^ •k, :P 00 00 r- M3 oo CM o ^— VETOT FORTI Q. '^ m O *•. lO CN .— CN CO CO IX • CN CM CN . t\ '^ ■«t" 00 9— CM ^— »— V» s LATI' lENT E o O i_ c £ 44. NET CUMU DEVELOPM JH ^ '5 •5 S > a: t) 0) — (U > — ^ > O -a 6 S I-± 1 c C3 a. >v 0) "5 > 0) c 1- D »— 1 _y L- u_ -o ■D 'o sj ° r Qi (U O — q; _ ■> 0) P O 2 t o £-§ "5 O 8 B or 8 V Irt V> 1 J?^ o. i: 0, 2 c £ 1- *o t 0) •- 0:i "5 o .8 o o£ 8 V V c V CO 8 u CO in CN £ o u m s "8 4- o z ^ ^ h- ^ c^ ^ z u 123 124 PART VII. ULTIMATE RECREATION USE OF THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER SERVICE AREA Many of the existing recreation areas in the Upper Feather River Basin and the which together constitute the Service Area, can safely absorb higher densities and increased recreation use. There are also several presently undeveloped recreation areas which will be utilized irrespective of water development as the pressure for new outdoor recreation areas increases throughout the state and nation . General recreation areas are shown on Plate XII Ge neral Recreation Areas Upper Feather Riv er Service Area Without Additional Water Development . The percentages of general land uses shown on the plan at ultimate development are as follows: Total Service Area 100.0 percent Agricultural areas 16.7 Water areas 1 .5 General recreation areas 81 .8 undeveloped areas 78.7 developable areas 3.1 Almost one-half of the ultimate recreation use in the Upper Feather River Service Area is expected to occur in river and stream areas. Camping and picnicking facilities would have about 50 percent of the probable ultimate 44,211,000 annual visitor-days use of developable facilities, followed by summer homes - 23.6 percent, resorts - 22.1 percent and organization camps - 7.1 percent. Probable annual visitor-day use in the Upper Feather River Service Area without additional Iwoter development by ten-year periods from 1956 to 2050 is shown in Table 45. Probable ■annual visitor-days use and number of units by recreation facility is also shown by ten-year [periods in Table 46. Tables A-7 through A-22 in the Appendix contain detailed figures for [each hydrographic area by general recreation classification and type of recreation use. 125 45. PROBABLE ANNUAL VISITOR-DAYS USE IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER SERVICE AREA WITHOUT ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT, 1956-2050 Year Total Visitor-days in thousands Total Visitor-days less highway users in thousands Total Visitor-days for developable facilities in thousands 1956 3,199 1960 6,000 1961 6,800 1970 15,800 1980 26,300 1990 38,000 2000 50,500 2010 64,000 2020 77,500 2030 90,500 2040 104,000 2050 114,453 2,060 4,200 4,700 10,400 17,500 25,600 34,200 43, 200 52,800 62,300 70,000 76, 226 1,545 2,800 3,190 5,600 9,240 14,030 19,100 25,000 31,000 36,440 40,840 44,211 46. PROBABLE ANNUAL VISITOR -DAYS USE AND NUMBER OF UNITS BY TYPE OF RECREATION FACILITY IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER SERVICE AREA WITHOUT ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT, 1956-2050 Probable Visitor-days Use in thousands Number of Units Camp & Org. Summer Camp & Org, Summe Year Picnic Camps Resorts Homes Picnic Camps Resorts Homes 1956 735.7 94.8 480.9 233.5 1,223 329 1,271 1,040 1960 1,356 176 750 500 3,980 628 2,060 2,780 1961 1,500 190 820 560 4,420 680 2,260 3,110 1970 2,420 400 1,560 1,120 7,120 1,430 4,280 6,230 1980 4,500 690 2,180 1,950 13,220 2,460 6,010 10,800 1990 6,660 970 3,600 2,800 19,600 3,460 9,920 15,560 2000 9,200 1,300 4,750 3,850 27,020 4,640 13,100 21,200 2010 12,370 1,660 5,970 5,000 36,440 5,930 16,500 27,800 2020 15,690 1,960 7,200 6,150 46, 200 7,000 19,800 34,100 2030 18,400 2,300 8,490 7,250 54.100 8,220 23,400 40,300 2040 20,500 2,600 9,540 8,200 60,300 9,290 26,300 45,500 2050 22,134 2,783 10,398 8,896 65,100 9,940 28,640 49,420 126 ULTIMATE USE WITHOUT WATER DEVELOPMENT Some 66.3 thousand acres of the total 1,934,600 acres in the Upper Feather River Basin (Hydrographic Areas Nos- 42-46) can be developed for recreation without additional water development. This area will be adequate for construction of over 124,600 units of all kinds with o total daily capacity of 498,640 people. These facilities could safely accommodate some 35,984,000 annual visitor-days use at ultimate development, and this use will generate additional use of 26,057,000 and 31,021,000 annual visitor-days in the form of other forest areas and highway users, respectively. Average gross densities would be roughly 1956 densities. The average net density for the Upper Basin would increase from 6.5 to 7.5 capacity people per developed acre. Roughly 25 times more land would be developed compared to the present 2,603 acres. Of the total 114,453,000 potential annual visitor-days use of the Service Area, about 93,062,000 would be in the Upper Basin which equals about 81 percent of the 132,000,000 total visitor-days forecasted in Part II- Total visitor-days less highway users would be 62,041,000 ultimately, or less than 61 percent of the 102,000,000 visitor-days forecasted for the Upper Basin. Without additional water development, therefore, recreation demand, excluding highway users, would exceed safe use by more than 64 percent, and the facilities provided would be overcrowded to that extent to satisfy the demand. Such overcrowding would be a serious threat to the watershed and timber producing abilities and recreation attraction of the Basin and might further limit its continued use as a recreation area. 127 ULTIMATE USE WITH ADDITIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT The Plate General Recreation Areas Upper Feather River Service Area With Additional Water Development, No. X III, includes the development of the following State Water pro- jects: (a) Authorized Oroville, Dixie Refuge, Abbey Bridge, Antelope Valley, Grizzly Valley and Frenchman Reservoirs; (b) Study areas of Squaw Queen, Sheep Camp, Turntable, Meadow Valley, Swayne and Humbug Valley Reservoirs; (c) development of Genesee Valley as a State Park . Construction of the above State water projects would double the existing water surface acreage within the Service Area, and would provide a more even distribution of recreation attractions and opportunities for recreation use over the entire area. Additional downstream areas would be enhanced with controlled water releases compatible with good streamflow mainten- ance practices permitting increased recreation use of these downstream areas for fishing and general recreation activities. The increase in water surface and improvement of streams would permit the ultimate develop- ment of an additional 50,300 acres for recreation use, bringing the total to 132, 120 acres in the Upper Feather River Service Area. Some 231,900 units, or 78,800 more units, can be developed with state water development. The capacity would be increased 51 percent from 612,400 to 927,700 people per day. Of the 2, 151,700 acres in the Service Area about 5.1 percent would be developed for re- creation with water development compared with 3.1 percent without water development. Existing and ultimate percentages of general land uses for the Upper Feather River Basin and the Service Area are shown by each use classification in Table A-23 of the Appendix. 128 The average density in the Service Area would be increased from 0.05 to 0.09 units per gross acre as a result of water development. The net density, however, would be reduced from 1 .88 without additional water development to 1 .75 units per developable acre because of a higher proportion of low-density facilities (summer homes and organization camps) are expected with state water development. Water development would permit development of more areas at an average lower density. Without additional water development there would be fewer areas of recreation attraction, and, therefore, more intensive development of the available areas would occur. Table A-24 in the appendix compares existing densities to ulti- mate densities with and without water development by hydrographic unit. Probable ultimate annual visitor-days use of developable facilities would be increased 47 percent - from 44,211,000 to 65, 1 16,000 with water development of the Service Area. The East Branch of the Feather River would receive a higher proportion of the total recrea- tion use and would stand to gain the most from water development since six of the proposed water projects would be located within the area. With water development, the concentration of use shifts from River and Stream areas to Reservoir and Lake Areas. Ultimate recreation use and development for each hydrographic area by general recreation classification and type of recreation use are shown in Tables A-7 through A-22 in the Appendix. Present and ulti- mate percentages of use distribution by hydrographic area, type of recreation facility and general recreation classification are shown in Table A- 25 of the Appendix. Probable ultimate recreation use in the Upper Feather River Service Area with State water development is expected to reach 168.6 million annual visitor-days by the year 2050. Probable annual visitor-days and number of facilities by type of recreation facility and net increases resulting from State water development by ten year intervals are shown in Tables 47, 48 and 49 which follow. 129 47. PROBABLE ANNUAL VISITOR-DAYS USE IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER SERVICE AREA AND NET INCREASES RESULTING FROM STATE WATER DEVELOPMENT, 1956-2050 Total Visitor-days Total Visitor-days Total Visitor-days less highway users for developable facilities Year Probable Use Net Increase Probable Use Net Increase Probable Use Net Increase 1956 3,199 - 2,060 - 1,545 1960 7,500 1,500 4,900 700 2,868 68 1961 8,600 1,800 5,600 900 3,374 180 1970 21,000 5,200 14,200 3,000 7,526 1,926 1980 37,000 10,700 25,700 8,200 13,730 4,490 1990 55,000 17,000 38,000 12,400 21,210 7,180 2000 75,000 24,500 51,200 17,000 29, 820 10,720 2010 94,000 30,000 65,400 22,200 38,210 13,210 2020 120,000 42,500 80,000 27,200 46,680 15,680 2030 144,000 53,500 93,100 30,800 54,670 18,230 2040 160,000 56,000 104,300 34,000 60,630 19,790 2050 168,576 54,100 112,272 36,000 65,116 20,905 48. ANNUAL VISITOR-DAYS USE AND NUMBER OF UNITS BY TYPE OF RECREATION FACILITY IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER SERVICE AREA WITH STATE WATER DE- VELOPMvENT, 1956-2050 Probable Visitor-days L'se in Thousands Number of Units Camp & Org. Summer Camp & Org. Summer Year Picnic Camps Resorts Homes Picnic Camps Resorts Homes 1956 735.7 94.8 480.9 233.5 1,223 329 1,271 1,040 1960 1,360 190 786 550 4,000 636 2,170 3,060 1961 1,550 200 970 650 4,560 710 2,680 3,610 1970 3,400 486 2,000 1,640 10,000 1,740 5,520 9,110 1980 6,400 900 3,100 3,100 18,840 3,220 8,560 17,220 1990 10,000 1,470 4,900 4,840 29,400 5,250 13,520 26,890 2000 14,400 2,000 6,620 6,800 42,600 7,140 18,300 37,780 2010 18,300 2,540 8,430 8,940 53,800 9,070 23,270 49,670 2020 22,000 3,100 10,360 11,220 64,700 11,080 28,600 62,330 2030 26,000 3,650 12,000 13,020 76,500 13,020 33,150 72,330 2040 28,500 4,250 13,380 14,500 83,900 15,900 36,850 80,560 2050 30,787 4,606 14,383 15,340 90,550 16,450 39,710 85,220 130 49. NET INCREASES IN PROBABLE ANNUAL RECREATION VISITOR-DAYS USE AND RECREATION UNITS BY RECREATION FACILITY RESULTING FROM STATE WATER DEVELOPMENT IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN, 1960-2050 Camp and Picnic Organization Camps Resorts, hotels, motels Summer homes Year Visitor-days Units Visitor-days Units Visitor-days Units Visitor-days Units (thousands] ) (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) 1960 4 20 2 8 36 110 50 280 1961 50 140 10 30 150 420 90 500 1970 980 2,880 86 310 440 1,240 520 2,880 1980 1,900 5,620 210 760 920 2,550 1,150 6,420 1990 3,340 9,800 500 1,790 1,300 3,600 2,040 11,330 2000 5,200 15,580 700 2,500 1,870 5,200 2,950 16,580 2010 5,930 17,360 880 3,140 2,460 6,770 3,940 21,870 2020 6,310 18,500 1,140 4,080 3,160 8,800 5,070 28, 230 2030 7,600 22,400 1,350 4,800 3,510 9,750 5,770 32,030 2040 8,000 23,600 1,650 5,890 3,840 10,550 6,300 35,060 2050 8,653 25,450 1,823 6,510 3,985 11,070 6,444 35,800 Considering only the Upper Feather River Basin (Hydrographic Areas 42-46), soma 112,300 acres and 196,740 units could be developed with a daily capacity of 786,960 people. These facilities would generate 55,077,000 annual visitor-days at ultimate development, 39,883,000 In other forest areas and 47,481,000 visitor-days from highway users. The total use with water development of 142,441,000 annual visitor-days exceeds the forecasted total demand of 132 million. The potential ultimate 94,960,000 visitor-days less highway users is within 93 percent of the forecast of 102 million, and less than 11 percent overcrowding would occur to meet demand as opposed to 64 percent overcrowding without additional water development. Construction of State water projects would permit the development of adequately safe, de- sirable, healthful recreation areas and facilities which would not require excessive overcrowd- ing to meet demand. This would be consistent with the prime purpose of the basin and provide maximum enjoyment of the natural resources and the great outdoor recreation opportunities. 131 132 APPENDIX 133 134 PART VIII. MEASURE/vENT OF RECREATION BENEFITS* A summary of the method used in placing dollar values on recreation oenefits related to five authorized projects in the Upper Feather River Basin was contained in Appendix A of Bulletin 59, published in 1957. That method and the factors involved in its selection hove been sub- stantiated by additional study and utilized in the assessment of nine additional recreation areas discussed in this study. The details of the method and its rationality are presented in this section. THE PROBLEM Many attempts to place quantitative measures on recreation values have been made by the agencies involved, but without satisfying either the proponents of the method or the objec- tions of affected interests. Following the publication of the summary review of recreation feasibility studies on five reservoirs in the Upper Feather River Basin, national interest on the problem was focused by public hearings conducted before a Senate Subcommittee of the 2 Committee on Public Works, and by the designation of the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service of a dollar \-alue for a per capita day visit to recreation areas related to water development projects. While national interest in quantitative measures on recreation values has been related to failure on the par' of responsible agencies to anticipate full re- creational potentials of reservoir piojects, that of the State of California is related directly to the importance of utilizing writers of the areas of origin for the development of local natural resources. * Prepared in cooperation with Andrew H. Trice 1. State of California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin No>, 59 "Investigation of Upper Feather River Basin Development", February, 1957„ 2. See "Evaluation of Recreational Benefits from Reservoirs", Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works,. United States Senate ..(Washington D,C-, 1957); See also footnote no>, 2 on page 42. 135 The reasons for not including recreation evaluations as an integral part of feasibility reports in the past have arisen because of the fundamental difficulty in appraising the dollar value of recreation. And, since it was either impossible or undesirable to charge for recreational use, even if dollar benefits were known, there has been no compelling reason to estimate them precisely. Where major multi-purpose projects have been undertaken, irrigation, power development, and other benefits, have far outweighed any estimates made of possible recrea- tional value. Since these other benefits are more easily stated in dollars, and the benefi- ciaries more easily identified for purposes of collection, interest has focused upon non-recrea- tion benefits. However, failure in the past to make adequate provision for recreational de- velopment in connection with projects justified on non-recreational bases and failure to under- take worthwhile projects where consideration of recreational values would have made a differ- ence, underline the importance of evaluation which will make possible the placing of recrea- tional values among those to be considered in project selections. The assignment of dollar values to recreational benefits is of paramount importance in con- nection with authorized reservoirs under study in the Upper Feather River Basin. It is antici- pated that a substantial part of the project values for several of the reservoirs will be recrea- tional in nature. Without dollar values for recreational benefits, certain of the projects might not be economically feasible, since total costs might be greater than the total of non-recrea- tional benefits. In addition, benefit-cost computations are needed which include recreational benefits and costs in dollars, so that ratios for Upper Feather River projects may be compared in dollar terms with other uses of State funds and so that priorities can be established for reser- voir construction. 136 Primary and Secondary Benefits Benefits from reservoir projects are of two kinds: primary and secondary™ Primary benefits arise directly from the project itself; secondary benefits ore those which follow the impact of primary benefits. An example of primary benefits are net benefits accruing to formers from irrigation water supplied by reservoir projects. Secondary benefits are either induced by the primary benefits or stem from them. Illustrative of induced secondary benefits are those re- ceived by businesses which secure increased supplies of row materials, or raw materials at a lower price; while secondary benefits stemming from the project include those accruing to the business community due to increased expenditures by the farmers receiving the primary benefit. According to the principles developed by the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee in its report on Proposed Practices for the Economic Analysis of River Basin Projects, only pri- mary recreational benefits are to be considered in connection with multipurpose projects. The some principle applies to non-recreational project benefits also and is not, therefore, a peculiarity of recreational benefits » Although it cannot be said that there is unanimous agreement among analysts as to the desirability of focusing attention upon primary benefits alone, there is a very strong sentiment in that direction. It is believed that secondary bene- fits tend to overlap primary benefits with resulting double counting of benefits. Also, since many factors contribute to business growth and prosperity, there is danger that benefits of the T~, See Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee, Subcommittee on Benefits and Costs, Proposed Practices for Economic Analysis of River Basin Projects, (Washington; May 195?) pp. 7-11^ 35-36, 39-40. See also S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, "Benefit-Cost Analyses one Public Resource Development", Journal of Farm Econorrics, Vol. XXXXXVII, No, 4, November 1955; and miscellaneous unpublished writings of Professor David Weeks, Giannini Foundation for Agricultural Economics, University of California, 2. Subcommittee on Benefits and Costs, op.cit., p. 11. 137 secondary type may be attributed to a project when they are really attributable to something else. When to the dangers of double counting and possible improper credit of benefits, there is added the very great difficulty of approximating secondary benefits and the widespread sus- picion of such figures when they have been estimated^ there appears to be ample grounds for avoiding the computation of secondary benefits wherever possible „ Professor Wantrup of the University of California clarifies the issue when he suggests that computation of primary benefits is sufficient where the problem is the selection of a project. Only when repayment of costs is expected would Professor Wantrup resort to the computation of secondary benefits. If his line of reasoning is adopted, and it does appear to have practical value, only primary benefits need be considered in the present instance since project selection or justification is under consideration and direct repayment by recreationists or local business 2 interests is not contemplated „ The Nature of Primary Benefits Primary benefits from recreation are intangible and, therefore,- immeasurable in dollar terms. This fundamental tenet is concurred in by vitually all persons who have given the problem 3 careful consideration. On the basis of this major premise,, it would appear that attempts to place dollar values on recreation should be abandoned ^ As a matter of fact there are those who advocate this course of action not only because of the seeming impossibility of the task, but be- cause it is their belief that even the most optimistic estimates will understate true recreational 1. Ciriacy-Wantrup, op.cit., p. 688, 2, Subcommittee on Benefits and Costs, op.cit., pp» 51-52. 3. Ibid. ^, p. 51. Also, Land and Recreational Planning Division, National Park Service, The Economics of Public Recreation ^ Washington, D.C. 1949. The "Prewitt Report", p. 30; Kenneth Decker, Evaluation of Public Recreation (Sacramento: reproduced by State of California Recreation Commission, 1951) p. 1 . 136 1 values, thus leading to their disparagement as compared with rwn-recreational values. The United States Forest Service has refused, for example, to place dollar values on recreational use of the forests under its jurisdiction. The Forest Service has been able to live with this policy, it appears, only because it need not resort to dollar comparisons to justify its program. If recreational benefits to the individual are intangible, how is it possible to express them in dollars? Very generally, the expression of intangible values in dollars call for the derivation 2 of "judgment values". The "Prewitt Report" of the National Pork Service concluded that If the interests of the Park Service require intangible kenefits be expressed in dollars, such dollar values were to be based upon the best judgment of those most competent to evaluate such in- tangibles. The Inter-Agency River Basin Committee recommended the simulation or estimation of at least minimum values for intangible benefits, valuing them "as if" they were products 3 exchanged in the market place. Over and above minimum values expressed as though ex- changed in the market place, the Inter-Agency Committee recommended that residual intangible benefits or values which continued to defy evaluation in money terms should be described gen- erally so that their existence and importance is not overlooked. Specific recommendations in the Prewitt Report as to methods to employ in estimating market values include those of Professor Howard Ellis of the University of California and those of Professor Harold Hotelling of the University of North Carolina, Professor Ellis suggested that iT National Park Service, op.cit. p. 6, 2, Ibid p. 30. 3. Ibid , p. 5, Although market values would be simulated, the values would actually lie outside the market and would be "extra market" in nature. See also "Evaluation of Recreational Benefits from Reservoirs, "Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, (Washington, D.C.: 1957) pp. 119-123, 139 recreational benefits be derived by assuming dollar values in terms of what a monopolist would charge if he were to control the recreational area. Professor Hotel ling suggested that a study be made of distances travelled by those using the national parks to determine the cost of such travel and, by comparing costs incurred by those travelling the greatest distances, to determine the dollar saving of all those able to enjoy the parks without incurring the full travel 2 expense of the most distant travellers. Both of these suggestions involve the concept of a "consumer surplus" or a free value associated with payment of prices below what an individual would be willing to pay. An adaptation of Professor Hotellings' idea will be developed at a later point in connection with procedures for measurements of recreational value in the Upper Feather River Basin. CURRENT METHODS OF VALUING RECREATION BENEFITS Two principal methods of estimating dollar values for recreation have been used. One is based upon expenditures by users of recreation facilities, while the other is based upon costs of pro- viding recreation facilities for their use in national parks or in connection with multipurpose reservoir developments. Expenditure Approach to Estimating Recreational Benefits The expenditure approach assumes that dollars spent for recreation are appropriate measures of recreational benefit to those persons engaging in it. Results of sample studies of actual expendi- tures by recreationists of various types at different times and in different places are shown in 1 . Ibid, p. 6. Something similar to what Professor Ellis suggests can be accomplished by the method proposed later in this study. The problem is to find a method for determining what a monopolist would charge if he were a mind reader as well as a monopolist. 2. Ibid, pp. 8-9. 3. Robert F. Wallace, An Evaluation of Wildlife Resources in the State o f Washington , (Pullman, Washington, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, State College of Woshington, February, 1956) pp. 1-5, for an explanation of one expenditure approach. 140 Table - A. According to these data average e>9enclitures in continental United States ranged from a low of $3,09 per day in Kens in 1952 to $18,00 per day for steelhead anglers in California in 1953. An array of these average expenditure figures for the United States reveals that the greater number of per day visitor expenditures ranged from $6,00 to $10,00, with an interpolated median average of about $8,70, In California the most common figures ranged from $6.00 to $1 1 .00 per visitor day. On the basis of these figures, it appears a representa- tive gross expenditure for recreation In California lies somewhere between $8,00 and $9.00 per day. The expenditure approach is not a satisfactory method for measuring intangible values to the person enjoying recreation « In the first place^, many so-called recreational expenditures ore simply normal expenditures made under slightly different circumstances. For example, a substantial portion of food, clothing, and travel expenditures would have taken place in the absence of recreation, simply as a part of daily living. (See Plate - A). And, in the second place, even those expenditures which are over and above normal living costs are not neces- sarily measures of recreational enjoyment, but are the price paid for certain goods and services for which there are established market values. Dollars spent in pursuit of recreation appear to be more significant as indicators o\ secondary benefits to the business community than as meas- 2 ures of primary recreational benefits^ However, even when used as indicators of secondary benefits to the business community,, recreational expenditures constitute gross or total dollars rather than the increase in net income to business. Their indiscriminate use as measures of Tl Actually the figures shown in Table - A, are not strictly comparable, since they involve in addition to different times, places, and recreational activities, differences in accounting procedures. 2, It would be possible and profitable to estimate the effect upon the business community of Plumas County of new dollars generoted by increased recreational activities resulting from the proposed projects. For an excellent analysis of tourist expenditures and their effects upon an economy, see John Child and Company, The Impact of Visitor Dollars In Hawaii (Honolulu: Hawaii Visitors Bureau, March, 1953) . 141 secondary benefit may tend, therefore, to give an inflated idea of their importance to the business community (See Plate - B)» Gross recreational expenditures in this analysis are re- jected as being inappropriate measures of either personal recreational enjoyment or community benefits of a secondary type. Cost Approach to Estimating Recreational Benefits The second method used for estimating recreational values is associated with multipurpose reser-^ voir projects for the most part and may be described as the cost method. The most notable use of costs as a measure of recreational benefits is found in the computations of the Bureau of Re- clamation. The Bureau staff customarily estimates costs of recreational developments and then assigns an equal amount to recreational benefits. In some instances, however, the Bureau uses benefit figures supplied it by the National Park Service, The National Park Service has used costs also as the basis for determining benefits, although the benefits attributed to recreation by it are twice as large as the estimated costs » The reason for the difference is found in the National Park Service practice of considering primary benefits equal to costs and secondary benefits equal to primary benefits. Thus, recreational benefits are always twice as great as 2 costs in their calculations. TI See Bureau of Reclamation, San Luis Unit, Central Valley Project (Sacramento; May 195^ pp. 115-124 and Bureau of Reclamation, Ventura River Project (Sacramento) p. 149. See also Alfred R. Golge, Reclamation in the United States (New York; McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1952), pp 127-128: 2, During the past year the National Park Service has developed a $1 ,60 per day value of recreation in National Parks, From explanations found in Park Service releases and in other references to it, the $1 ,60 appears to be based upon a study limited to expenditures by people engaging in recreation similar to that provided in National Parks. See August 1957, release of National Park Service entitled, A Method of Evaluating Recreation Benefits and Costs of Water Control Projects . See also the hearings of Subcommittee, on Public Works, loc, cit,, and S, J, Dana, Problem Analysis Research in Forest Re- creation (Washington, D. C: Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, April 1957), p. 13. 142 The use of costs as a basis for estimating benefits involves circular reasoning. There appears to be nothing gained by assuming a constant relationship between benefits and costs. As must be obvious the reason for estimating benaflte in the first place is to decide economic feasibility or, in other words, whether costs should be incurred at all. To assume that benefits are equal to, or twice as great as costs in every case, is to make every recreational project at least marginally feasible. In addition, to assume the ratio of benefits to costs is equal for every project removes the basis for establishing priorities among projects. Even though the assignment of benefits on the basis of costs involves circular reasoning, it should be understood that recommendations as to recreational developments and, therefore, recreational costs, are based upon "value judgments" of persons qualified to appraise the need for and probable use of recreational facilities- Thus, recommendations as to recreation features are the result of careful analysis of all pertinent factors of accessibility^ topography, probable development, population growth^ and similar factors, it would appear reasonable to assume that the recreational features of the project would be worth at least what they cost or even twice what they cost. However, it appears that the cost method has not proven adequate in the past, since failure to plan recreational facilities in line with realized demand has been typical rather than exceptional in connection with projects completed where the cost method has been accepted practice, METHOD USED IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN STUDY Thus, no method currently in use for approximating recreational values is entirely acceptable. To a greater or lesser degree the dollar values cited, under both the expenditure and cost methods., must be rejected . Not only must the popular current methods be rejected, but it is doubtful whether any completely satisfactory method can be discovered^ since the values under consideration are primarily intangible. It is against this background that the method developed 143 in the pages which follow must be evaluated „ In essence, a practical problem demands a practical solution^, a solution which in the very nature of the cose cannot be perfect. For the method to be useful, it should provide a value which has the following general charac- teristics: 1 . It is in terms of a standard unit of time and is expressed in dollars. 2, It is representative of recreational enjoyment for which there is no expendi- ture by the recreationists and for which the state is not directly reimbursed, 3, It is separately derived and independent of costs of providing recreation facilities. 4, It consists of a single figure which applies to recreationists in the Upper Feather River area as a group without regard to the form of recreation being enjoyed or to differences among individuals as to capacity to enjoy recrea- tional benefitSo 5, It should be peculiar to the area under consideration, even though similar areas may have similar values o 6, It should be reasonable in amount and subject to tests based upon judgment values by informed people „ The Nature of the Travel Cost Approach The approach suggested by Professor Hotel ling in his letter to the Na^'ional Park Service most closely resembles that developed for this study „ According to his method, an analysis of National Park patronage would be made to discover the points of origin or recreationists visit- ing a given park. Such recreationists would be grouped geographically into distance zones about the park. The average costs of travel to the park for each such group would be multiplied by the number of potential users within each zone„ (See Plate - C)^ Those visiting the park from the most distant zone would set a bulk-line value of recreation provided by the park. A market value having been set it would be possible to compute the free value of recreation pro- vided to those who do not have to travel so far. A total figure for free recreational value attributable to the park would be a summation of travel cost differences between the maximum 144 or bulk-line and that for each zone, multiplied by the number of recreationist^ estimated to use the park from each zone. In Professor Hotellings' approach, it is assumed that people enjoy parks to a similar if not Identical extent. Therefore, if those visiting a park from the greatest distance pay for the privilege in travel expenses as much as $5.00, they have in effect established the value of recreation to everyone. Since all others who visit the park receive the same $5.00 of benefit, they receive recreation, in effect, at bargain rates. Thus, if it costs recreationists from the next farthest zone $4,00 on the average, each of them receives $1 ,00 of free benefit. Similarity, If It costs $3.00 from the next zone, there is a $2.00 free benefit, and so forth. To the extent the use of the park has been made possible by expenditure of funds by the govern- ment, the individual recreationist who does not pay the full price is subsidized by the general tax rolls. This same subsidization occurs in connection with multipurpose reservoirs, since those who pay for the water and power or who pay taxes without enjoying the recreational ad- 1 vantages are underwriting the recreation of those directly engaged in recreation activities. Costs of travel to and from a recreational area appear to offer the least objectional method of differentiating among recreationists. Using costs of travel alone avoids questions of econ- omic ability, personal tastes and appetites, forms of recreation engaged In, and other factos difficult to analyze. It Is recognized that food and lodging are the other major expenditures of recreationists. To assume a single figure per day for food or lodging eliminates differences among recreationists entirely and removes the basis for establishing a market value and an actual, average cost as visualized in the Hotelling travel cost approach. By contrast, if a fixed rate per mile of travel is assigned all recreational parties, differences such as those of 1 , Taxes paid by some recreationists may be in proportion to their recreational enjoyment. 145 wealth or taste are eliminated, but certain differences remain, nevertheless. These latter differences arise from the fact that some recreationists travel a lesser distance than others, stay more days, or share expenses with more people and in consequence, pay out fewer dollars for travel than those who travel longer distances, stay for shorter periods, or travel with fewer people sharing costs. The assumption of a fixed cost per mile traveled has, therefore, the dual advantage of removing income differences and at the same time producing per visitor day differ- ences in costs of enjoying a recreational area. It should be noted that recreational value ex- ists for every recreational area with or without specific improvements- Thus, the proposed reservoirs in the Upper Feather River area will not create the differences in travel costs to the area, since such cost differences already exist, but they will make possible the use and enjoy- ment of the area by a larger number of persons than would be possible without the improvements. Specific Applications of the Adopted Method Plumas County and the Upper Feather River area which it includes is in the Sierra Nevada mountains northeast from Sacramento. To determine the value of a recreational day in that area it is necessary to consider actual recreational use patterns for Plumas County and for other similar areas in the high Sierras. Fortunately, data with respect to recreational use of three areas in the Sierras have been secured. The California Department of Water Resources gathered information by interview in the Upper Feather River area in 1956, and the United States Fislj and Wildlife Service collected similar data for two sections of the Truckee River in 1956. While the three areas are separated by several miles, and therefore, distinct from one another. K A complication which must be recognized in ths Hotel ling approach (and in the current analysis) is that arising from the vacationist who visits or uses more than one recreation area opposed to another. The problem is soiaewhat reduced where alternative areas tend to be near one another and have similar features. For example, travel to the Sierra Nev- adas for recreation may be considered for some purposes as a single form or type of re- creation. Also, the distance traveled by vacationists may indicate the extent of alter- native recreation charged to a single trip. Cross country travelers are more apt to view several natural wonders than those traveling a few hundred miles within a single state. 146 they were all In the High Sierras and con be considered comparable „ Moreover, the data, themselves, are comparable and contain as a minimum the following information: 1 . Number of persons in each recreational party, 2. The city or county of origin of each party, 3. The number of days spent by each party in the area of recreation. 4. The number of days the party spent on its entire recreation trip. Bv use of the four item? of information listed above j. there was computed for each of several h jndred parties of recreatlonisrs an average cost of travel per visitor day. In making this com- putation, the distance traveled in going and returning from each area of recreation was assumed to be the same for every party orginating in any one county. The distance was based upon road milage from the county seat or center of population to the center of the area of recrea- tion, with estimates based upon points of origin and destination. In line with the current practice of California agencies, the total travel cost was token as 6.,5 cents per mile In the basic computations. Travellers coming from the greater distances did not spend as mony days In the area as they spent on ihe trip„ The persons ma)' be considered to have indulged In recreation along the way In other recreational orecs. In fact, in some cases the period spent In the area was much shorter than the period spent on \hi trip, suggesting that alternative recreation areas were more Important „ Undoubtedly, it would not be proper to consider the entire trip as for the sole purpose of enjoying recreation in the subject area„ Since data as to Intent and as to other recreation enjoyed on the trip were not available. It was assumed that a proper charge of travel cost to the area under study would be the percentage of the total round trip spent in the recreational area. Thus, If eight days out of ten were spent in the subject area, eichty percent of the round trip cost would be charged to the party's recreational use of the area. 1 , Studies undertaken by the California Department of Rnance indicate that 6.5 cents per miles Is average cost of operating state vehicles. It is assumed that overage mileage per mon'S Is 1,000 miles. Since trips to and from Sierra Nevada recreation areas range from 1,200 niles down, the 6.5 cent figure Is a minimum rather than a maximum, 147 The per visitor day cost of travel for each party was secured by dividing the visitor days in the area into the proportion of the round trip cost allocated to the days spent in the area. Thus, if four people spent seven days in the area, on a fourteen day vacation trip, fifty per- cent of the computed round trip cost would be divided by the total number of person u'^ys in the trip (28), to obtain the per visitor day cost of trove! . Cost per visitor day for travel by the 288 parties surveyed in the Upper Feather River area, when 6.5 cents per mile is used, ranged from $22.62 at the highest to $.09 at the lowest. (See Graph 5). Either figure is extreme and probably unrepresentative. If a bulk-ilne market value is established at the 90th percentile, such extremes at the top of the range are eliminated. In the Upper Feather River study the 90th percentile had a cost per man day of $3.14, If the median average travel cost is considered representative of actual travel cost, in this Instance, $1 .05, a free value of $2.09 per man day is secured for the specific area. Similar computa- tions for the two portions at the Truckee River for which data were collected result in figures of $2.08 and $2.01 per man day. Table - B and Graph 5 have been prepared to illustrate the method employed above. In Table - B is presented data for the three studies under two headings each. In column 1 is found the per man day cost of travel to the areas by recreationists. Column 2 in each instance provides cumulative man days of recreation based upon the dollar cost of recreational travel For example, 269 man days on the Truckee River between Lake Tahoe and Donner Creek cost the recreotionists interviewed $4.14 or more per day for travel aione^ while 2,679 man days cost $1 .07 or more. !n effect, a demand schedule is shown for each of the three areas. Graph 5 is a diagramic portrayal of data found in Table - B>, 148 On the basis of the foregoing computation a table showing comparative recreational values has been prepared. In addition to the figures secured with 6,5 cents per mile, figures have been computed also for costs of from 5.0 cents to 7,5 cents. In summary, the three areas show a free value for a day of recreation in the Sierra Nevadas of approximately $2.00, when 6,5 cents is used. A composite value of $2,00 per visitor day appears representative for the 1 Feather River - Plumas County area, and may be suitable for the entire Sierra Nevada area. COMPARATIVE TABLE - DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 90th AND 50th PERCENTILES Cents Per Mile 7.5 TjC Feather River Truckee (Donner to Verdi) Truckee (Tahoe to Donner) CONCLUSIONS The $2.00 figure satisfies the six criteria stated at the outset,, (1) It is expressed as so many dollars per visitor or use day, and can be compared therefore, with other dollar values con- nected with the proposed reservoirs. (2) it represents recreational enjoyment over and above actual expenditures, an enjoyment which the state provides without specific direct charge to the recreationists. (3) It is derived without regard to costs of providing the reservoirs or any specific recreational facilities. (4) It abstracts from differences in taste and/or wealth. (5) It is based upon data for the subject area and is, in a sense, peculiar to the area's recreational features. (6) It is reasonable in amount. 7,5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5,0 $2.42 $2.26 $2.09 $1.94 $1.77 $1.61 2,32 2.16 2.01 1,86 1.70 1.54 2.41 2.25 2.08 1.93 1,77 1.61 li A field survey in Calaveras County the summer of 1958 provided data which, when anaiyaed in the same fashion, yielded a $2.23 per man day recreation value at 6.5 cents per travel mile. 149 The computations of possible dollar values of recreation which have been made, involve rather broad assumptions as to the sameness or homogeniety of the members of the group under study. Although the reasonableness of the figures just cited Is not based entirely or even primarily upon such assumptions or even upon the adequacy of the samples from which the computations are made, it should be noted that assumptions at least as broad are used in projections by the Bureau of Reclamation of primary irrigation benefits; for in such projections it is assumed that the land to be irrigated will actually be planted, that the projected crops grown on the land will find a market, that the prices received for the crops will be at an adequate level, that associated costs will not' be too high, and so forth. The key factor in the choice of $2o00 per visitor day is its reasonableness. How reasonable is the proposed $2.00 per visitor day figure? In the first place the $2.00 amount may be com- pared with actual recreational expenditure figures „ (See Table -A). It is obvious that $2.00 is only a fraction of the average amount actually expended by tourists and other recreationists. As was suggested earlier in the analysis, the median average of such expenditures in California was between $8,00 and $9.00. Thus, the $2„00 value attributed to that part of recreation use of reservoir areas for which no specific charge is made is only 20 to 25 percent as large as actual average outlays. The reasonableness of the dollar value of recreation is also measured in terms of probable con- tinuing benefits which result from a vacation in the mountainous reservoir areas. To the in- dividual who is there for one week, the immediate and carryover enjoyment of the experience is probably worth as much as $14.00 to him, over and above his actual expenditures. To the family of four who spend a week in the area the values to the group are probably as much as $56.00, dollar values not attributable to actual money spent in travel, for food and lodging, and other expenses. 150 The $2,00 per visitor day of recreation benefit, therefore, has been utilized in economic evaluations of fourteen recreation areas studied in the U(.per Feather Basin. In using it or in using figures derived by its use, care should be taken, of course, to avoid overlooking secondary values to the community and to the state. Statewide values m-^d to be identified separately and described at least in terms of general benefits which are over and above purely personal enjoyment of those engaging in the recreation. Included would be such statewide values as improved mental and physical health of citizens, reduced juvenile delinquency, and similar values which tend to be reflected in lower costs for institutions of restraint and institutions for treatment of the state's citizens. Important to the area itself, in addition, are expenditures for goods and services which enhance the local economy and Increase the tax base. These latter derived secondary benefits, while difficult to isolate, are susceptible of analysis and could be used as evidence of heightened economic activity In the area affected by the proposed reservoir developments. 151 o ^ u c > 5; 1/1 O o . C7> C V jC c rt 5 r *o »n 0- c ^ b c «; o 3'oO 9 E 3 U 5 Q ■£ 8 ¥5 u c 0) E c D n n Q) n a 0) n D C -n 0) k. c , 3 0) U ^-5 z a> Q 2 -^ E c i>) > E o O > o c ^ ^' o a, (J ^ Q- 'T'l -f E "- o 5 o u- O Si^ E s: O D 0) u CO 5 * ^ -a 12 o) „ CO u: -— o *" -5x :> I ool cM o s D ^ ^ * s ts D)<> sti H X . b t: S > O) ^x O »> o li TO in O c X o «? 21 "^1 o o o 11 ± -o Z i tj «1 o "i .-i M G 4J -D o^ O 5! o c ° -o Q O 4) — _ E Q. 0) O I— U Q u= u a -^ » > * 3 ilz 21 ^l^|cN^l >r , >. X >s >> >, X OOODODO_ -T3 t) ~D "D -D "D -O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOO o.Q.o.Q.a.o.o.^^o.o.a.a.Q.Q.Q.a.CLQ.CLQ.a.Q.a.Q.a.&.Q.a.Q.o.Q.o.o.a.a.Q. CvlCNOOOOO^:9oOOOOC300COCNCOCNOOfO»OOOU-)lOOO'hN,'0'0'0'>0'^*nir>fO'0 3 o o o z 2 o o CO 10 o- o "8 oi£> "8 S " >£ ^ S: — O O I o in •£ I/) :3 3 U 12 E o o 0) .rt h a) 0) r X u u U ■" 1 ,-^ ^^ c c s- Ch V (U 0) r 0. en£-£ tt) D 3 U O) l/l !/> 2 5 TX o> . < "S -2 <^ ^ -0 in rl ^ 0- 0. c ^ ^ .2 ^. t; '5 airr tee our D * D CD 1/1 UO K— »— X •S Ti — -o C ^ c 2 S "8 3 CO n n "8 K) ^ n fS 1 r u z o. '* "^ 00 !5t f^ fN 10 10 m n !0 "^ "^ O^ O^ On O O; o* On o O) o 8 1^ On O — c — -s ■::; P X s ^ zz o J 8 I ° 152 PLATE - A Tofal Expenditures While Engaged in Recreation from Recreationists' Viewpoint Special Recreational Expenditures Normal Expenditures for Food, Clothing, etc . Total Expenditures From the Business Viewpoint Received by Business in Area of Recreation Received by Business en route Received by Home Businesses iiiniiiitianiiiiB*! mil ■■iiMiimii nil ■: PLATE - B Recreational Expenditures To Recreationisf Special Expenditures Normal Expenditures To Business Community Profit Operating Costs Cost of Goods Sold 153 PLATE - C Representation of Professor Harold Hotel ling Concentric Travel Cost Zones * Explanatory note: According to Professor Hotelling's suggestion, population around a national park (or recreational area) would be grouped in terms of average cost of travel to the pork. Con- centric circles or zones would include these groups. The consumer surplus of each zone would be determined by subtracting the overage cost from the average cost of the most distant travel group or zone and then multiplying that figure by the number of persons in the zone likely to visit the park during any given period of time. For example^ the high- est travel cost is $3.00. The travel cost from Zone 1 is $1 .00. Within Zone 1 there ore 1,000,000 persons, ten percent of whom will visit the park during the given time period. The total consumer's surplus for Zonel is therefore 100,000 times $2.00, or $200,000 for the time period . 154 2 3 4 5 Number of Visitor Days (Thousonds) 155 TABLE - B Estimated Dollar Value of Recreation Based upon samples taken along the Truckee River and in the Upper Feather River Basin, 1956 Lake Tahoe to Donner Creek Donner Creek to Verdi Diversion Upper Feather River (b) Travel Cost Cumulative Travel Cost Cumulative Travel Cost Cumulative Per Man Day^'^^ Man Days(^) Per Man Doy^'^) Man Day^*^) Per Man Day(*=) Man Days(^) 1 $4.14 269 $4.33 99 $3.81 280 2 3.16 516 2.93 190 3.17 561 3 2.50 817 2.59 296 2.70 844 4 2.08 1,088 2.11 371 2.30 1,162 5 1.79 1,359 1.40 425 2.01 1,461 6 1.50 1,615 1.25 569 1.79 1,755 7 1.43 1,874 1.08 624 1.44 2,063 8 1.23 2,128 1.01 758 1.31 2,337 9 1.14 2,400 .94 874 1.19 2,621 10 1.07 2,679 .91 977 1.06 2,913 11 .92 2,991 .84 1,057 ,86 3,253 12 .87 3,207 .78 1,092 .81 3,521 13 .72 3,478 J7 1,260 ,75 3,790 14 .61 3,779 .68 1,331 ,66 4,150 15 .55 4,037 .62 1,420 .64 4,316 16 ,.46 4,258 .59 1,520 .60 4,696 17 „36 4,593 .52 1,017 .52 4,955 18 .30 4,830 .39 1,671 .45 5,234 19 .13 5,047 - - .36 5,625 20 .08 5,367 .14 1,896 .09 5,839 $3.15 (90th percent! ile) minus $2.93 (90th percent ile) minus $3.14 (90th percentile) minus 1. 07 (50th percent! lie) equals .,92 (50th percent ile) equals 1 .05 (50th pe rcentile) equal: $2. 08. $2,01. $2.09. (a) All mileage costs based on 6„5 cents per vehicle miles. (b) Truckee studies by United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Upper Feather River Study by Department of Water Resources personnel . (c) Computed per man day cost of getting to and from area of recreation. (d) Although 100 or more different per man day costs of travel to and from the areas of recreation were computed, only twenty are shown in each case to reduce the size of the table. The twenty figures approximate but are not exactly at five point intervals since they are actual figures taken from the basic tables and not computed figures. 156 RECREATION RESOURCES AND POTENTIAL USE OF AUTHORIZED RESERVOIRS Grizzly Valley Reservoir Area G^'izzly Valley is located in the east-central portion of the Upper Feather River Basin about six miles north of Portola, It is accessible by county road from Portola and Genesee Valley, The valley, at on elevation of 5,660 feet, is relatively flat and oblong oriented in a north- west-southeast direction. Although traversed by Big Grizzly Creek, most of the valley floor is dry with a moderate cover of native grasses. Scattered brush and some small trees cover the immediate slopes; and there are extensive stands of timber nearby. The relative location of this reservoir assures the demand for, and use of, recreation develop- ment. Since it is only a few miles from U.S. Highway 40 Alternate, the major route through this area, it is within easy access to the thousands of recreationists using that route each year. Abbey Bridge, Squaw Queen, and Antelope Valley Reservoir Areas are located at four mile intervals north of Grizzly. These reservoirs form a chain of four, each one magni- fying the attraction of the others. The prime purpose of the reservoir is to furnish irrigation for Sierra Valley. Although the normal pool elevation of 5,775 feet will drop somewhat during the summer recreation season, this would not seriously affect recreation use. With some 4, 100 acres of water surface at normal pool elevation, the reservoir will be approximately five miles long and one and one- half miles wide at its widest point. The slopes surrounding the reservoir rise rapidly on the northeast side and gradually on the southwest side. The steeper slopes can be used for summer homes, while the more gradual slopes are most suitable for camp and picnic sites. Natural tree cover is close to the shore- line at the southeastern half of the reservoir. At the opposite end of the reservoir such cover 157 exists from 1,000 to 3,000 feet from the shoreline. This restricts the development of camp- sites near the shoreline in this area until suitable cover is provided. The plan for the Grizzly Reservoir area includes a balance of public and private recreation development. In general the eastern shoreline has been reserved for summer homes, which ore located in most cases some distance from the v/ater, with tree cover and a view of the lake and mountains beyond. These are on the high side of the access road and extend north and south close to the road. This provides easy access to the lake frontage and to the resort areas from each home site . Resorts, motels and boat facilities have been located to provide these facilities on both sides of the lake. Two commercial centers have been suggested for the camp grounds on the south- western slopes. One on the bluff southeast of the dam would be most intensively developed because of its central location, excellent view, relatively flat and forested ground and easy access to the major highway. Camp sites are proposed on the southwest side of the reservoir because natural tree cover ex- tends close to the shore line. The relatively flat land in this area contributes to the desir- ability of developing family and group camps. Some campsites are located at the northwest- ern end of the reservoir where the terrain and cover is suitable, though some distance from the shore « As shown in Table 50, total probable use of the 1,797 units will be 474, 180 annual visitor- days at ultimate development which is a 361,891 visitor-day net increase. 158 154 766 3,064 352,360 176,180 260,750 76 95 381 43,800 21,900 26,720 58 144 488 56,160 28,080 44,090 792 792 3,169 142,620 71,310 142,620 50. GRIZZLY VALLEY RESERVOIR AREA ULTIK'.ATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050 Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp & Picnic Organizational Car Resort-Commercial Summer Homes Total 1,080 1,797 7,102 594,940 2977470 474/180 Antelope Valley Reservoir Area Antelope Valley is located in the northeastern portion of the Upper Feather River Basin on Indian Creek, about one mile downstream from Boulder Creek Guard Station. This area can be reached by county road from Taylorsville in Indian Valley, o distance of about 20 miles. Taylorsvillu is about 10 rniles northeast of U ., S,. Highv\/ay 40 Alternate via State Highway 89 and county roads. The valley Is at on elevation of 4,900 feet and very Irregular In shape, with surrounding slopes that are steep, somewhat rugged one we II -forested ,. This authorized reservoir Is to be constructed for the purposes of recreation use and stream flow maintenance^ The normal pool elevation will be 5,000 feet; and at this elevation the water surface will cover 930 acres,, There would be a small drop In water elevation by the end of the summer recreation season with no adverse influence on recreation use. The reser- voir will be about three miles in length and one mile wide at its widest point. The shoreline will be very irregular and contain the interesting physical effect of several peninsulas jutting into the water. There is flat terrain suitable for beech and camping areas. The surrounding mountain slopes rise steadily from the relatively flat shoreline, though more sharply on the south than on the north shore. In most coses good tree cover extends to the shoreline. Although one of the 159 most remote reservoirs proposed in the Upper Feather River Basin, Antelope Valley is not difficult to reach by rood and should attract those recreationists seeking the seclusion of the more isolated locations. It is also the northernmost unit in the "chain" of four reservoirs. The projected recreation development of the reservoir emphasizes the remoteness of the loca- tion, suggesting extensive family camping areas and organization camping sites. Camp sites were located on relatively flat v/ooded terrain with access to the lake. Proposed public beaches located on sandy slopes will provide good swimming conditions. A pack station has been located near the westerly end of the reservoir to accommodate parties into the Diamond Mountain country to the northeast. The primary commercial and resort center has been located on the southerly shore to take advantage of convenient access to an existing county road. This location has a good view of the lake, with ample flat areas for necessary buildings and parking areas. Two small addi- tional commercial areas have been suggested on the northerly side of the lake to provide for the needs of summer vacationists in that area. Summer homes are scattered in small groups around the entire lake. The largest concentration of cabins has been proposed on the southerly shore, with public beaches along the water front. Two peninsulas on the north shore have been proposed for summer home development. In all cases the location of cabin sites has been based upon obtaining views of the lake and using steeper slopes which would be less desirable for camping. 51 . ANTELOPE VALLEY RESERVOIR AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050 Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp & Picnic "^TO? STo" 2,040 234,600 117,300 173,600 Organizational Camps 66 82 329 37,800 18,900 23,060 Resort-Commercial 22 56 225 25,920 12,960 20,350 Summer Homes 506 506 2,023 91,020 45,510 91,020 Total 6^ T7T54 J;n7 389,340 194,670 308,030 160 Abbey Bridge Reservoir Area The Abbey Bridge Reservoir urea is located in Red Clover Vulluy in the central eastern por- tion of the Upper Feather River Basin. The darn ';ite, approximately two miles above the Abbey Bridge Guurd Station, is 14 rnilos by county road from U- S. Highway 40 Alternate via Beckwourth. Thi; reservoir area is three miles north of Grizzly Valley Reservoir. It has a long narrow shape, extending approximately one and one-half miles into Red Clover Valley and ranging in width from 800 to 4,400 feet. Most of the land in the valley Is used for dry pasture, and there are scattered brush areas and small trees along the slopes. The valley lies at an elevation of 5,350 feet, and is separated from Grizzly Valley by a mountain ridge. The reservoir is to be constructed for recreation use and stream-flow maintenance. The nor- mal pool elevation will be 5,420 feet, and the water surface area at this elevation will cover 540 acres- The reservoir would be about four miles long and one mile wide at its widest point. Most of the slopes surrounding the shore of the reservoir rise rapidly„ A relatively flat shelf about 300 to 400 feet wide at the shoreline is suitable for public beaches, At three locations along the southern shore the slope it gradual enough for camp and picnic areas. Tree cover extends close to the shoreline around the western half of the reservoir. Tree cover also exists at the opposite end of the reservoir but is some distance from the shoreline o Summer homes are proposed on both the north and south shores, set back into tree-covered slopes to allow public use of ihe water frontage area. A major resort is located on the south shore of the lake near the dam site, because of accessibility and proximity to year around deep water. The relatively flat terrain of this location will provide easy construction and adequate parking and circulation. A second resort site has been reserved on the north side 161 approximately at the middle of the lake to serve the camps and home sites which will develop. A perimeter access road will have to be provided in order to serve the north shore. Camping areas have been placed to provide scenic views, good drainage, and to prevent pol- lution of the lake. The camp locations selected have good cover and are relatively flat for easy development and maintenance. Camp sites near the edge of the lake would be designed to blend with the forest and terrain. The greatest concentration of development is proposed around the westerly end of the reservoir, because it will be least affected by probable water fluctuation and has the best tree cover. 52. ABBEY BRIDGE RESERVOIR AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050 Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity /v\inimum Probable Camp & Picnic 94 468 1,872 215,280 107,640 159,310 Organizational Camps 53 66 264 30,350 15,175 18,510 Resort-Commercial 28 70 282 32,400 16,200 25,430 Summer Homes 475 475 1,900 85,480 42, 740 85,480 Total 650 1,079 4,318 363,510 181,755 288,730 Dixie Refuge Reservoir Area Dixie Refuge Reservoir area is located in the northeastern corner of the Upper Feather River Basin approximately seven miles south of Milford and about 27 miles north of U . S. Highway 40 Alternate. It can be reached by county road from U. S . 40 Alternate via Beckwourth or Chiicoot, or from U. S. Highway 395 via Milford. The valley lies at an elevation of 5,600 feet and is relatively flat and covered with grasses. The immediate slopes are moderately covered with brush and scattered trees, and the surrounding mountains are well forested. When filled, the reservoir will roughly resemble an inverted "V" . This reservoir area abuts the northern boundaries of Dixie Mountain Game Refuge. 4 162 The reservoir is to be constructed for recreation use and stream-flow maintenance. The nor- mal pool elevation will be 5,740 feet, and the water surface area will cover 880 acres. The reservoir would be about three miles long and not quite a mile wide at its widest part. The mountains on the northwest and southeast sides of the reservo.ir area are relatively steep while those to the northeast slope more gradually to the reservoir shore. The south shore has usable land for development and averages 900 feet in depth . The north shore has tree cover extending to the shoreline. The south shore has little or no tree cover within one-half to three-fourths mile of the shoreline, and little recreation development can be anticipated until necessary tree cover is available. Two organizational camp sites have been proposed, one on the northeast shore close to the shoreline and another larger area near the dam site. A lodge and commercial area Is planned for the upper northeast shore with summer home sites developed back from the shore. The entire northwest shore is planned for public camping and picnicking with summer homes on the north side of the access road on the steeper slopes. No recreational development has been planned for the southern shore until it can be reforested. 53. DIXIE REFUGE RESERVOIR AREA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050 Number Visitors Visitor-Days Annual Use Recreation Facility Acres of Units Per Day Capacity Minimum Probable Camp and Picnic 70 350 1,400 161,000 80,500 119,140 Organizational Camps 44 55 220 25,350 12,675 15,460 Resort-Commercial 17 42 169 19,440 9,720 15,260 Summer Homes 354 354 1,415 63, 660 31,830 63,660 Total 58? 801 3720? 269,450 134,725 213,520 Frenchman Reservoir Area Frenchman Reservoir area is located on Little Last Chance Creek in the far eastern portion of the Upper Feather River, Basin, about eight miles north of Chilcoot on U. S. Highway 40 163 Alternate. The accessibility of this area by automobile will encourage its use for recrea- tion. It is the first reservoir encountered by those recreationists entering the Basin from the south or east via U.S. Highway 395- The reservoir will store and release water for the irrigation of Sierra Valley, and provide flood control to downstream areas. The operation schedule would not interfere with recrea- tion use except in the relatively fev/ dry years when maximum draw-down would occur. In most years the anticipated draw-down of tsn feet would not appreciably reduce the lake area or affect recreation use. The normal pool elevation will be 5,588 feet, and the water surface area will cover 1,525 acres. The reservoir will be over seven miles long and a mile wide at its widest point. There would be a "narrows" some 400 feet wide and 1,600 feet long at the middle of the reservoir splitting it into two sections., On the east side of the reservoir, just north of the dam site, would be a large bay with good tree cover on its shores. The largest portion of the proposed development of the reservoir is concentrated around the southwest bay., Camping areas have been proposed on the westerly side of the reservoir because of the possibilities for a trail system into the higher mountains to the west. Some camp grounds and organized camps ore proposed on the eastern side. A resort is suggested on an overlook at the east side of the "narrows" . This location has a good view of the entire lake, some volcanic rock formations and a scattering of cover. Two other resort-commercial areas ore proposed, one on the easterly end of the south bay and one close to the campsite. Extensive public beach areas ore provided in conjunction with the summer home development and the resorts. 164 54. FRENCH^>AN RESERVOIR ARLA ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, 2050 Recreation Facility Camp and Picnic Organizational Camps Resort-Cornmerciol Summer Homes Total 825 1,373 5,491 4o1,S10 2307905 367,450 Nu.nber Visitors Visitor- -Days Annual Use ^cres of Units Per Day Capacity /v\inimunn Probable 119 596 2,384 274,160 137,080 202,880 62 77 307 35,350 17,675 21,560 38 94 376 43,200 21,600 33,910 606 60.: 2,424 109,100 54,550 109,100 165 CHECK SHEET Existing Recreation Areas and Facilities County Hydrographic Unit Sub-Unit Key Number 1 . Name of Facility 2. Location 3. Owned by 4. Leased by 5. Operated by Address Address Address Tel. No._ TeL No. Tel. No. 6, Type of Facility (Resort, Hotel, Motel, Camp, etc.) 7. Gross Area acres, 8. Developed area 9. Number of Units (rooms, camp sites, etc.) acres . 10. Other recreation facilities available (list by type, acreage and number of units) Type Acres No. of units 11 . Number of persons that can be accommodated at one time (capacity) 12. Length of season 13. Peak month 14. Total number of Visitors for 1956 season 15. Percentage of total visitors staying overnight in 1956 (in transit) 16. Percentage of total visitors in 1956 that were families 17. Average length of stay 18. Facility was used in 1956 at % of capacity 19. Number of employees for 1956: All year Seasonal 20. Facility has existed for years . Upper Feather River Service Area Recreation Study. 166 Pacific Planning and Research A-1 . POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES 1900-1950 AND FORECASTS TO 2050 Year Population I I » July 1900 75,994,575 1910 91,972,266 1920 105,710,620 1930 122,775,04^ 1940 131,669,275 April 1 , 1950 151,132,000 July 1 , 1955 a/ 165,271,000 b/ July 1 , 1956 u/ 168,091,000 b/ Population Forecasts High Mean Low 1, 1960 c/ 179,358,000 177,905,000 176,452,000 1965 c/ 193,346,000 189,818,500 186,291,000 1 970 c/ 209,380,000 202,875,000 196,370,000 1975 c/ 228,463,000 217,685,000 206,907,000 1980 239,000,000 227,000,000 215,000,000 1990 270,000,000d/ ' 250,500,000 231,000,000 2000 300,000,000 272,500,000 245,000,000 2010 330,000,000 293,750,000 257,500,000 2020 360,000,000 314,500,000 269,000,000 2030 390,000,000 335,000,000 280,000,000 2040 420,000,000 355,000,000 290,000,000 2050 450,000,000 375,000,000 300,000,000 a/ Estimated by the Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 141, August 10, 1956. b/ Including ormed forces overseas, c/ High and low projections from Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 123, October 20, 1955. Mean projections are the arithmetical means between the high and low projections and are not those of the Bureau of the Census . d/ 1990 high projection by Parksons, Brinckerhoff, Hall and Macdonald. 167 A-2. POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA 1900-1950 AND FORECASTS TO 2050 Percent of Year Population United States 1900 1,485,053 1.95 1910 2,377,549 2,59 1920 3,426,861 3.24 1930 5,677,251 4.62 1940 6,907,387 5.25 Vil 1, 1950 10,586,223 7.00 July 1, 1955a/ 13,035,000 7.89 July 1, 1956a/ 13,600,000 8.09 Population Forecasts Percent of United States High Vi ean Low High Mean Low July 1, 1960b/ 15,413,000 15,011,000 14,609,000 8.59 8. .44 8„28 July I, 1965b/ 17,781,000 17,100,000 16,419,000 9.20 9„01 8.81 July 1, 1970 20,000,000c/ 18,800,000 17,600,000 9.55 9.27 8.96 July , 1980 25,600,000 22,900,000 20, 200, 000 10.71 10.09 9,40 July I, 1990 31,200,000c/ 26,750,000 22,300,000c/ 11.56 10.68 9.65 July 1, 2000 36,200,000 30,200,000 24,200,000 12.07 11.08 9.88 July 1, 2010 41,000,000 33,500,000 26, 000, 000 12.42 11.40 10.10 July 1. 2020 45,500,000 36,650,000 27,800,000 12.64 11.65 10.33 July 1, 2030 49,800,000 39,600,000 29,400,000 12.77 11.82 10.50 July 1, 2040 54,000,000 42,400,000 30,800,000 12.86 11.94 10.62 July 1, 2050 58,000,000 45,000,000 32,000,000 12.89 12.00 10.67 a/Frc 3m California's Populatioii in 1956, State D eportment of Finance, Ju y 1956. b/ Hi gh and low projer lions are ffom Projected Population of Co ifornia by Broad Age Groups, 1956-1966, State Department of Finance, September 1955, c/ High projection for 1970 and the high and low projections for 1990 are those developed by Parsons, Brinckerhoff , Hall and /V.acdonald for their report. Regional Rapid Transit, to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission, January 1956. 168 CO O z < 00 UJ o < z o z CO ID z o U LLI Q£ li- o LU CI. >■ »— >- CQ UJ CO 3 i a Qi »0 O "^^ !z T ^^ o< CO —I -z CO I < in IT) o^ •^ ■^ IT) cs "" CO lO o^ ^~ CM m 0^ *" lO o o a> ^— X >v o _D m C On o ^— *^ J o^ •*- 2 "5 CO 0) -^ 1/1 3 cs >v. O "U tv '^ o On ^ «/l '> r^ o On Vi d) D) u-> O "* C o> V o 5 Os •" CO '^ o •" CM ■"^ o ^" _ '■t c> ^" • 1- c >>. D 2l 0) V) D <^- o (U CL X H- 1 c u (U a. o o vO CM • • • • t^ CO CO 00 CM • • Tj- CO CO • ■ CM CO CO Tf CO • » CO CN CM CO tx CO Cvj CO rr vO CO CN CO • • CO lO On « • 00 ■— CO o o • • •— CM CO CJN — On .— CM •— ^N o • « m CM On o. • • nO -* o o • * CO <— « • >— CO CO m On lO • • • — o 00 — o -"t m r^ o ' CO CM ■—12 CO O tV nO CM • • • • • N't NO -^ in — CN CM .— ,— ■^ CN CM nO nO • • « • • CM CM -^ nO O CN CO •— O »— On 00 CO • • • • u IV in in in •— i— CM f— 8 2 $L o X O a. (U t o O in . 0) V 0) D u O r c u u o " E •r; 4- -a o Q- o c j: od .a ° - C « n NO NO _ in IV CN IV .- • 9 9 9 9 • 9 9 9 CN rv On 00 Tf rv CNl On 00 CN CO CM nO On 00 CM NO c^ NO m On nO • 9 • 9 9 9 • 9 • ^^ in CM K Tl- IV CN On fV CN -* CN nO Tf 00 CM 'tf ^ — CM "^. "* _! ■* CM On* m rv CM 00* On* CN '■t CM nO CO ■t CO CO 00 On IV in 00 9 9 • 9 9 9 9 9 9 O m ^— On ■«t IV CM IV On CM ^ CM nO CO c> a- ^. ^ ■t 00 ^- •— • • 9 • • • • • • rNv CO in On ^ On CO rv On •~ CO CN CO in .- o 00 00 nO 00 ^ On CO 00 '"t in On' tX On* rv rN.* cs "" - rN> CO r- IV NO CO nO -^ rv! no' 00 00 CNJ NO* On CM 00 "— CO *— CNJ nO o ^_ NO CO 00 CM o rv CO • • 9 9 9 n • 9 9 CN CO ^ rv o CM CO On rv CO CO — CM nO >o 00 o 00 CO o 00 '^ CO • • * • m 9 s 9 9 On CN o p— r— "■t in CM — CN CO •— "— CM o >— hNN CO c^ IX "^^ O ^. cs tv 2P ,-! '^* o IV IV k W C3 CM CN *" '" "— in — c^ CO 00 N^ m ^_ nO o -* 9 o 9 • 9 9 9 CN ^. On NO ^ 00 O -^ NO -"t •" ■— CM NO in CO 00 NO iO CO 00 nO no 9 9 o a o • • 9 9 ?5 CM o in CO CO ,— CM in CO "— •— CO NO r- CO m .— ■■* — KO "*. "Z rv' in On no' 00 CO _! CM nO CO CN •— CM IV o o CN CO CO CN m CM CO o 9 a • 9 9 9 9 9 CO m ^ m 00 CO ^ CO m CM — CM rv rv tT NO nO ■ >■ ■— 1— ^ >- z m — _ to UJ < to rn ~) Ol V LU < > Q Oi LU LL. U- (V o LU z o Q z < I— a •^ CN CN CO m o CM in CN o m CN CN CN CN CN 0) • CD ^ E 0) — o >v 0) o -o 3 i~ o c o ._ ■*- o > m , i>- o u 0) a: 1— o O O O O CO c 0) o Q) (X o o in o so CO ro in t\ CO .— CN •— CO r\ o nO K CO o o o o o r^ yj^ CO en • , • ' U-) o in xi- ^ — OJ CO CN — m ^ C3 CO o — o o — >o m -"^ -— m csj — m CN CN o in ■<* CN O O CO O IX K CN CO CN CN sO CM I— CN vO CN -"t |\ O O- CN 1.0 Tf CN -5}- .— CN m 00 C3 ^ ^ |~^ _ IT) •n *^ o >o '^ o CO CO .— CN r— CN O CN -^ CN ■O OT (X3 O C>4 "^ -"^ rx CO CO CN CN -<* O CM O O l\ O in O CN I— -* -"t CN CO ^ .-- .— vO O CN O K CO »— -o o m rx CN in CO C) CM ^— r— o CN 0>4 i\ O o t\ ,_ O o c» CO o in CN 't CN .— ^ M3 o '^• CO CO o r— o. m lU CM •^ CN S3. n) n E «/i 1) u 1- D D L- o o n n u> V> U l/> j3 c 0) -- -<* CO O '^ Cv) tx CO O CO CN CN CO CO CO ■— ■— '^t to -"t o CO r>v c u Q- o o o $^ ■a c o -a o o o o o I— o CO CO -* o CO CO O CN r\ CO o CN IX O — IX — CN IX tT n n 9 m -— CN •— rx — o CO o^ o o CM o CN -■t ^ Ox rv CO -^ IX (X CN O CN CO CO ^ CN m CO > • o O O . — rx in in • — . — IX CO ^ "" Cxi r^ IX o o m CO -^ Csl vO o 00 • • • o o CN vO CN m tx m o CO CO ■ — """ IX CN ^ o nO CO rx Os xO r— CO • • • '^ o CN -o CN CO o CO CO CN CM NO m -* o. o- 1 — O CN in ^ f— • o" o r^ ^0 ,— CO in CO •o ■^ CN CM CM o CM IX O o ->* ^— CXD CN 00 -* • « • • • a • CN O IX '^ -^ '* 00 ■o •^ CO CM Csl CM o O CN CN o r— CN CO ,— o CO O CO -*' ^ rx 00 r^ -^ ' CN m in CO -O CN in CN CO o CO CO CN rx" o ^' 00 »^ '^ CO CN CO CO CO S- tx CO D E U1 i- u 15 a. 'e 0) to 170 A-5. RECREATION USE IN UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN BY HYDROGRAPHIC AREA, 1956 Hydrographic Area Total 42 43 44 45 46 Upper North East Sierra Middle South Basin Fork Branch Valley Fork Fork Area in acres (total) 2,293,700 771,200 653,800 336,800 430,900 101,000 Water area (surface acres) 40,600 38,500 900 - 1,100 100 Developed area in acres (total 2,603 1,186 485 85 780 67 camp and picnic 559 392 87 2 70 8 organization camps 184 60 109 - 10 5 resorts, hotels, motels 820 154 99 13 550 4 summer homes 1,040 580 190 70 150 50 Number of Units (total 3,863 2,062 816 122 740 123 camp and picnic 1,223 936 170 10 99 8 organization camps 329 125 135 - 32 37 resorts, hotels, motels 1,271 421 321 42 459 28 summer homes 1,040 580 190 70 150 50 Capacity people (total) 16,947 9,685 3,145 496 3,036 585 camp and picnic 6,345 4,647 779 30 828 61 organization camps 1,320 500 540 - 130 150 reforts, hotels, motels 3,662 1,448 786 96 1,248 84 ' immer homes 5,620 3,090 1,040 370 830 280 riv-criy vioitor-days (total) 2,561,100 1,424,900 565, 200 79,600 417,300 74,100 ^amp and picnic 1,112,900 779,900 196,900 10,900 114,200 11,000 organization camps 98,800 40,500 40,600 - 5,700 12,000 resorts, hotels, motels 842,700 326,300 234, 200 35,000 222,000 25,200 summer homes 506,700 278, 200 93,500 33,700 75,400 25,900 Visitor-days use (total) 1,544,900 863,700 340,000 38,700 265,200 37,300 camp and picnic 735,700 513,100 123,800 5,800 84,200 8,800 organization camps 94,800 38,100 39,500 - 5,600 11,600 resorts, hotels, motels 480,900 183,700 133,700 17,400 141,100 5,000 summer homes 233,500 128,800 43,000 15,500 34,300 11,900 Average length of season in days total " 151.1 147.1 179.7 160.5 137.5 126.6 camp and picnic 175.4 167.8 252.8 365.0 137.9 180.3 organization camps 74.8 81.0 75.2 - 43.8 80.0 resorts, hotels, motels 230.1 225.3 298.0 365.0 177.9 300.0 summer homes 90.2 90.0 89.9 91.1 90.8 92.5 Percent use (total) 60.3 60.6 60.2 48.6 63.6 50.3 camp and picnic 66.1 65.8 62.9 53.2 73.7 80.0 organization camps 95.9 94.1 97.3 - 98.2 96.7 resorts, hotels, motels 57.1 56.3 57.1 49.7 63.5 19.8 summer homes 46.8 46.3 46.0 46.0 45.5 45.9 171 A-6. RECREATION USE INTENSITIES (USE FACTORS), ANNUAL VISITOR-DAYS USE AND NORMAL VISITOR-DAY CAPACITY BY TYPE OF RECREATION USE ~ NATIONAL FORESTS IN CALIFORNIA, 1946, 1950, 1955, PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, 1950, 1955 AND UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN, 1956 Annual Visitor-Days Normal Capacity at Recreation Use Use Factor (thousands one time (thousands) National Forests in California 1946 1950 1955 1946 1950 1955 1946 1950 1955 Camp and picnic 66.4 73.9 111.7 4,185 4,641 6,814 63.0 62.8 61,0 Organization camps 81.4 53.7 57.8 1,645 989 1,399 20.2 18.4 24.2 Hotels and resorts 140.0 64„9 90.4 1,640 480 768 11.8 64,9 90,4 Summer homes 47.6 35.8 58.9 1,947 1,779 3,056 40,9 49,7 51,9 Winter sports 5.0 5J 14.3 395 406 1,302 79.6 79.9 90,9 All uses 69.3 57.0 82,7 9,417 7,889 12.037 135.9 138.3 T?5:6 Plumas National Forest and Upper Feather River Basin P. N . F. UFRB P. N. F. UFRB P. N. F UFRB 1950 1955 1956 1950 1955 1956 1950 1955 1956 42,7 144.2 115.9 83„45 280,30 735.7 1.956 1.944 6.35 102„7 76.0 71.8 14.38 72.20 94„8 0.140 0.950 1.32 44.8 50.8 13K3 26.18 55.01 480.9 0o585 1,082 3.66 30.0 37.9 41.5 11J6 21.88 233.5 0.372 0.578 5.62 Camp and picnic Organization camp 102,7 Hotels and resorts Summer homes All uses "4473 TO "W^T. 135.17 429,37 1,544.9 37053X55^ T6T95 Source: U. S. Forest Service, Inventory of Existing Recreation Apeas and Facilities and Annual Statistical Reports of Recreation Visits; California. Region 5 and Plumas National Forest for years shown . Pacific Planning and Research, Survey of Existing Recreation Areas and Facilities in the Upper Feather River Basin: 1956 172 o vn 8 2 _J > \n —I < z 0) 42 c o * * * 'IC * * o o o o o o O IT) lO n CO o m 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 CN 1i 3^ o • r 0) «> ooo oooo ooo O-^CS OOIXCNIT) Ot\00 h»o^ cMiorx- i >. oooooooooooo OCOvOCNCNOOOOCNlonO m^O"^^00^0'<*COOLO^-)^0 u (U TJ C fc o o 0) 1- k. (l> •♦- > to CO Tj- — — — IT) — O CN tX CM CM O 0» — C>l r- 00 OOOOOOOOOOOO O'^tocNinoooo — txocM •— coco^i— cMi— io»— cocsirx o m cn"— ^CN o^ocT.— c-Tioo^cM* 000 o . 8 , 800 1 8 00 1 000 J 8 . O 1 >o i R^ ^"" CO •— CO 8 88 ^0 O 88 o o 88 00 IT) o o o o O CO ^ ^ 507, 153, CM C<4 S2 in CO CO '— 1 ^ lO o 8 o O 88 o o o o o o O '^ O O o o CO o o o OS lO tx CO 861, 482, < lO 918, 895, tv tx 586, 947, o o 00 CN o CM lO CN .— CO O O O O Q O O O O O O O CO CM O «■ ^ ^ ^ •» O O O CO -o > CO lO O Os IT) O^ >0 00 CO >— — O O O O O o o o o o -^ O CO .— o •> s ^ ^ ^ CO in lo lO 00 c^ '>* CO CO CM .— ^O "^ CN 00 in CN »— D r (D > Q£ 0) o o z to D z < \i CM -I • "I < I it 3 X N I < o z 8 < OOOOOOOOOOOO OKO>OCOCO-^OCOCOOOvO ^oc>»o^^o<— CN-'tlOOOOOCMrX O lO t— CO f— -<* CN CO in o Si Z ■" o ooo O CM CN 'St "-t ^ o 00 I I o o o o CN CM I I I o o 00 o o CN >o CN m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O -"^ 00 -* ^ ^ «■ ^ ^ — O CN 00 O rx CO CO I— o CO m CN o in CO r- .— o o o o o o I I ooooooooooooooooooooo oor~vixooco-^inMDinooM30-^ocNooooo coro.— o^inmooooo>.'*incoTi-cooocoioo>oooo cofxioco-^coinin-^.— cococoo-in-^O"— »— ■— <) o-co cnnocn »— cn»oo<— -"toino^ooco-* >0 CMi— COOOCNCOOO o «— CN m o CO .— — I o V -= a-, U o 5 "o o 'E — E i- Q. o o 8-§ > 0) E 2, o o 1- OJ U O il 1 1 E o 3 ON ._ E S« o O i- (U u o £. E "q. o 0) a. o CL O E ^^ E '5 o o D u Q- £ E o _ ^ o o Hi D to I. > E - E o ■D O «1 Q_ o u II Q. O c D a. E o u c 9) E o _c j2 I >v o -o <\> D t. 0) > < o o o o o o o o o o O O 00 00 ■>+ k ^ tk ^ «» in o 00 CN Tf «0 CO 00 Tl- -^ m rx CO i— CM o o o o o o o o o o O O O^ O- CM CM m o o lo rx CO o m cs — O — ^ CM CM t— a> o o o o o o *. >. I CO CO 00 00 I I 00 00 — -^ -^ 11 Q- O ■?'^ O .N E ° D I- (u o o - D -a « > 0) — E o o uy 2 0) E «> I 2 o o o o o o o o o o o in CO in CM « ^ ^ «h ^ in in o vo CM m -t -^ -^ CM 00 o> ■— vO •— ^ m — CN CN .11 Q. O o .y a E o _ « O O -a -D U c o Z 173 o in o CNI 2 a. o LU > LU Q oi. LU !< .is l-i 3^ o o +; * O o hv 00 o o UJ i-i r— ^ I I O o > o e E > i: o o o O 00 LT) O O O O XT t> O to r— INj CO O CO C^ U-) OOOOOOOOOOOO ocNinrvi— oroLo — coocM lO — >— •— OrorvCNCNOro o — I— CN — CN O O O O O O O O O l\ N. CM O <' r\ >— r\ to f\ .— ^ o o o o o to — - o o ^ oj r-v 00 — CO ro IT) r-s. ro o m — CO i\ CO o o o o 00 o o o o 00 o o o S3 CO o o to o o to o o oo o o o o o o CO CN CN 1 00 1 1 00 1 o o CM o o o o o o o o CvJ o o o o to o o to o o CO CN uo o CN CN to -o to o oo eg O o o o o o o 00 o o CO o o o o CO o o to o o CO o o o o o •o i-O LrO CN 00 to o o CO OO CO CN 00 00 CN o o o o o o o o o o 00 O GO o o o o o o o o o o o o 00 to CO o o CO CN CO IX) CX) -— O CN xi- to r\ c ) r— "O to >— to CO "<^ CN -^ 00 vO — l\ r\ 00 — -"^ CN < z o o Q < •- t— > > (U LU U- 3 u O to I— t; < o LU "JJ I— z ° ^^ <- en •e: o .— k. ►— -o — < >i 3 X CO I < o Z o o o o o o O -^ -^t- O oo CN o o o o o o O O CO to CN o COCN'— -— •— tOCOI^.— -^ttoCM CN z o o o o o .„ O 00 oo o o (11 o o o ^ -* > V >. -h, 1 1 .. ^ 1 o — -— to u-j a) CO Kn ■<^- u; Oi o o o o o o co" CN CO o o o ■^'" OD CN o o o o o o o o O O O o o NO o o CN o o o O O CN O O to O o 00 cToo" CO (-'5 to CN C5 cn"" CO CN CO <> cn" CN CO O O O O O o o o o o o ro c^) oo CO 1 c^r CN CN CN 1 o o O O o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o 0/ o CO CN •>* to o CV) to tr> on O CN o o CN o c? o o o o o * — • — CO ■— o (X) CN o CO O ir; 00 r-j lO o %' c:> CD '^ o ^ •k ■^ *. ^ ** «, «h ^ h. ^ ^ ^ ^ *. ^ K. ■^ ^ ^ ,^ D CN CN CN »— lO CN o ••*- CN in CN CO '^ o CN f\ CO CN o _D 00 IV ^ ■» o>i O CO 00 CO o o in CN Cn' o in ■-i- CO oo cn" i o -D o u Q- O -a c D a) £ o <1) E E 3 2. 9- O o.i^ c o c Q. O O z ^ 1: CO u> o 2? (U E n.. o o JC (1) k. Q- a) >. i- 4— E o o n w» O- o U 11 Q- O T) E o t E o _c 5) E E .- 5 o P -5. o c o o o a U Q. o o o N — \n o o Qi — a> Q) o > < O O CD O O o o o o o O O O vO o CN CO •^'- to O CX) CN CN sO O > l\ CN O CN u-) 00 51 Q- 5 >N o TJ ^ > 0) — E D -a c o o ^§ c;5 o u o E <" c en § 2 > < a o o o o o o o o o xt to in -^ o ^ ^ S. K -^ O CO — o o CN <— -^ CO tn CO tn CN vo -^ CO CN r ■•• f ■*• u c c o "q- o c o 0) E o 1 Q o n M 1_ I/I 0) C Ql o C7) k- E E E o o r o 0) k- 2 174 1l u ooo oooo ooo 00 IT) r— c-o o ro -^ CO Cvi ^1 V I >. CM r- Tt o o o CO o o o o CM O vo" cn" '- o CO -— o o o o CO -"t o o o o o o r\ o^ o o o o co"" cn" O CN o > o u I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c o > oooooooooooo QCNCNf^COiOO'OOOLO-O ■^IT) COO^ CNCOCO CO I— -^ o o o to o o o o o o o o o o CN O CN O O n n U-) CM CO — lO CNI tv. -o r- CO o o CO — CM — o o o o o o o o o o i\ IT) rv o m o <) -- CN -^ CO 1^ U Q) o Si Z oooooooooooo OCOCOCO'<-C'OCMU->-<;t-OCOCO ooo o — — O -=t "^ CO 00 o o IT) IT) o o cm" CsT o o CM GO o o CN CO o o o o CO CN oooo oooo vO O (N O •* •». ^ *. CN in >— rt o o o o o o rCrC r> CN ■o -o o o OOO C? O O •^ in CN o 8 o o •>* CO CN go" -— CNinOOCO>— COOCNCN^OOOO m-— cMcovoo-'— r^cxD-^ooinocNCNococo -^ CN CO r- CN CO u-> 1%. CN in CN in in CO — CO CO CN — 0) (A si ^ o CN _Q l\ o -= m O P o u t n C 2 O 0) i; C Q. O •^ -T, "i: §_? ^ o- n .y c g-5 E P "5. o (1) > 0) Q. E o o en tn o H 0) E E 3 1 O 'c O Z Q. E o u o 2? E "a. o o ._ Q- ^ E ^ E D 11 Q. O U O Q. O U E ° -De — E i: Q. o O — t: ■- > o N E *■ E 'u D O E „ D Q. "5 c u o c o E o 3 -n c o _c C C c o -C D N *rt 0) E E D o N irt 1- (U a. '£ 0) .,_ Q- 'c o 1- E E o D D) o o J— E o o E 1- (1) D o t^ (1) D o O ^ (A < o o o o8 o o O S^. CN in Ov ■« •>. V. > "" CN cs CO Ov ^^ -^ K CN o O 175 o o a. o —I UJ > LU a: UJ _j < Z o a Q < 05 3 ac O - X 0) XL c o c c □ o D D ID 1/1 o > oj ii^ 0) on o u o o £> O 00 o O oo o * o o CM o o CO o o CO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8 CO 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 V 1 V 1 CN CO CN CO o" CN 1 •^ 1 o CS4 o o O CN o ■o o c>- o ro o o o CO o cx) o CO o o o o o o o o o ^ o o o CO o o o o o o o o o o o "^ CO n"" *"* 1 .— "" CsT -^ o 00 — cn" CN CN CN •o 1 o'co '- CO o o o o o CM o CN o o n o o o CN O CN CO o CN o o CO o o o CN CN O CN O o o o o CM o o o o CN o o o 88 o"" rsT ^" CO ^~' ►t. "Jt" 00 o o" co" vO o CN 00 CO o CN CO ^o u") cs in -a ex: oooooooooooo OCOC-JLO-OO-^O-^OO-O ocx)OrvcN — lo-— cs^-— — -<1- CN IT) CM >* o tn oooooooooooo ocM^orvco — loocooo-^ "©-"tcN — cNr^t^ocM-or^co 0) UJ 3 o ii I- ~a U ' ^^ .. 3 X I < -f- O Z o o o o -o -o CN lO U-> ccT o o o o CO CO I ^ >. I CN CM O O CM O ^^ co" o O o o CN O o o co" CO CN o o o o o o o o o o CN O CN O O O O O O O O O O O O CN O CM O O CN ^ CO ^ 00 CN CO vO O CO U-) i\ CN CO r>.. CO — "^ O O O O o o o o o o CM O O CO -^ O CO O CN CN — r^ — IT) -o CO r— CN IT) CO CN — O O O o o o o o o o — lO O ''t CM CO l\ O^ LO r^ CO lO CN O m CM o o o o o o o o o o o o CN rvT CN CN 1 1 1 644, 644. M3 O o o CO iCN CN ico O CN r- OOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOQO COO^t^C>vOOrxiO>OOOOOCOO^CN(.NOOOO CDO — inCNCO-^^CNCNNfCOCOCNCNCNOOOO «■ ^ «■ ^ — CN — r— ^ V •• ocNo>— covQi— •— ininix'^t^ — -^ CN— O.-^ •— CMOOOr^CN lO 00 O CO O •<+ r- (A 8^ CO _Q - o O _Q — o o D 1-^ -r, o Q- O > ol £ a in •»— 0) o E :^ Q .„ 1- c £ Q. U o u D tl >- (U o z. > 'o o Q- o u ll Q. O o y Q- £ a -T3 vn > Q) — o in 0) E E D >/> (D > < O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 CO ^ co" CO CO -^ o"" 03 IT) o o in •^'J — - 0) — c c o o — Q- £ w a) E o 2^ E > < O O O O O O o o o o CN in 00 "^ CM cvT CO in >n CO O O CO CO CN CO -^ CO o^ o c o c o E o u r Q) o b: O D _C N k- »r. ni O 1. O e E o z 176 (U £ § *- k. o c 8. IT) ^ 00 ro' -D C o c c o o o CO o D •* ^ _Q CN L. D Z) oo 8 s * * * o o o in lO o CM I I o o O O O O r^ CO ^o o .— ro CD n o o o CO CO -"t "^ CO CM k. c *o _o r > ^ > i- D •^i (1> (U ^ w* k. Q) u r- cm ^ OQQOOOOOPOO CO O — O IT) CM vO CM CM 5 CM o o o o o o 8 8 8 o o o , o o . o , ^ 1 1 ^ 1 >. 1 t >. 1 ■. 1 1 •. 1 o o 03 00 IT) m o o ^ o o o 00 CN o o o o CM O o o o o CO t O C>J — o CO — o o §8 o o o o o o o CM CM Qv 00 ■* JO CM lO O lO 8 O g o op NO O O^ 1^ ^ «. I - •■ (v. On CO (^ On -O On i: oooooooo OCN)CDOfO»— CMO NOiONOioorNNCo'^ nO CN CO CO o o o o CO 00 — 00 NO lO hN CM ^ ^ «k ^ CM CO CO o o CM ^N"■ CM CO CO o o o o o o o o o o O O -^ CO 00 On"" no"" ^o" oo" rC 00 U-) IX nO 00 CO t— — lO -^ CM — O O O O o o o o o CM O On -* On ^ K ^ K V ^ CM -"d- CO CO CO 00 ■<+ NO -.t IT) IX »— CO CM z< oooooooooooo OOOOOOOONi— OOCMOn'^I- Orvt— •— COCOIO — COCOCM o r>4 IT) o o NO N, CM o nO o o o o o o o o o o ■^ O O CvJ CN •^ ^ ^ ^ ^ CO o 00 m o 00 rx CM .— rx CO — •— O O O O o o o o o z; fNN O O NO nO IT) CO CO -^ F- CM rx CM — CO o 0) 3) 0) o z o o o o lO IT) CO CO o o o — On cm O NO o oooooooooooooooooo .— CMNOCMlOmOOOCMOOCMOCOOOOO ONNOONrv-^mix-^KoocM.— nocoooooo CO — -^ N.*fc^^^^^^^^N CNCOlOOOCOONN5J-rOCOOOO -<■ •— r- 00 On IT) CM CM O CO «— 4) 8 J? CM _Q V O '- _Q — o If) CM ^ •— -= £ o --** D p o a ^ (U in i-Q 4) IJ D o o c > (U o HI -a Q- O "go - ON i_ t^ 5 »^ E £ O) I/) E D I- Ql -J O O u « cir o S o 5 g E -i^ Q. o o 5 N E ° CD O u (U ^ a. o o -C 0) L_ Q- r N I- E -*- O E *o 0) D o L. w) CL O P _o o ro c D Q. E D U O c o o N •— i/i tJ) <« O I- o 1/1 .- > E .11 E o 3 O o u .11 Q. O I >^ D -o ^ > 2 (U c»- S "i^ E £ O) in h O L. (J, U O w o o o o o o o o o o O O ^ O nO ^ (^ <^ V ^ fNs rV 00 CM On o ^ r- rv nO CO IT) CM 00 nO CO — .11 Q. O >N o 0) — E o o — Q- E E o o o £ « 0) - E E > < o o o o o o o o o o pNv lO -«t O 00 * V *• K ^ rx no On r^ -^ r- ■<;»• |Nv. IT) CO >— O ■— lO CO CNJ r— CL O no c o o. E o u o N o O) o 2! 0) E o .c l- 0) E E D o (U TJ _D u c o z 177 1- o o o ■*: O CN CN 1 1 O CN CnI * O in lO 1 o m in * O o CM r o o CN O o o o o o 1 o o o o 1 1 1 1 1 •^ b. ^ 1 ' 1 c4" CM o ■o" go" oo" o U1 ^ t\ l\ 00 00 c r- lO O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -o CO 00 Tt l\ IT) h- m 00 o o o o o o o o o o D CO CN l\ CO ^ o '^ CO 00 CM CN o CM o •— m ■ — lO s 1 V ^ •«. K 1 ^ V 1 ■^ •*. c 3 ^O l\ CN •^ CO CO in -^ CO MD CO ^— CN CO O 0^ CO r^ CN o _Q CO in CN CN ^- MD 00 00 CO iQ CN _Q D CN CN CN IX ^ 00 CO 1 ^ ^ V N. s. ^ ^ »— z UJ •2, 3 >o CO ■" F— • CN ■" u. c o o o o o O o o o O o o o o o o o O o o o o o o *o O 00 o ^ ^ -^ o -O CN ^ ^0 ^ o o o o o 00 O o o o a. '.+- CO o O CN -^ rv. o IX m CN 00 o oo CM CO 00 •o ->+ o -J a ^ ^ V ^ •s V »k ^ ^ «^ *. V K ^ ^ K •* "^ ^ *» ^ "». N. (U (U o o CN CN -^ o o CN CO -* CN § CN o (N rx CM in o -^ CN r— \n o (U CO CN CO r— CN ^ o P: >o o ■^ o CO o o UlI > 0) r— o -■^ CM MD O CO •o 00 CO d; •s •». V ^ s. V ^ *. UJ Q^ 2: 00 CO r— CM m CM r— Q OL -a c a (U O O O O o O o o O o o o o o o o o O o o o o CN O cn" vq" CO '^ o o in o" IX CM o o o 9^ CN CO o o IX AL WATE ; AREA E D 0) Q CO ^ CN irTo" rv ""T S4^ o"""^^ to O CV4 IX CO IT) in o -* CN CN o o •k. 5 o oo o o co"" MD 8 in o o MD IX O 00 s. 00 > i?5 IT) CN o CM CN cd" m O in CO ■o o^ CO o CN ^^ CO CN "" 9> o o o o o o o o o o O O o O o o 8 o o o o o o 1— a: O CN in o CN lO CO IT) CO in in CN o O o o o o o o o o — LU __ CN f\ tV CO CN -^ CO rx o in ^ m 00 -^ o ^ o o ^ in CN m in Q i/> o V) •^ K ^ »- ^ ^ ^ V •• ^ *h • CO — CN CO gi CN rx in CN •o IX IX 00 ■< LU o 1- CO in CN "* CN CM O CO CN in h- > Z < o CM V J__ ->* CM «h D Qi o ,^ X yj WIT ;ath .» o o o o o O o o 8 o o o 0) L. o o o IT) o o m lo O O o o o o o o o o N USE PPER FE 3 >.. ^ ^ 1 1 1 *ik -^ 1 1 1 kK >^ *. ^ 1 1 1 •k •k 1 1 1 •♦- (U r- CN CN CV4 CN o o o o in in D z ■^ m in in" IX fX CO CO cn" cm" O 3 (U ID w Wl 1— 1 D D CREA 1-49 O O O O O o O O o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o cs ■<* CN in to CN O O "t ^ CM o o o -o 00 o o O ^ o lU o o o o o E o o o o o O 06 o cr ^ ''t o o ^- '^ -* rx in o o o -* CN _Q CN o CN '^t o D CN O CN CN 00 •k. ^ *» «k ■* *» K %. t^ K. «^ •k. ^ a^ », K k.. ■». «K «« *- D n H ^ *» V »• E ■* •* ^ ^ ^ CO — CO r\ o CO in o^ 00 o- CN o CN ^ rx CN ^ CN o CO .— ^ CO OO in CN CO MD CN IX LU TT o CO CO •— r— '■t m »o CN -^ r— o CO c^ O l\ in CO o 1— CO 00 CN CN 'c CN IX oo ^ < Z 1- CN o CN ^— MD o CN in CO CO IX CN Q. CM 5 cm" l\ CM CO cT 00 00 E CO CN 00 •«t IN CN M5 hv CN r— CM ' CN 1 CN 1— ENTI reas % D -o "O t < k. ^ O o (A p O a- .- — ~ o p 2 O D l1 0) ir- o o o "5 c 0) 0) o o "5 c (•0 0) D -o c (J C O "5 c 0) *> o 'c o "o c 0) "> 'E u "5 S o Q- O E ^ Q. o E Q_ 'q. o E 'q. o E D 'q- o E D 'a. o E in n o o o o • — o D o 3 o t— -a — 1 >. O Q. O > I- c C o 0) O- c o o 1- > c D •4— o C C o c o o C C D tJ c o -•- o N 1. D X o Q-S 42 E E D Q. "c E E 4- Q- 'E XL E >, •I-. Q. 'c o Of) r L. 0) E 0) Q. *C O O) -*- 1— 0) E 0) h- CL 'E -*- (U E • c S O) O O E D O 'ij E o O E 'o E o 1/1 E "o -*- E D o E 2. e D C3) o E CN a 0) D i_ 0) D D i- 0) D o o u- (U D o D 1- (U D 1- o u. 0) 3 L- o R L- (U D ■o U O L. xn * u o u. t/> Q- o o 1^ xft Q. (J o i- 1/1 (U u o L. \n (1) ^ o o L. m 1 < o Z O O O ^ I 178 o 8 1J 3^ o o o o o .- m -— -^ O O O O ro ^o CN to CN -^ uo O O O O 00 -O nO o -^ ro o ^ CN 1 V V ^ V — CN t\ CN n CN o CO o o ^ CO o o o o •o o o o o o CO 00 o o o o CO lO 708,400 221,400 CO rv. "^ o- CN vO CO CN 2^ CN c 1- o 5; u (U (U oooooooooooo OCO — CNOOCvlCMininOCNOD u-)-— •— — oorv-io-— cNooco ^ kk s. »« oooooooooooo o^coooocNorvioooo ocoi— oo — r^-^o^orvrvo CN r>. — Tt -" cd" ^o" -^ O CN O "* ■— O CN CN 00 »« *h ^ K V 00 rv. >o CN CO lO LO "^ CO CN O CO CN vO ""t ■^ CN 0^4 •— 5 s o 4- 8 0) 5< D z ^ = T. ^ ^^ -^ — Irt ■>-< 1 0) (U /> ^ ^ 3 2^ 3 (U ■N D X oooooooooooo o^3rvrN.rv.ini— lo-^r^io-^ " -^cocNTj-corxcocor— cooo CO o (x CVI — "* •- .— — 00 I I I I I I o o ^0 CN o o o o O O o o 8 O o f~> o o o O o o O '^ o CS C>J o CO lO CN lO ^ *. ^ ^ •* ** K ^ K ^ 00 8j »o r^ CO •^ « oo CJs 1^— CO CN CM "^ CN rx >o CN CO o •^ CN 00 ^ CM r— I I OOOOOOOOOOOOO ocor^ioooco-^ioMDOcoMao OCOOOCO-^COIOCNCOIX-^ CO IT) rvinfN.— cNocoOi— O — CM .— CN § o o o o o o . O Csl o o o o CN 00 CO -«t O O O (U rv,o-co«— "Ooor^cNr— tvcN I— -^ CNCO0O^>— — .— o IX rv CO CO Tj- CO o o 00 J3 ^ o — _Q c^ o ^. ^ ^ I lA X o -o o o o o o ^ CN o o o o E CN O 00 O -* 3 h V ^ ^ ^ C IX Os vO CN O ,£ CN >— CO CN rx c CN lO -"^ lO -O •- 00 CO CN I— . o ^ -5. §-§ 0) O -a o r tt) o fc T- o O .s: N 1- I/I E E C o CJ) o (U 3 1- >rt o c ■ o .y c^ a. r -o ' D , Q. E o u o z p P o c -= o -a o c 0) E u '5. o c o C o L. O E E X 'c o I- o E E X ^ (U 3 o k. 0) D o o fc- in D U o o 1- lO Q. O U 11 Q- O C D E D) in 0) E o r I O L. tn O D C C o 0) ■ III o o o o o o o o o o O lO 00 O IX » 1^ ^ *• ^ lO O 00 vO o CO 00 lO lO CO CM CO CO ^O (X) UO CM — a. o (0 E o CL S E 0) E <" p cn >n (1) > < c u c o Q. E o o o c o o N c £ D) in O k- <1> E o _c (U E E D 0) > u Q. (U o -o c o X TO c a 0) o> c J£ "5 u o a. 179 o IT) O CN Z LU a. o LU > Q 0) « .■^ O c a c o _C1 o > 0) c o a 0) u. o (U o o O CN O CN o CO o o o O vQ CN 00 — CO in c) o o CN m CN in 1 I I * * o o o o CN CN I V I I >. CN CN O O O O in o^ CO o O- (XI CO o V ^ ^ .— m •— o o o O O- CM CO CO in CN — CO CM oooooooooooo OinOGNCO^CNin-— CN-'^CO OOCNOOOCO-OO^OCOOO LnOO>— CNt— COCNO-C^ICOCOO I\ 1 — 1 — CN ■ — ■■ — o o o o o o 00 -^ o r^ CN o o CN ^^ CO co" o o o vO o o o o o o o o o o o o - 1 00 00 88, 55, 55, o o o o o o o o ^ CN o o o o 00 o o o o o rv r- 744, 544, 860, 340, K 00 00 o O CO 1 ■» •. o> o in — o o o o o o o o o o CN O 00 CN CN K, *. *. ^ *» -^ CO o m in On — CO Ov m m CN r^ .— -^ rv CO .— CN O O O Q O o o o o o o in CO o vo •s ^ ^ V •». in CO o CO r\ o r\ o o CN rx r— so rv CN ^ h. s. -^ CN — < _l < ^< O ca UJ > an LU X O ^5 1/1 z o 0£. LU a. a. 3 U cs < I— z o z o 0) O a. -T3 C o (U > 3 O Z 9 ^ ■ t^ *, »fc ^ m CN ^ O CN o o in CO o p— CN CN o in •^ •* ^ K ^ h^ CO 1— -^ CO o o o o o o o o o o O O CN CO O CM vO — O 00 o -^ vo IX .— cN CO CO m o- LO CM •— o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO o -* in «. «. ^ •»> r— CS O O CD 00 CO •— On in o o o o fc o in ■— CM r— o o o o o o o o o o r- O I\ -^ O o" rC vo" tC cs" un 00 cS o in CO in o -<* CO r- ■— o o o o o o I I ,.*, CnI CN CN CN O o o o hP ^ ^■» r— m lO in in t\ tx ff— ' tv> 0) CM CM 0) CO 00 ^ lO 3 ^ ■^ 3 E 3 ••• CM CN o o o o O o O o O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o _E o o O s <=• o ^ in O K CN O in 00 5 cs '^t- o C^J o o o o o o o o o o o o 'c o o o o o O CO o. rv m O O rv CO o vO o in t\ 00 NO O 00 ^ -^ o o o ^ ^ CN E CN m "t CN ■— ^ •o o oo" C^" ^ ^ 00 r~^ o ccTo-"" CO in o o-"" in -<^"" co'" ,— "■ Ql -^'" i2>^ •o" o" ^" cM^rC • U 'E o c o 0) E O 'c u '5. "5 c lO E Q- o 'c u ■q- "5 c o (U E c o "q- "o c O tA E *> "a Q. O E '> "5 3 C C D picni onoi S3 E V) 0) u _□ o a. c o N o -*- c o o 0) Q. c o o o -C 1- -a c o o N o 3 c: c o o O o o (U > Q. • — > c 0) E E D a. *C J2 1— (1) E E a. 'c E E Q. "E t/1 Q) E (U CL c: P ° D E' r L. 0) E (1) e"° ■{= E c: E o O) o 14- o £ O C3) o t/1 o E o CJ) o "o E D o o E C3) o "o o E o O ° p D 0) D I- 0) z> D u. 0) 3 o o L- 3 o 1— (U 3 L^ o 0) 3 L_ O (1) 3 -o O u. to • O O l- w> Q. o o I- W) Q. U O l~ to Q) ■4- u o 1_ tf> > < Z u U < < o o -o lU -o _3 u c O z 180 a, j2 o Q. 1^ O -r o o o lO o o o o ^ o CN O "— LO — O o o o o o CN Csl CN O ro O O lO O * o CN m o o o O CN OO CXJ O vO o o o o o o o o — o r\ M -^ — C» O CN CM o o o o o o t\ Lo o o") n CO O O 03 O- CN CN CN CO CN n .— CN o rr '^ CO ^ O CN — CN I\ o CN o o CO CN o o CM co" CX} 00 o o eg CM CO o o 00 o^ o o 00 1 1 o o OO , o o o 1 1 o o O 1 o CN o" CN CO co" o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 00 o o o o o o o O 00 CN O IT) — OO 00 CN ^ CO lO CO lO o o o o 00 o o o CO o o o o CN o o CN o o o o CO o o o o CN tX CO tx o -^ — fs r\ CO S. -^ cs tv. o o r— ^ •— •— o r; •— r^ CO o hv CO OO CO CM O CN CO ■— 00 r^ CO .— — "2 I ° s oooooooooooo Or^COCNOCNiOioOOOCslO oooocN^coi\ovor\Lni\o CO CN CO — ■— l\ CO CN '— CN -^ t\ --a- o o o 00 o o o o o o o o o o O O ^i" o o CN r— CO O CN 00 00 O^ CN CO t\ CN -^ O CO o o o o o o o o o o I\ lO -<* O 00 CO CN CN IT) -* IT) ^ O CO CN CO CN -^ o o nO CO .— .— "^ CN .— loooooooooooo •/lO — OOCNCNCNOOr^CNNQ Poco — oocooovino-^ocN k. ■4— o Z 1- < a- o CN inT -"^ ^""^"" CO IT) — CO ^"" to 0) > L. 0) VI o c~> o o o o •^ u> o a) 00 CO o o o 3 ^ C^J CM CN '^ -t vO j- O Z 0) to 0) in CN 1 1 — " —^ 1 1 1 lo" o o lO CO o o o ■o o o o O Q o o o O o o o o O c^ o o o O o 00 o o CN o CN o o r— 00 ^ ^ •». •^ fc. ^ •k »h ^ •k CN o o o CO ^ LO o CO ^~ CN rv CO ■^ CN lO -<) C) CN -o . — CO CN CN r^ ■o IN CM rx CO ^ — — o o o o o o so vO I I CN — O O O O O O cn" cn"" CN CM CO CO -* o UJ Z U 1 z CN O !< Z UJ n OL (1) K. ) L. UJ < IV o .. 1 • — < CL 7 C3) LU O 1- Ol. X I < o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q) o o o o o 0) o o o o o __ o o CN 00 CN CO o 'sf o CN CN O -o o o o o o o o to o o o o o to o o o s ° D vO o CN CO ^ LO o .— o r^ LO — '^ lO 00 CO sO o -* 00 -* 3 CN O CN 00 CN 3 CO O CN o — O lO CN -. o -a CM co" CM lO 00 o" — " CN ■^" 00 lo" _E "c E D — LO rC — " — CN co" r>r ~a o o >s o a— •4— "d o c^ o -*- to to *~ fl> O o o ^^ o -a o '> o > u o 0) o o o 0) 'c o c _o Q) E •4- o LO "E u "5. ~o c _o E Q. o "c o 'a. "5 c o t/> E 1- o c o 'q- "5 c _o to E 3 Ol o (U E "o 3 c picni onal to E o a. -o o o 'E o o Q. -o o o > ■*- D o c o "i '"S o c o I'o o o N u. 3 o N k. >v CJ N l_ >v o N w. O N k- O N t.. _o Q. E c o •4- t- o (/I o Q. E c a o 1/) D Q. E c o -*- o WO E E 'o D CL E c D -*- o 1/) E E cn o ~B o •o E E O) D 1- "5 sort mmi 0) (U o L- (U 3 o C3 k- (U 3 CI. o k. 0) 3 Q- o t_ 0) 3 (1) o O i- 0) 3 (L) o O k_ (U 3 L. "O o i- i/> o o »/> D o o L. to o u o L. to > o o u. to > *- U O i- to < Z u u < < D o -a -o _3 u c o z 181 o Q. 0) oa CM IV o CO o o 4-. o CM o ur-) O O O CN o o •o o o CO o o CX) o o o o o o CM 1 ^ 1 00 CN ~ 1 CO 1 ^ 1 CO 88 o o O o o o o o o LO O o o CO CN rv to o o 1 » 1 CN 724, 644, o CO o o CM 1— Z Cl. o > LU Q LU O _0 CO O -.- > O in O C o 0) > o o o O Oj O- ^ CO o o o o O ro CO lo CN IT) O -^ o o o LO CO CN -^ CO o o o o o o o ■q- (Ni IT) O CO ^ CO n CO ^ O lo ro a> o o O uo O CN o vO CO o ■— o IT) lO CO CO CN -^ CN CM IT) CO LU 5 > o in C <1> t— Ut ac o < LU I— Z 2 s 3 X -C (U (11 u 1- ■> c D 1- u ■*- (1J k. D Ul CO z ID 1/1 3 1 z CO o o < z LU n on (i> U LU .5 Qi u 1 < Q. 1— o / C31 LU O 1— T) ( ) >- Q- X I < o o o O CX5 -^ C\l LO CN lo" — "" O O O O CO CO — CO CX3 oooooooo orvcoo— Lor\CM cocxJOCNCMrvoo — CO '— o o LO lO CM o o ■o o o 00 ro" CN CO o o o o o o o o o o o o o •^ O Oj o o o o o o o o o o o o — o CO lo CO CO CO CO o o CN o LO rv LO CO ^ CN — o o o o o o o o o o U~> LO >. >. I 1 1 ^ •». LO O CO CN 00 tV tV -^ IN, tV LO CM .— I I o- ^ ^ O CN , 1— ^ ^ tv O f^ r— lO lO CO CN Q) D -51- -* (U (/I p CN CN o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ^ O o o o o E o o o o o o ^ lO U) tv ^ fv lO o 00 -^ CO o o CN o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO r^ CN -* -o o CO CN ^o o ^ CO ^ tV LO 00 o o -<^- ^ o 00 o o o CN 'c LO lO o •^ o cn"" iC CO oj" cm" lO -o~ o" CO -o" LO Lo" CO CM -o" CM rC CO ^ ^ , — . — CN o D ^- D o O i/i !? -^> -^ o o « O r::^ o P O D o l/> u m o o o ^ (D c M o c ._ ""-^ C; _«. "O "c ^— ^ 'c ~~m > c ._ o "q. o c o to 0.' -*— o o 'q. o c o 1/1 (U E (U 'q. o o E o u "q. D C o l/» E "6 'q. o c o Wl 0) E "o o c o in 0) E in _Q o o O o .— o :5 o 3 o u. O o Q. O > -a c o o J— t/1 -*- c o D c CI o N -C "> c o r- n c o o N -C 1_ C C o -o c o o N o Q. 'c 1_ £ E 5 Q. 'c \n •4- E e >.. D. 'c 52 LZ c ^ Q. 'c ■4— (1) E E 1) _ D. 'c »/> (U E 0) Q. 'c sorts mme c E o D cn o i/) o E o o "o E c o o U1 'o E D O cn o n5 o J— E o o C3) o in E cn o "o E o o CJ) o OJ ^ OJ D O D O u. 0) b a 1- 0) 3 o w CU D o L- 0) ■♦- u o I- m O o ■> > < z U U o ^ Q) (1> k_ w> 1 ) (U (11 Qi Di T) C b o o l- 0) > I/) o o o o o o 00 o^ — o o o o O- t\ o o CM LO 00 IT) o o o CO N. o ^ LO CN oooooooooooo o — rovoooor^inioooooo roconnc^'nOO"^LoocN n ro 04 LO — CN o CM oooooooooooo OOO-OOOOOIOCOOOO ^lo roo-^ CNcoco 00 ,— -^ o o o CO CM CO o o CM n cm"" o o o lO o o o o ^ o o o o o 00 o o o o o CN O o o o o O^ CO LO O CO |\ lO r- CM CN o o CM •— •^ lO CO — CO — 1^ — o o o o o o o o o o o o o 00 CM O o o o LO lO o o m o o o o "* — >0 ■— O 00 o CM ^O CM O CO CO lO — CN '<3- O O O O O O O O O O CM O -^ O 00 -— CN CO CO lO CO rx o CO — 00 CO p— ■— CM o o o o o o o o o o CO LO -^ o -^ CM CO CM CN '"t .— lo CM r^ vo CO r— O CO 00 -O CM O O — '^ CO CM — a a o < z OOOOOOOOOOOO ooor^ioo^i^oioocNrv,o |\->;t CNCNCO CMCMO CO CO o o o o o o o o o o o o o ^0 O 00 CM O co" c^" * — .— hv. -^ CM — O O O O o o o o o o CM lO 00 O CO cn" o" co" o"" -^'" o 00 -— m CM — (D U O o '^ Z COC>^-> CM O -"t ^ — ^ CN — — LO •^ CO t\ Ov O^ CM CM r-v ■^'" CM — Q. lO o o o O O P O O O O O .- CM O CM 00 CM C co"" o" to cm" o E I — >v o o ■X n, O -§-0 D- C o (U 5 g Q. O 0) > -a o a. CD 1/1 E O I- (u o o z. 0) E o c — Q- O E ° -I E o J) Q. o 0) CL 11 O- o C3 ^ >v D ■- (U o o ll jO (D □ a. o u Q. c: E O I- 0) E o _c 0) E E 3 > 'u D Q. D u c () o c Q. o r o o N in n c E u m O u L. H) o o u. E o -C Q} E E 3 □ D C C O O) D L_ 0) > < O O O o o o CO CO I I CO -"^ o o o — CO — o CM ^ o a. o E ° 0) E o .£: < o o o o o o o o o o CM LO r^ o^ — cm' to to rv CO r^ — CO CN CM c^ •— — CO CO ll a. o c o Q- E o u o C o o I- o (U E o -C t- 0) E E D 183 * * ^ * * * * flj 42 4» ka o o o o o o o o O CO CO o o o o o c o >o CM CN 00 00 o ir ol ^ 1 1 1 i 1 1 s ^^ CN Q O O CN CO O O O CN CO O O O o CN O O O i ■. o CN C □ c O _Q O O O O OO CS •^ CO o o o o sQ CO n lo CN Ul O "^ o o o lO CO CM •o u-> lO o o 00 ^^ o o o o "* o o o o o o o rx lo o o o o 482, 153, 234, 95, O CO o o CO — §!^ o lO o CN »— Z UJ 5 a. o -J LU > UJ Q Qi. LU 1— < ^ LU ^ 5 1 \?> LU (U h- -C < o ^ 0) u. _J D o U- X 0) I— ^ ^ -CJ LU ii 13 1 z ^ o o !^ z LU a Qi 4> u LU ^ Di o _l < Q. »— o z CD LU O t— "O o X Ou X CO « r— 1 < c .b o o "^ (1) I- « u ^ QJ § i o J? -7 < 3 > oooooooooooo OirjCOQCNOOOOiOOOOO-^ or^cN-^co — tn-^r^cNr-cN lO — C>v 0» ^ f— CN O^ 00 oooooooooooo oooooiocNcooO'— incoo ocooo^coior^'^cooLO.— -^ IT) CO CO o -^ CN CO CO oooooooooooo OO^OsOOO^COiOmiOCNCOO OlOCOCN-^-^OCSCOCN-^-OO CO CN O O O O CO CO — -^ -^t O — -^ -- O o CN CN .— .— c^ o o 00 o o •o 00 o o CO o o o CN CN o o o c>. 00 o o o o o o o o o o CM O O 00 ^ V. ^ (^ ^ V ^ O O CN CN CN r\ c^ o IT) <— — -^ 00 o o o o o o o o o o o O O ID Ov CN •* K V ^ K CO CN CN CN sO -— rv g — CN CN -t -^ LO 00 IT) CN •— CO ■— O O O O o o o o o o CN O 00 O " CN CO CO o -^ CN rv o CO — o o o o o o o o o o lO O CO IT) t^ ^ ^ ^ s *. t^ CN >0 — 1^ CO ^ 00 l\ .— O O — ''f CO o o o o ■o o o o o o o o o o o CO lO o o lO o o o o 1^ CO IT) O ""t NO 00 c^ c^ CO »1» in CN CO 00 CO T- On ^ 00 o 00 CN CO CN 88 o o 88 IT) lO CO CO 1 1 1 1 0) V M M 3 3 (D E O O o o o o O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o -% o o o o O 3 o o o o o O CO hx CO ^. K CO U-) lO K CN O ^ o 00 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -* lO o CO o O CO o^ ^O CO -^ NO o NO 00 O NO o CN O -^^ O 00 o NO "c NO IT) CO lO CO Co" CM CO CM CN •^ On m CN*' no"" ^"" no"— "" , '*" 00 o" — " ocT co" 00* Q. o On""^"" no" d" E '^"' CD On" ^ o ^CN r— CO — r^ LO NO r— CnI m ^ nO CO c^ '"t CN r— ^— ">* '^ IT) CO NO CO CN -^ CO O O CO CO hN. 1 On CM 00 CN nO 1 On IT) NO N. K ^ s. N v •Hk >« ■k. (,. ■«» N. «, CO rv. — CN -O >N o -D o vn CN CN o NO CO L- u O o ^ D a 2> u rZ" o o o to >N a o •4- o *- u o o "E o 'ql "5 c E (tOtG picn c O 0) E 0) Q. c o "o c o 0) E o picn onal 0) E '> ~6 picn one! in E "> "5 picn onal 0) E (/I ^ o o o o • — • ^ o 3 • — o 3 ■ ^ o u 8. _o > (U -a c o o N 1— T3 C o o N s. c o o -C '> O N C C o a N C C o o f^ o Q. 'c D CO E 3 CI. o 42 >.. Q. C •*- E E ^ E-'§ o S' 0) E E 0) — — °-*i E p 0) - °-'^ sortb mme c E o o 00 E O E o o in E 'o E o O 'o o CD O o o O) o ^ +- i E> o ^ -♦- o o u. 10 0) o o >- « o z o U o ^ ^ p o -o 3 U c _o 184 l£ -)! -X * * * * * o o o o o o o o O CN CN LO in o o o 5 8. 1 1 1 ' 1 1 CN CN o -^ oo ro o 1 ° o o o o o o o o o O o D J3 O 00 CO en i\ lO o 00 l\ o o t- O IV 1 CN ■^ '^ ^ 1 ^ ^ 00 o 8 J n _- I tC JQ 3 o ^U, •o o •- ^ o a: oooooooo OO-O-— CN-— lOO 00 -^ n rv CN o o o o ^ 00 CO CN ct" go" CN O O O 00 o o I O i 00 o o o IT) o o I o o o o CO -^ CN CO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o •^ o 00 o hv o '^ CO V, •» «. V ^ •k 1 ■^ N C> ^0 1 CO s tv CN CO £i Cvj CO o vO O" CO '^ •» "^ CO hs CO cs to CN rf 00 ^. CO rv CN u-) •— u-> ^- •— CN •? E o o OOCDOOOOOOOOO Ofoo^-ocoCoe'^Qf^^ -^ -^ m CM IV CO .— CN CS CN o o CO ^*" c^ CO CO o o o o o o o o O O § o o o ^ o o o o O o o o C>4 o m o tv *. ^ s. •» *b ^ V ^ ^ ^ in o ■^ -^ rv rv o •<3 CN CO CN in o CO in o- CN CN r— r— o in "^ CO >o •— CO CN CM »- 2 o II Z oooooooooooo OC0'^C0inOCNO-^CM«000 OCM .— mCN f— r— (Z) oo CN o o CN CO CN o o CN o o o o o o o o O CN CN CO o o o o o o o o o o CN O CN vO ■^ — CO — CO CO in ^ •— "^ CN rv vo o» IV CN — 01 <« 2: Q) 3 > O Q) o o o o o O CN CN 00 o o o o I I I I o o o o o o o o o o o CO CO I I i 82 f^ rv (U OOqooOOOOOOOOOOOOO ocoiorvoOf^ofvoof^ocooooo CNO^Cv^inOCNOCOOOO^O-^OO^OC^O •o" o ^ ■" ^ J) CO o o- -9. * £ I o -o 0) o -o o o o I/I a O \- - 2 E « I- D ? E ^ E . 3 o c u o c 0) ■q. _o E -o c D o o N h- irt 0) Q. C u. E 6 E D o o in k. 0) D u o u. i/1 a. o 0) ql 'u o Q. D U c u o c */l 0) O c u a c 0) 'CL _o E trt ■q. o E o o '> c •*- o o o N L. >^ o N ^ Wl CL E o c o CJ) 1- o 1/1 0) E E D. E D c o o (/I E E o o 1- in o V o u. */i u D C C D 0) C3) O u. > < o o g o o O O 2 CD O O O ^ O >o CO O 3 CN vQ CO '^ ^ in -* in o c^ o — ■<^ CN »— >— c o o c (U *Q. o E c D o o N k_ t/1 0) Q. c t E E E o D o Wl k. lU D u o k» m o O C C D 0) CJ) D a> > < o o o o o o CO CO CN CN 1 1 O O O O CN O o o On o o Q co"© O CO CS CO CN CO CN >o o o CO CO rv m CM r— .11 £1- O c o E o u o N • — irt en ^ S 21 0) E o -C k. 0) E E 3 10 O O u c o Z 185 <0 * * o o J« O CN t O CN) O CL I/) »/) _^ o 93 c O CO o o o o >o tN CN -? CO o CN CN ? * * o o o m T) o lO m CN CN o o IT) C — 00 O CO o o •o 1 V ^ CO CM 1 •»< CN o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . o o <•• «k V t 1 V 1 ^ 1 1 K >o -o 00 00 If) lO (N. t^ 00 00 lO to '^ *" Q o o o o o o ^D o o o o o o o o o o vr> o U-) K "». >* 1 * 1 ^ ^ 1 *k On 00 CN ■o ^5 o 5 rv, m CN 00 o o T— rv no o I o _i > LU Q LU ^ 13 O 3 Z a 0) ^ < LU ■"^ 3 Z m z < o CO — fV' 1— II) < > lU Of a: U rv LU II 1 CK^ X < < in £ O 9r Ql. 3 O CN I < •- o 3^ 0) o > D 0) O "13 C o o Z o Z o o o O ^ nO r\ w-> -^ cn" ■^"' CM o o o o o o o O CN ro O r— CN CN CO rv. -^ CO -« S, *h < I V ^ •. — CN CO CM CO Cs) CO CO OOOOOOQOOQOO — mCNOOCOOOOCOlOOOOO O CN -O IT) O CN O Tj- lO lO •— 00 ■<;1- O- 00 O lO CO •— " CN m lo 1 784, 744 OM ^ — " O O ?8 o o CN i§ o o oo o o o FN. o o o o CN c^ 087, 642, CO <— CO o On •— r— CN 516, 050, in o OM — «l> CN CO 00 «0 tN. X. CN '-r o o o o CO o o o nO o o o o CO -Sf o o o o o o «o o o tNToo CO o r- 00 ro 844, 308, On"" 00*" CO CN o c^ 456, 654, NO K — CO CO o o o o o o o o o o nO O CO 00 o *« V V *> *« CO 00 -^ o ir> CO CM ^ 00 — O kO OM — CO no CO O CN CN — o o o o o o •■ ■> I o o o o o o o o o o 1^ O CO ""t lO ^ ^ «> «» ^ rt — 00 ^4 o ■^ .— CO CO o ^ CN r— o o o o o o oo On CN o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo — IX „ „ ,_,.. „ _ „ ^OCO-^lON^OOrvCN-^ — OOCN -^ CN m — CN On ■ — -= fll o o o c o 0) 5 5- 0) D -a u CN CN nO oo "«t ■— |Nn. CS PN. — CO o "E — S o I ° E :!^ Ql o CN^OCOK' in O 1- «" a> T o z -a c o 0) E o C O O ^ o Q. E "u 3 O in Cl a u o m cs CO ^ . u D " 'E "o 'E u "q. □ c o 0) E 1- o o c o N in -Q Q. 'c 02 E E i> Q. E o O) O ■" i D u. Q) 3 o o U O b. in Q. U O -Q O -Q O o >. I "^ ^. ^ g^ ^ "O CO CO >- O o o O to in o c o ■i— D N .— tn |o CO u> O i_ 0) — E D o -C ID > < 00 On CN CO CO O O O O O O O O O -O nO 00 ^ •« K *k lO ■— lO -^ o in o — O O CO r- i •^ r- 5L o ro" tj CO CO CN CN CN CN O O O O O O O O O O 00 in >— CO -^ * ^ ^ •». ^ ^ r^ 00 r- fNx O CJN CN CN in >— On CO CN m m hN. CO r^ -o CO — II Q- O "E ""5 a- S E ° o o 0) E o _c fc E o S: > < .11 CL O TJ C o E o u ro lA ^ a* O L. a> E o -C k. 0) E E D 186 55 r c o 1 ! 1 III! ' 1 1 1 1 o o O CN o o o o ro in n ^o N o o 1^ O CO o o o m CN CN — ban a uburb CN IT) 1 » V V — no CN co^ -=; i^ o o (X> CO >o I I o o o o CO o I I I I o o o o 00 o 00 in o oo o o o o CN O m CN 00 vO o o 00 CN CO o^ Ov CN CN o •- a, Q) fll u oooooooooooo ocNo^-d-ioc^iocoinmCN "' coinin^-ooou-)-— o CN -^ in CO r^ CN CO o CO o o CO CO CO o o o o o o o o o o ^ o ^ o o W ^ *. S. V. 00 CO O -O CN ■O CO CN O CO O^ 00 >— CO nO o o o o o o o o o o Os in -^ in lo ^ *» ^ >>, K "<4- CO vo in Os CO so in CN — CN m — — CO -o c o > oooooooooooo o^sor^CNoinosoi^cNo ^OOO^sO^CNCNCOC>s•^CNOO r^ — -^ CN in CN -"T — m o o o m CN in o o o o o o o o o o sO O CO CN vO s, V ^ s, V CN CN CO O- CN •— o s© 00 m rv 00 CN 00 r^ < s, CO — o o o o o o o o o o r^ o 00 — CO ^ ^ s> •« s. IX CN O 00 CN 00 — CN sO fx CO CN CN in CO CN — ^ 0) OOOOOOOOOOOO OTrrxN.O'^ooin->?rin-<*cN COCN-^COOOOCO — CO 00 Os CN «0 OO CO — i— CO O O 00 CN in CN O O O O O Q O O O O ^ O CN O CN < s. ^ ^ >« Os o in -^ ■— hs, c 1 0) OJ > ^ > , , 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 ! 1 1 ! , 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 u D z t/i 0) -o c 0) 0) (U a. «n s. a so CN *> ^ c o '~ -o ■ — -t> Q> s D u 2. o o t/1 y c 0) CL o (U C "5 «^ 'c — -o c __ "> *c _^ *> "o 'c ... "o o o u c _o to E -4. o o 'a. o c o E 0) o 'a. O c o 1/1 (D ■- E a o c o 0) E "5 o 'a. o c o 0) E o c o D e JC u i/> _Q o o o o •— o 3 o 3 o ■D o Q. O 0) 's d) c a o (/) 'E -a c D D N a. -a c a o 1 .^ -a c D o -C C C o c D ■*- o N C C a o N JC k. <1> X o c CL. E o 'c D cn o 0) E E 3 u- O E O 'c i- o to 0) £ E Q. E 'c o O) O mme city E D O) O E E Oi O "o E 'c O o E E 0) a u. ~5 •*- Q. e o 'c o CD o VI 0) E E o o o (U w 3 k. 3 D D i_ o; 3 o o E. 0) 3 o a b. a> 3 o k. 0) 3 rv "O o L> fcO • o o L. CO Q. O o i. u> Q. u O k. 1/1 (1> .*- o o k. tA 0) u o 1— w o O D > > Sw < Z u u < < >1 187 0) -k C O O U ^ ■^ * * * * * o o o O o o o O o CM CN IT) IT) o o O o CM CN lO IT) CN CN O -n ' ' CN CN -O CO rx o (-> o ^ O o o o o ^ CN m o IT) O o CM CO CO CO O o •» 1 1 •- 1 1 O *« CO CN o o o o o o CO CN o O- Ch- — o o o o ov rv. <) o Os o ^ o Cn"" IT) (» LO CN o o o o rx -^ -«*■ c^ 03 rC irT co"" o o oo" o o o o o o o o o o o o 88, 00 00 in 1 « 1 IT) o o o o o o o o o o o u-> 8 o o o CxT CN O CN 1 o CN CN >o o oo o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8 o o o o o K CO 471, 700, 1 V o o^ »o rv o o o lO 722, 537, to •— CN ■— CO 1— — O lO 2 o LLI > < LU UJ LU UJ i> UJ LU < Qi ^^ > °- > a. m 3 CS CO Z g U LU Ci£ _i < »— z LU CI. D 0) _c c^ o u. D) O 1- -o >^ X CN CM I < ai OOOOOOOOOOOO OCOlT)*— ■— Ol^lOIV0^--000 r^.-^l\'5t^^^^)CON.CNIV^^)'^ o > D 0) Cn" iC i OO a£ a Z Z <" ,=,SSC3C>OOOCDOOO S^'^"^<3O00ir)00iOOCN C0O-O_Cs)-0 — CNi— .— OIV !i; !^ "^ Tj-"" in cn"" o^ ccT Lo" co"" cn"" 0 CN CN IV vO CO CN IV .— K CO IV — CN -* 00 CN — ;r'" oo" in o in CO -o 00 -O -"t IV o •* •* ^ V 1^ CN On •— -^ -^ O O O O O o o o o o O O O 00 CM >« •« >k ^ !«> OO IV O '^ o nO in O On IT) CM rv in -"t -^ oo CO CN — O O O o o o o o o o Tt in -^ m o *■ ^ V ^ ^ IV rv — -* v. ^ 1 ] 1 N. >. 1 1 1 CO — r— CN c^ oo CN CO 00 f— NO CO nO On CN CO CO CO -* J) CN CO CN CO 0) 3 E E CN| CN CN cm" o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o D o o o o o O o o o o O CN tv in oo CN CO in in f— CN CN ^. o N=|- CO o o o o o _Q o o o o o *E o o o o o IV ^ OO CO CM On in ■^ rv CN tv CO 00 00 00 o o nO CNJ O CN o o NO NO lO lO CO 00 — " CN rv"" CO lO ,_ cT no"" oT ^ Cnj" in 00 o CO CO ••> IV CM »— a. rv"" no" CO c^ E CO N. N, NO CO CXD On" m CO t'— 00 CO On c-o Cn< NO NO ir> ■^ >o in NO 5 o 1 00 o 00 CO 1 NO CM 00 00 nO r— r— CN c^ 00 CO 00 NO IT) CNJ r— IV NO CO CO -<* 00 tv r— nO ^ •h >ta K. "* ^ D ^ »» V •* •s o TJ V «k *k ^ ^ CN NO — rv 00 CN m O -"t rr in r— O CO O^ fNs O 't CO nO CO ^ CM ' ^ ^ L. O D o o 4- (total) le areas o "E o '5. "d c o 0) E "5 •*- o u *E u "5 c o (U e •*- o (1) CL. o c o ■q. "o c O (A E >N o -a o .4- _o "c o ■q. c o t/l a> E '> "a picnic onal (U E *> "5 picnic onal 0) E c -D 0) f/i _Q o o o o o D • — o D • •* o "O 0) o a O Q. _0 (1) C o a. o N "E o 4- _c e E t/1 "4— '5 3 -o c o a. D JNJ E 0) E E (U Q. c o Q. "o IM 0) E E c o "o IM 'c -1- -C E E C C o p and inizat 1/1 4- E 6 C C3 (U p and inizot E E _3 U c c > E o o o E o o O) o to u E D C3) O *u E o CJ) o t/> CD D "5 ■4- o in D ""o 1 S> o 4* o (U L. 0) D L. 0) 3 o o 1. 0) o o o L. (U 3 o »_ (U D "o 0) 3 "a u o 1_ 1/1 o Z u O u i/i CL u o k. to CL o o l- irt 0) u o ^ ul y' 7 U R N 'T. A B^L JE R E S^ R V/ I R PACIFIC ( P LANNING / S RESEARCH PACIFIC ( P NELSON POINT RESERVOIR k r OICIIIHTIOK,' PLATE 5 v^^ Sl/UKEl ll .fr\, y Oil 1 5 ^^^'. i r^ rv. 5' / / r I! I V^ DttHiJ. /^ ( or- X'^ / / I \ I \ .1 f ■ \ «0«15__ Lomt U0U15 ^>. 'piimirt \ CONTOUA (MTEBWAL 800 reCT 3^f^ HU ______ ^■••*>ih^ J, ^^^/ '^■^ / '»0«t5 / / \^ MAJOR ROADS ^ ~ ™ ■ NEW ^^— EXtSTING IMPROVED RECREATION 8 RESIDENTIAL ROADS ^ NEW / ■^—^ EXISTING IMPROVED , UNIMPROVED EXISTING ROADS .1 = ^^ RETAINED OR ABANDONED . ' FOOT TRAILS NEW / 101115 ' ' siamt V MEADOW VALLEY RESERVOIR V PACIFIC PLANNING 8 RESEA R"C H PLATE 6 PLATE 7 y \ / / •^- fcOHHIl CI^Mt I JJ\. / \(lOMtJ \ ./ / ; '"^^rl^ ^ 'l,'H0ME5l 'I if >C X^c- ,/ \ H0ME5 /^(summe/ iiWe:^ ^^tt. (1 1000 z 'ci'^>j I COMHEt --LUU- T V ^"O .<~y >e-<-45 /*. .v., CONTOUR INTERVAL :200FEET DS n 1 UhnUE5^^ \^ u. r J \ \ \ / V r f MAJOR ROA / NEW ^ EXISTING IMPROVE / ^ REC. a RESIDENTIAL ROADS - NEW existing improve Unimproved existing roads = = ==retain or abandon J /N r f __^- F0OT TRAILS ~ — NEW EXISTING )- \ r /--^^ SWAYNE RESERVOIR "-"■^^ PACIFIC PLANNING CREEKS LIVE INTERMITTENT RESEARCH PLATE 6 EXISTING IMPROVE BEC.a RESIDENTIAL ROADS NEW EXISTING IMPROVE UNIMPROVED EXISTING ROADS ■==== RETAIN OR ABANDON LIV E INTERMITTENT HUMBUG RESERVOIR PLANNING a RESEARCH PLATE 9 G r^ e a q I e V CLIO RESERVOIR PACIFIC PLANNING I'l I />^ Snag t«=ke RESEARCH" '^ T '^J X--' jj^' ■^-_;~- ^^--~-^)^ fj : \ ~ , " ' ^^^*^~~*/ ^_^^" ^ -7( .'c^/i ._^*~~~ ^ r .-^-1 ■' fi' s- -1 T- /? f- ' O ~ -'^ H/y /^ ^■/ ~\^ ^._./>V^-" 'I'^'oNr t \^ ) ^ PtKK \ T'Vl^v^'-^ ^i**"'* ff J^ I ,fc^'x: ir~y i^w^y^ ■^ > : jfxkw^ y^^^^^'-^i mc .--> 7/ vr ONrOH )UIEY )( . / GENERAL RECREATION PLA MIDDLE FORK FEATHER RIVER , /'' SLOATTOOROVILLE PLAN BASED ON NELSON POINT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT PACIFIC PLANNING a RESEARCH ] ^:h tCLAL '^ /" ■ CAMPING a PICNICKING NEW MAJOR ROADS ■ organization CAMPS EXISTING IMPROVED MAJOR ROADS ■ LODGE-COMMERCIAL NEW SECONDARY ROADS dSUMMER HOMES EXISTING IMPROVED SECONDARY ROADS URBAN CENTERS JEEP TRAILS FOOT TRAILS ■aP^ n 70" ' E i APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF PROJECT YIELD STUDIES B-1 TABIE OF CONTENTS Page Siimmary of Monthly Yield Study, Modified Richvale Project B-3 Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Project B-k Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Nelson Point-Meadow Valley- North Fork Project B-5 Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Nelson Point-Meadow Valley- Bald Rock Project B-6 Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Turntable -Meadow Valley-Swayne Project B-7 S\immary of Monthly Yield Study, Sheep Camp Project B-8 Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Squaw Queen Project B-10 B-2 f^ O 11 o » J\ ti u u: ♦> fll « a. isa g » a. g fe s ■tJ CL, « 85 £ a. g f-> £> U z S c M a, 1. ii> f. CM fe Z S^ bO t ^ cu -.^ H 5 >H £ a. g ^^tj C l4 5 oS a. z V a o. w „• a «i C a. a. z p. « t? *■ ' c: o 1 c « o o iH M ?ii &^ h -f^ O U to 8 l-( ^ rH t. C n (S V •H O 0) cS = <§ a> i5 ^s s .. .. Eg s AS ^ Cd U u 6^ i,^ to s r-t ■3 l-H « .. .. „ .. .. u L. s cS 3 rH t\i 03 r-l r^ f^ -3 O C\J J H rH r--0 iHrHsOr^CMr-sOUM^Oj r^ C?v O (7v-3vO eg -3co>jMrnAOONOLrv.HOa3 --IcVitNJCNJOJ r^C^ilHf^Jr-^CgCMC^JC^J^-\r^ ^0^-^U^CO CMrHrH OOOlAeOCO rncocor-l-^^or^^-^(*^ocnao CMCMOJCMCMCMCMCMtMCMfMCM CM 88888 888888888 0ojooOHiH \rvc^_:jlA_3 CTNOO ON_3 OsC^-3U-\_3 3§ 'H2JfnOQV\(r^h-00n>'OtMa3O^O r ^0'-'C^JC>J0vO^0O-d-3C^JO^0U^ CNJC-JOJr-iiHCNJfNJOJ HC\Ji-(cg(Hi-t CM fSJ -H CM 7=1 CM CM 261 263 257 175 227 2L3 178 197 173 216 267 600 500 Loo 600 100 900 100 300 100 600 000 100 900 700 200 300 700 500 600 600 200 700 800 200 300 Loo 100 Loo 000 600 000 000 cvjc«J\r>^000'-*Q-3r-^-Oeo^c^t^OsU\p-rH(M\r*JOOO'OCNv0^^t\JCN lr\'^H[^CMU^^-CMJ^^cvJ^o>oo^0-3l/\^r-rHirvr-r-CM OcOfnr-cDOcM r-t^r^_3cj\Ai/\sO-3'-iaD o (*KCM f*>rHfMCM C^tMCM C^rHcMCMCMCM f^CM f^CM r^f^n^r^CMf^mCMCMCM r^f^f^ t-CD_3r'^CSJ rr\C-0 OsrHl^t— jr^Q C^CMCVJC-OsCJsf^Cpr^^QeOCMJCM CN-J^C^ CM CMCM 0\'-4 OcOCM_3Q-3CMU^-0 OCTvOsCD r^CMcor— OU^XAfnOOCM CM^O r^iH CM^r-^CM^OC^C^^-l^-Or^CMcot^^^fncMO(MfMf--^r^fnr^^A^or-^u^^^_3cvJC— OOCM r^CMiH r— f^r— r^oar— COLArHCMlArHUNCO OlTNCM Oc^^^-Sr^^O-^^-O rH rH rH r-( rH rH r-* r-t r-t ^ rH r-t ^ ^ rH rH rH 7^ rH ^ rH rH ?4 rH rH 88888888888888888888888888888888 Ot--t-e-»0 O r-t O CTvO^CM^O^-00-3-d^^CO'HO^-30^fM O_3f^0N^aDCDC^ t— Lr\C?NO CNC--rH^ O O (— U\-3OC0r-l (^ CM OJ rH rH ■ - CM I— < rH [— sO ■"! U^ lA i— tiHCM-J^CMOJoO CMQOO C\*^f^^ U^U^-30^V/\^-^O^OCMO_:3^— i-imCMODsOoaSCNOD^fn - iHCMCMi-ICMi-*iHi~4iHC\ICMCMr^rHCMr^f^f»-»rHCMr'^rH(HHCMr-\<^ - O r— CO *A O f^ _ JO^r^-^\Ou^o^ _ _ _ -_. . N0s\01-A0OOlA0Nr-Os0CMXr>\AO0 _ ._3i--tCM0sOn^CM'OOt?\'O-0'-tO0srH_3H>OCM ^OU^O_^CDOOCMOc— r-C^CMlAOr— rHX/Mj-xOs^OcOO - —--■«->-—— -.ou\s£j'-*^CMCO(^lA-or^ -U-.r-r^r^lA'Ol. 88888888888888888888888888888888 r-H rHi— (05 Ov^f^-^CMCV/OOCyp^^ t^r^^O O(^\0(-trHc0-3N0t-- U^ CM O. [— ^O iH rH r^[— -0_:10vCMCV*nO I^\0 OcCCM^JO O- r JCMCMCMHCMCMiHHi-tCMCMCM 8888888888888888888888888888888S ooqcoqoqqoqqooocjoqqqc'qoqqooooooo oooooooooooooOqoooqoooSSoOoOooSo CM r^CMP-rHrHCMCMCMCM^CMCMODOCMCMr^OCMCMf^CMCMCMCMCMCM CMCMCMC^ f^ i^r~\C^ (^ f<\ f^ r^ f\ i*\ C^ r^^'^CM ir\r^fnr^f^f^f*^'^c^f^n-\n^r^n-s r^fnmo 88888888888888888888888888888888 -3CMCy\CMOCMt— >Hi-(0CM-l_30CMCM_3CM'--3CMNOr— i-H '^-:JOCM^cMcooo<3U^u^CM cmi-^OvO O i-i ^ c— O '^ t-3CM>o CMCMco o^aococMUMrvcor^^o-Of^t^t— t— f^-acM r-^D-3-3'^ r'~'CMCMU^_^r^^-llHCM^^Hf^^'-^CM^-tr-IU^\r\^0^— r^-aCMCMrHn~»t^ > o o o o o 888888888! CMCM f^-^f^^^f^O-^C !8°°8S 88888888888888888888888888888888 ^-'-A(He0s0-3-3-3-3'H'O r-t r^VNCM t^^-vl/^O'O-^f^'-^t^^^0^O-3 Ovi^fH^OCM u\0_30_3t-^fni-Hf--\_3rHCMQOUNtr)sOCMr'-li-^OCMrnr^f^rnc^<^CMCDa3(Hf*^f^ mc^<^CMCDa3(Hf*^f^ ■0^^0^^-3-3^-0-3^-3>J^f^CM\/^^O^vO•o-0^0^0^■0^-0■0^/^VA^^O,0 88888888888888888888888888888888 aOLf\OCO(Or— n-*UNt— ^-30 C^OiHCMmt—lACTvO OvCOO O^JMjNCM ^-fHU\'0 8 8 8888 88 888888888888888888888888 -^u^_3<>^QOp-l>ooco'*^oOlHcMr-CM^/^^ocM^■-l-3^J^l^^ot— »?\fn>?\^oCJsLA-3C>. 1 CKr-^C7\^r\COCMCM.C}-(D0^O^HCM CMOJvOLrir--ON'--l_3'-H § 8 CM CM -3 rH CM CM (— M oo n^ -3 r^ ^ -3 r^ IT* CD CO -3 (^ 00 CM r— rr\ao.o'J^CM rH c>^^^c^.aDLr^ 03 CM lA VA CM t- _3 ^J^ t- rH ck CM CM <^-3 -H -3 r— S £ E- O O to tc g t" i/i - ^ I >. fe: S *- ^ R 0, x n. u Ci. 2 I O O I 5g ^ 5:32 (2 s w S ::3 Qu CO % T,S O^Sgl •"■s ^ E A s S 5 £ 1 S S fr- C t> S Z &3 *) c & g a. t. S I- £g -■ & U u ^ c 1.. a 0) c V OJ O 3 rt • — j: ? g e g c P n ■H td £ •■ " « 5 5 ■»* 0) to o 1 s e- c ex to b S :£ ■) i C ^ A h O P a ? a U U3 k s. to .s s d •"* II 3 «00\C0O 00-3&.0-300000»»\0^-0^^^•Of*^C>JeO-3'-t CM iH VA OO O -3-3 CN-3-3-3^lA_3 f^-3-3-3-3-3^ t--«0.3CuCO O-JtO"-* O 0-3»J%^cO 0\ i-lc^C^Js0-0O0O^(S^^0^0-0^0^0-3■-^I--^00CMP-U^C0 fria? iH J c»\o. O Ov a3UNi0-3-3-3r~-0-3W%-3-3-3-3-3>0 U"Nr— -3\0 f~- r^r--3^^lAU\-3U\co C^ \A (OrHUN0C!CD'HCMU-.'^NO'^r« CM t—'-HO t^ O CC CO lA CM CM On r-l [— CN O tM IA -O O rH CNCD O 3* C^ _3 -3 f^ IA U^ C^ J r-OO O Of^^^-3a^OO f^CM OtMOCMl/Vr-fOsOO) f^-3_3-3-3lAJ^O r-\U\0«£)MD-3XAVA-3-3-3-3-0 -3 s§l Q(HCM<7\CM.3r^f»^C^fM-3^ 0\i-l\/\OcOC?vcO'-lirtr-(MCOlAP-MiIir- £3S^s;SS!?8s;!xaS«a3^g£;3g««ssgg€aji 03 o_ CO s ^ -O -O fn -3 ^^ IA ^/^_3^A-3-3-3JU^^ou^^o^A\J^soo^Ol-^.^oo^A O r- CM CM CM CM ^ r^ <*>0-0-3UM/>,3-3'^lA^O r- sg§ r-t 0-3-3 CM \j\rt\o^ -3 C^-3 CN -3>OaD 0\-3'^0«5 f»>t— t^r^-3 CM i-tl/\.3CO r-l C^I^CNOr^CD (HOCM r^cMCM o^f^t^■•OP-o^nf^^0 fn^AvO^A^ocM ckp-o ■H-^eoOlAO'-l^-cr^-3.3^0c^-^■OcMU^O^-3CM cMr-r-lr^.-t CO_ CO 8 O^ Ov r% rn O § M o -o SS4 ou^t— 0-3eM f»^l-0\\0 Ol^^Aj-3 -3'^f^rH CM CM(*\f»\CM C^rHf^CM CM f*%r'>CM-3l-l fnJ-3-3tM f^fnCJ (^CM f^-3-3 •n 1AO CM O-CM O CM r^_3CO 0-3^0 -- j^-' '- ;:|^ Sa '-^ SS S S^S 32 "^i^as i 888 88888888888888888888888888888 f::;S,r-r~-3'^CMrH_3t--000>0CM CM O CN O -O CM 3 CM r-_3rH_3f*>0 fnr-0>-'~ "H cJ^f*^^Ap-^\^^c^cc Ou-vU-co r^OlAf^O^ "HC^r^sOCM CMCMOD-O Ovo:; OC^ J^. f^r^ •-*CM'H(-iCMCMCM(Mi-ieM(nf^f^^CgCMi-*CM'HCM(->f^ 0\ 1--N O C— 03 .3 [^ nOOS JOO nH-O O rn 1— [^ r^ 03 O (fy-ICMr-^CMJ c»Mri-3f-^-3NOlAt— c^nO t—CC-3 -H rH C^ 1 8 03 sO O °. rH 888 au p- O 8888 CM rr^^e^ 888 8888888888888888888888 C— CMC^NOOCMOCMOcDOlAC^t-rriOOr-iHCMCM-3'O i 2Uli 177 233 137 lUl 179 226 f^-Of^CMC^r^V/NCMiHCMOi Or^^ OvO O -H CMJ^[— CM t^l/\i-i OQ mCM f^t^-3CM^-CM CN-3'nAIM3'.Or-r--CM-3r--[^'Or-lr-CO r^■-(CMr^r^>^r^HCMr^CMr^CMCMCMCMr^CM{MHr^r^CMCMCM Ov 888 § 8888 8888888|888888|88|888 888 8 '0\0: oso-o OS fn 02QQC>©OOOQOOOQQQQQQOOQQOQQQQOOQQ| ooooooooooooooooooooooopoooooooo CMC»>rM5.rHrHCMCMCMCM0CMAl«)0\CM Cyf^rHCMCMf^CMPJCMCMCMCMCMCMCM ^p-^| C^f^f^XCM l^l^f^f^f^f^CnmCnCMCM rr(f'^fr,rr\f--\COf»>m(^r'>f»^fr^rr\f»-jfr^f»-\ fF-,j 88888888888888888888888888888888 -3rHCTvrHO\rHCMCMCMCMCMr-CMNOrHCMAJCSjOCMr-tr-la3CMCMCMCMCMr-(6jCMCM 88888888888888888888888888888888 t— r-t rHCMOJ OosmcMCM f-.-t'^f^OO n^\nrHO-CJv(Or-^O^Aa^OrHO« **fn-0 O n-irH,3VAU>aD CKC^'Ot^r-tr-ICM f-sO t—CMO'^CM Q OOvrH r-rHjCMCOOt^ r-IO\_3_3CM>OrH CM t*-O^»aCCM-3lA.£»^0O-3t--P-'n-3'nfr\CM rHrHlAUNNOr--CMCn-3CMCMCM t^ C^ t-t 101,700 177,500 107 ,Uoo 6U,900 7U,700 U,100 Uo,6oo 9,800 3U2,900 5,900 126,U00 91,600 192,900 29U,30O 23,900 50,700 100,UOO 8,300 rH-3 500 700 900 Uoo 100 000 Uoo 200 §8§ 888S88888888888888 0 CM CN r-jCM 8888888888888888888888888888888 8 -3J-3_3-3-3-3-3J-3-3-3 -3-3 -3-3-3-3-3-3 -3-3 -3 _3 J ^-3 -3 ^-3 -3 -3 88888888888888888888888888888888 f^rnf^r- 5\fnrHrnC^rH_3(0 OoO-O t^<^e^OCJr^f^rr\er\cr^r^c\i ^^CMf^n-i ^O-O fn-3-3vOO-3^-3iAfntMlA«0^'00>0'0-0 ^0^^■>0■^VAU^^O'0-0 88888888888i,^^-,.--^_- eOC«^OU^0O'nfn^O 0\^ r-t OO O rH01AcOAeM W'f-rrifOCM P-CM Hf^COOO OvvOCO CTv^O^TO^OO r^OO'OCOa} rH 8888888888888888882 8 8 8888888 8 88 8 -31A-3^CO r-^COCO r-^CO rHCM (^CMlA>0 CM r^-^\h\f\ O t^lA'^VA'C a-\AJ(7\ N^COOO r^ ^rHOSfr,a3 CMtM-3COU\VAO )r^0OfM rHMrr\rHr-CT\_3XA\n-30\0vfn ■4 f^ tM r-i CSI r^ -H t--'- ■H CM cn^UX'Or-OO <^0'H(M«AJ\/\nO r^CO 0\0 rHCJ (^-3\AnO r-CO p\Q rHCM (M CM CitCM (MCMCMCMCM rr4«*M*^mr»M*^cr»cnc<-\rr^-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3"^V\w\ I I t If • • !3 £> .i S B-U ■!-> -P O U 4J -P 4) 4t .4-3 I >» ID P :1S 5 a: Si t. > Vi u O 01 c 1 s ^ ^ a- r^ ^ •H a CO i> u U (0 •H (U XI o > 0) t £ u <> !h u a> 1 . ^.-^11) 91 ^ jj ^ --I a) 0) r-t CO h 0) > 01 x: m > ui ai o ■H Q) •s 0) ^ h I c o P<-H cd +3 .. ^. h 0) aO r-i as u • O -P ■p o CQ O >l » o ^ ^ M H ^ •H P- CO a i o ■H tj >» (Q a! oj ►i 01 .-1 o; E ^ > ai •H o > Q -P h •H (U o J3 U3 t u (d •H o; n fc. .H u OJ 41 t. K 1 C 4-> o o c 0.-H (d jj o a. ^£ c o 0) u> 00 rH r-l (fl 9J b ■ Z P P CJ CO o "rt"! > o r-* !« c t-H b m tc *J (S 0! 01 »>, 1 0O0OCOC^[--O OO fn\A_3 n-iCKrH0OOl^f-I^J_3CMi-H_31£v-3O^-OiAgUNr^ ojn3-3'-i^'u>covO p-\aH (M[^^o■u^^oocot~c^.mH^oO-^r^lJ^c\lm'-jc^J-^ O^^^CDt^r^v00^C0l-^CCOOv0^^.:a-3C^i0^r^CJ^^^00OC^J^^OC>Jl-^^^-^^r^^'»^ 0\CD'osrH"r-rc\rc>rc\r>HcJ'iHC\JCvjc\j-3cvic>jrHrHoococ^r-c\jCr\Ocgc\jCvic\jOOs o o o o o o o 00 r^ c^ OOOOOOOOOOOQOO o CO I o o CJ -o c^ o C-- t^co o *t *i av •> r^O e~ r-i CJN r^ CO c^ iH i-H cvj O O O O O O O O O O C3n_3 en OOOOOOOOOOOOQQOOOOOQ (DOCDoOooSoopoocooooppcDppgoqoppoo P O O P P o o 8P p ^ ^ „ ^„_________- -- ooooooo ?iJHoJ3-S^J3cNC— ■l-r^c^^-pe^^oo^■>-'^co^c^^oc^JC7^cb^^^o^Jco^-■l-'^r^r^ r^c^JOOoc\Jt»^^-lC^icvlOJO^Jf^^^^l-0-^^fc^ooP<^..'^.'^^'^^?^f^^^?^;'3.Q t— 0O_3-30CPiHCvU-3r-O-^v0 gOOOPOOPOPPPOOPOPOPOPOpPOPPOPPOP OOPOOOOOOPOOOOOOOPPOOOOCDPCDCSCDqpg _:J_3.^_3^J_3_3^).^-3-3-^-3-^ -3 J _S -^-3 -3 -3 -3 -^-^-3 -3 -^J^-a -3 ^-3 ^ OsTorcvTorCvJ OJCNJC\IC\JOjOJC\irvlJOJOvlOJOJJC>JjO>JOvIOJOJOOOOOJOvJOO OOOOCOPPOOOOQOOOCPOPPOOOOPOgSSSS OOOoboPOOOPOPOOpOPOPOPPOPPOOOOOP Li<\3>.!o rH^f^r=i-3-3riu\r?AFivOJP ^"^"^^^^^^^^ °i,^^„=°.-=^^"i,^^'SK o^a^cc^^o'1J^■u^oc^co oc^'l-'^u^r^c^^c^c^)^^c^^-(X3aDaqcor~-=ga3^--r--^t---cgoo P O I OOOOOPOpOOOPQOPPQPOPPPQPPgPPOP OPOPPOPPCPCOPOPCCpSpOOOOCCPpOCDPO r^\\r\\fs ^ 0\-3 rH O O r»^^- r-O pO-vOvOC--rHO\OvjvOOOJ r^i-l rr\\A P^_3 CV^CD^ N0'cr-3 1^CjC!-^Cjr^r^r-rco''rH o"jO t~- oT J OO -LIA J OJ $i;0vl'5?Jjr|i:-|£J°gp^'^J;^ -V^E' J__ ._T=i*^^ .^i^«.,^_3r^ — .-v.^^^^ — 'O.OJC?\COCOOPO^C^ OOPPOOOP oooooooo - - - 0-3 rH _:iOrHCjNC?\„3ppsO OvO«HsO^AC\J\A'-HO\f^CJCOOrH 3oOOO r-XAUMACO c^\OvOXJMJ^'^^^ CJ rOCOOSvO C— OOCO PPPOPOPPPO OOOOPPOOPP )OOPPpOPOPPOO lOoPoppppp.o po OOOOPPOOOOOOOPOPOPOOOOOpOOOOO OJ p-lAr^i-ICT^O-'^0'l-rNO\_3CK'H P\r\cct-vOOJU\r^ogUNr^-UAO\OvJ O r^^-C^Jr^vOr^OC3^COU^-30^JaD^^t^CO^COXJ^COO^q-30^JCD<>^"^^>^CC ;0 VOS f-1 r^f^^o\S rH^ rH^rH rH UN^ t^^ OrHvOt-t--CO0.UU\00t^C\J^C~-Os PPPPPOOOP P P P rH OPOOOOPPPOOPOOPOOOOOOOO O P O O O O CN t^ IJA iH OJ CNJ P -3 \0 OJ iH sO 1-1 .J3 COOJ.J-C>'LAO^O<3'^r'~>'U><3t^vO-3rHOOvjO\r--^J'Lr\OJ\AmaO'"NOjr^rHr^JJ% I3 3 ro, rH OvJ OJ -3 n~v^ C^J rH OJ r^ fn 0*J t^ UMA UN sO rH t^ f^ H OJ -H 0-| UN ^O OOOOOOOOOOPOOPOOOPOOPPOOOOOOPPOP OPOPOOPOOOPPOPOOOOOPOOOPPOPOPOOO 800000P000P00 <3 o_o o,o^o_S^o„o_°„o.°,o,°,° °,° ° ° ^"^iK ^xS iK iK i^x^^^iK x^xS iK iK ^ tK x^i^ xS iK ^ iS ^ ^ iS xR iR iR i^ ■LOv o UA p o o o o o o Cvj o p woopppoppppoooppooppppopopgpoppo oooooooopopoppgpopooppooopppopoo O P oooooooopopooogpoooooouooooouwutj U^\Ac^r^^ApOJr^^^r^OJU^^^r^^^o^^■^OJfn^r^(-'~\^^^a^'~^r^r^r^r^^'^o~^'^o^ r^r^r^t^OJOJf^r^o~so-\C^J0JrHpH0J00OJr'^ro<^<^tn'^o^r'^(^o-vr^r^r'-\r^o^ 8 sO -^ o o o o o O O P o CTs POPOOPPPPOO ~ OPOOOOPPOP OPPOOOOPOPPPOOOOPPPOP _oPooppppoooopooopOooP cOPPOPPOPOOvjOOOPrHpPOOCOPOOPOOOOJOcOOO rHsO^O 0-30P^ p- rH rH i-H o-\ r^ (»> o p P P I -JD^O r-^ nO CO PC^^^OOPP^o-^O^O^OM3^^0^. IAsOOJnO^ r-t r-i r-t r-tr-tr-tr-tr-tt-tr-tr^r-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t ooooooopopopopoopopoopopooopopop g oooopppppoooooopoosoppgppoppopog O O^JW^iu^^-^J3p^^■LnoJr~\■lAU^_3U^^r"^u^^-^u^oo^c^P-3c^OvOO m O -3 CM P- CjrrTcvrr-rr^so"c7rr-rco"r^r^lA pTccr-a C^vc'r-^^C^^r-^'H CMXAIAO^ P t^OJ^OXA r-v OJ lA CJs r-U\ P t^lA C-- OJ XA_3 r^OJaOPrHJOP- C^OO lA^O _A o-i O iH OMAf- \Ar--_3 OJ 00 vO -3 rH 0-1 rH r^^ rH -3 ri-vc^ CO ^-0 lA UN r- OJ tn -3 CM t^ CVJ r^r- rH rH CO nl^XAvO [~-oo OvP rH CMr^^XAsO t- m On P r-J C\J (^ -3 \A s^ t- CO ^r^rrNfnrrNrr>r-NrrNf*-\rrN_3_3_3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3lAUNXA I ' ' ' ^ L A. r^ -» rK -t 0\ -3 OS CO 0\ -3 o\ CJ\ 0\ -3 -3 OS I 0\ -3 OS CN -3 ?;.2 OJ P" «|J3| B-5 ■p +J m (U (U -p 0) >^ S -p 2 M I a. §o o o o o o o NO O ON rH O O rH On CM ) ^ I O 0) m E n 0} Cd m -P 0) (n 0- > O 0) H (8 Cm V 0) O h g CU k n n Q> tt 3 V -o O r-i O. 01 & b P i fe h D C 3 " ^ ^J, E 5 i-H -> a. !3 E t. &r-) ^1 6 a> u o « M r-cjsOc\j cmnO rHf0Oc\J_zjON(N lOt— 'HcM ococNj cr\cr\^ c^ fni^mONONO <^no ,--^--- ._ JCvjONr~-cON_3C«J[^_3'COt^NO_30N _3mONO'-lNO m-3*Hc\J r*NO Of--C00-Jj0 OoO OU^^o rHU\r^fnOr^co30 fnr^(NJrgC\JCM rnr^C\(f»^CM r^CNJOJ r^rncvj rn<\J «rn_3'Lr\rHr-(OCNOONC>NONCXjr^-ZjCOCD )l-r\0O.(Mf^r— C^nO OC7NNOr-(0_3rHcO-30NsOCO "^-zJnO-^HOC^OnH On^jJvOI^I/N^iJnOXaI-OcO mONO rH t^mr^ONCJ OvCM n-\0 t^r^Cg CMCO-30\CM r-t r-r~-coi/NNOr— odvnO oc\jNOaocoxr\NOcoi-jCJCMCMCMCMCMCNICMCMCMCMCMCVjCgCMCMrMCMCMCNJCMOd<>aC0C\JOJ 8 000QQOOQOQOQQQOQOQQQQOQOOOQQS5QQ QOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOO r^lA\OONCTNh-_3CMr^i— r^O rH_3CD moD rH fnrH C^OJ ^^-:^^0-3■>J^NO-J■ NONOJrHCg rolXN^UCM mrH_:JrH»-H'Lr\_;ri-^ONrHsO t^r-CO CJ_3\ACM r^CM-3r-C?^ )QOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOQOOOOOOOOO ^0 0\r- _3P0CMLr\ON (~— CM u\ nd a» _3 I iH O rn rH c as 8888 >0 -3 -\sO r^Xr\c\J_3\ACM 8888 LAIAnO -3 f^ _:! Ov CM CM -=f _3 fn H CM Cd P~t rn rH jitvnO OJsO-=J1-AOcO O -a\AO\ONCO O rHlrvsO CTn CM rH CM fn (^ CM nO t— r^LTir^VAoDCOlACsl rH C^OnIA O i-hcm-jOno ONt^-d'NOf^r-i-rv ■uSUNuNnD i-H (---vmrH CM rH (^IAnO I O O O I :888; ) Q O ( > O O ( > O O ( S\aV SlA ^TALA\A\AU^^Al-AlA\^u^^A 88888888888888888888888888888888 Ol^^^aDU^CMCM^^(▼>CMaDXAV^^'-^_3U^\/^c\J^^^^(^fn^^'*^<^<^f^<^fn^^^^^^ > O O Ol^^^aDU^CMCM^^(▼>CMaDXAV^^'-^_3U^\/^c\J^^^^(^fn^^'*^<^<^f^<^fn^^^^^^ ^^r^r^CMCMCMf^p-^^^^r^r^CMrHr^CMCMCM^^^r^<^r^^r^^r^rr^fr\r■^r■^o-\^^rr\^^r^ O O O O Q Q ' 8Q Q Q O O I O O O CO O i I Q O O O I 188881 JOOOOQQOOOQQQOO Jf-HooOOiASoooOooc^ - « O O ( O 5 Q O < O c^ O CO ( r^HrjrHCMP-VfnrHi— j-U^i^'*^*^^ '^^'^'^'"'ij ' g^QQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQOQQQOQQGOGQOQt OOOOOOOQOQOOOOOQOQOQOQOQOQOOqO" CA-^cv* r-\r\t^^.^O rH'LACij p-vXA\A-3CA_3\AXA*0-:juScoiJSr^ 0_:J r— OnO < CTNrHCMrHC— sO ONr^aOf^ f^ \/\ r- CO -3 f- ^O f^ {^ro\AC>st^U\ O cnVAr-CMUNJr^CMOO OrH LAr-_:J CMCVjNO_3rHf^rHn~»Hr-|Jfn(*>CM fr-_3C*-rHCMVA»-ACMQt^t^JNOlA ~ "-CNcOU>sO'-AfnOrHONV\r^ NIAP^CM f»^_:JCM tnCM rnr^r-H -3 r- -3 r 3 O r- < rHCyp-\_3\AN0 r-COONOr-tOJm-3XANO r-GO OvO rHCM r^-3\ANO r-CO OnO rHCM CM CMCd CM CM CM CM CM PJ m«*^^^f^f*^"r^f»^fnr^f>-^-3-ZT-3-3-3-3■-3-3-3-3^AU^U^ I I I I I I I O -3 CN -3 Os J Ov a B-6 S !3 6- >^ n N Q t „ O bO c a: o 09 o ■V Cni ao: • CN E »^ \A o c O an 0) P o OJ C Q H CO o aj rH « +j lA c c c -3 (0 O -H E CD O x: rH CL i g49 0*0 10 inflow inflow inflow impaired Irnij aired impaired Present Present Present ~™hSu?i s — U l~ t. r 3 O <-> 3 CO c^ ^ c\j CM o m C XI ?. c u 9 9 te 3 © » 9- E- X W « 5 12 L. i b3 i-t r-* CO o u <9 n o r-< c^" V o « n V fe '^ t > (Q fc^ O *J w o n^g a rH ^"3 e- -H fe u s bc „....„ O a a: r a. >3 o g •■ V = ■• ■c o o s: > « £^ L. > 2t t/^ O ^ 8 ^ ^ t- -H 3 CO OJ (S rH » • •• *3 9 -*J ^ mu t- " &-H ca •P u to o s ^ ^^ ss. 3 (O r-0-3000W\\0 O^O OO OO-SU\0O'^lAC^t^rH>O m»-<0-3cOXA»HoO^ glTiCMHCJCNJ CM 9\OvCMnO CMCICNJCM (M'n_3'-H£Of^'-*p-f--,0-3-5JSD P-?'-*-3-3- )0'-trH ^Os'-HcvjOsP-\/\-Jt-CMO C7\_3CM vr^CM_3U\CMr-p— CM r-co^to c>\cmcm H CTs -^C^CM-O Ov'-'C\J iH«^COO\nOP— r-COCMiH ) Q O O O O O < ) O O O O O O 88°8' CM O '8888' o o cr* ■=* 888888888888888888888888888888888 CD_3_3(»-iO^fMU\_30^t>.-3U\v0«O\/\0\-3CvCM Ol^CM p-OlJ^C^_;J0OCMCM\0^CT^O\^*^'0 Ost*-CO<%J CMCOCO l-^t—CMCM r-tOC^OP- f\-^ e^cr\f^\0 I— too O OCM CMP-OsU\\/\rHrH i— < r^U^tMm^^f*^0 i— (CM OCM 0\ i-t i-t CMi-ICSICMCM rHiHCMCMi-ICM iHrHrHCMCMCMOJrHCMCMCMCMCMCMCMrHCMrHCMCM 888888888888888888 CM r^vO C^0 Q r^ r^ (*\ rH_3ao o O Osu\t^(r)U^r-so t--o o rH iH t-\ --1 rHOCDfnOOO_300(t>OOOOOOOrH^-«-t«HCMfnO CMr-t7\p^CMCMCMCTvQCMn~vCMCMCMCMCMCMCM^^HOvOr^CM aDVMTNCMp-c^r-coCB p-jr^p-c--r-p-p-p-r>cosO-3NS r^t- 66,600 238,000 21,000 OQOOOOOOOOO ^ °8888° 27,000 117,000 161,700 i 3 P- CM (H CM nO O O CJs CM CM CVJ 888888888888888888888§8888888888! OOJ-^'iTvcO i-HCCsO asi-H'LAOP-OP— -:J»JD COsOCO^OvOJOOCMrH r-(r-*rHiHi-l7H r^ i-l •-* r^ CO OO CO ^O i/> -3 iH ^ rH iH -H I-* ^ -r— cococoa3(ccocop-c— sOt 588888888888888888888S S>J^.^P~CMvOlAlf\_acO H ODP— t^P-i-lp-OrH-aC C^OU\U>c^_3aj0OU>CM CMCO CM C\i\I\ I-t CM_3sO CM t~ -:3 XTiMS 0\\f\ r-i \Jy r^ \r\ cr\ t~\r\ o*irvu\uMACN«ncyv_3r^j^eM p^r^\fv\riOooOVA-3UNU\_3eo m-:jiri*ONOsO-3 888888888888888888888888888888888 CO 0^l-^^f^\r^U^_rCM i*-»Oa3 r^^^p-p-i-iro-aO <-t-3-3'-'-3CM {^Of^U^_3-3i-fcO cMso r^-a CM CM p-_3rHtAi-H c^^-^^H_3r-lf*^H i-t^ P-CO(tJCM f*M/\CMfnCSJ-CP^O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOO 8°°8 oooooooooooo< ?88888888888888888888888888888 3 f— r-ICM'H<7\P-CO-3^*0 CjrH C^-3^0 r^l^-3^X^>^^^0^0 O r^OffJJ 888 -3 CM_3 i^CC C^rnCM CM iH t^OsCM^O CV_3CO (^-0-3CMO\rHCO O^_^0f^t^^0 CM\ALriO<-(\/\ «0-3n^cc n->oco i-i-a 0\m\Oc^t^p~CM o c^CMoa iH p— ootocof— ■^ -hjm fHia r-tjli\r^ CSIl-^U^^-^ _3 CM C^fnCMCO iri-3vOt*-'~ICMf^rHCMHr'-isOt^ i8888 88885 r- CM Q Q O O C 88881 SOOOQQOQOQOQOQQOOQOOOQOQO< >888888888888888888888888S CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMC iCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM ) O O O ( i888! cM '*^u^co ( -u>0>OOvr^CMr-c\j< B-7 8 8 8 8 ^ O. ^ 3 2 SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY SHEEP CAMP PROJECT (in acre-feet) Storage capacity 65,000 acre-feet Seasonal yield 48,000 acre-feet Water i Inflow '• storage i Evapo- i yield '• Spill year : October 1 : ration : : 1911-12 i+5,020 46,660 4,630 48,000 3,020 13 47,670 36,030 4,430 48,000 lu 94,950 31,270 4,680 48,000 31,690 191^-15 59,590 41,850 4,690 48,000 9,100 16 82,290 39,650 4,710 48,000 25,900 IT 66,780 43, 330 4,710 48,000 15,470 18 48,940 41,930 4,500 48,000 5,350 19 57,340 32,970 4,510 48,000 3,920 1919-20 52,250 33,880 4,450 48,000 21 68,730 33,680 4,670 1+8,000 8,960 22 73,310 40,780 4,700 48,000 16,500 23 63,480 44,890 4,700 48,000 16,160 2k 29,580 39,510 4,130 48,000 I92U-25 48,430 16,960 3,750 48,000 26 42,900 13,640 3,370 48,000 27 81,530 5,170 4,260 48,000 28 57,510 34,440 4,560 48,000 3,930 29 35,470 35,460 4,110 48,000 1929-30 62,870 18,820 4,320 48,000 31 32,340 29,370 3,800 48,000 32 56,500 9,910 3,680 48,000 33 37,620 14,730 3,680 24,000 3h 32,430 24,670 3,590 48,000 193^^-35 69,100 5,510 3,730 48,000 36 59,430 22,880 4,330 48,000 37 53,340 29,980 4,400 48,000 38 9l,o4o 30,920 4,670 48,000 23,220 39 31,470 46,070 4,430 48,000 1939-^ 69,680 25,110 4,580 48,000 4,870 i^l 66,780 37,340 4,660 48,000 10,230 1+2 80, 370 41, 230 4,720 48,000 23,740 i^3 85,900 45,i4o 4,660 48,000 36,910 l+if 49, 300 41,470 4,620 48,000 3,820 B-8 SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY SHEEP CAMP PHXTECT (continued) (in acre-feet) Water year Inflow Storage October 1 Evapo- ration Yield Spill 191I4-45 56,200 3^,330 h6 67,550 37,020 hi ^3,090 39,350 kQ i+5,760 30,410 h9 36,830 2i+,030 19^9-50 57,030 11,130 51 77,260 16,420 52 105,730 38,100 53 73,^20 52,o4o 5^^ U7,800 47,600 195^-55 37,210 32,700 56 101, 350 17,870 Average 59,670 4,600 4,640 4,030 4,l4o 3,730 3,740 ^,530 4,750 4,760 ^,590 4,o4o 4,650 4,350 48,000 910 48,000 12,580 46,000 46,000 146,000 46,000 48,000 3,060 46,000 38,04o 46,000 24,100 46,000 10,110 48,000 48,000 19,910 47,470 7,850 B-9 SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY SQUAW QUEEN PROJECT (Water, in acre-feet — Energy, In 1,000 kilowatt-hovtrs) Storage capacity 100,000 acre-feet Dependable capacity 11,300 kilowatts Sguav Queen Reservoir Water : ^^^^^ : Storage, : Evapo- : Release to : q^^^ : ^ year : Oct. 1 : ration :pover plant: ; 1911-12 20,500 81,600 6,700 30,600 i^2,920 13 30,900 64,800 6,100 29,900 41,720 Ik 126,900 59,700 7,600 54,500 44,000 76,650 1914-15 57,400 80,500 7,600 42,700 7,300 59,990 16 105,000 80,300 7,700 63,100 34,000 88,700 17 81,600 80,500 7,700 59,100 15,000 83,150 18 33,700 80,300 7,500 29,700 41,720 19 55,200 76,800 7,600 43,800 400 61,540 1919-20 18,600 84,200 6,500 29,800 41,720 21 87,800 62,500 7,700 48,800 13,200 68,650 22 105,000 80,600 7,800 60, 400 36,800 84,930 23 31,100 80,600 7,100 32,800 45,980 24 9,500 71,800 5,400 29,900 41,720 1924-25 19,700 46,000 4,200 30,200 41,720 26 51,200 31,300 5,100 30,100 41,720 27 73,700 47,300 7,300 32,900 46,030 28 49,400 80,800 7,700 39,100 3,100 54,950 29 12,600 80,300 6,200 29,800 41,720 1929-30 52,600 56,900 7,100 29,800 41,720 31 11,500 72,600 5,600 29,900 41,720 32 37,400 48,600 5,500 30,000 4l,720 33 17,700 50,500 4,300 30,100 41,720 34 13,700 33,800 3,000 30,400 41,720 1934-35 55,200 14,100 4,100 30,4oo 41,720 36 42,900 34,800 4,900 30,100 41,720 37 38,600 42,700 5,000 30,100 41,720 38 164,500 46,200 7,700 53,900 68,900 75,720 39 17,900 80,200 6,500 29,800 41,720 1939-40 79,700 61,800 7,600 45,10c 8,700 63,360 4i 67,200 80,100 7,700 56,900 2,400 8o,o4o 42 89,300 80,300 7,700 66,000 15,600 92,770 43 90,600 80,300 7,800 66,500 16,600 93,490 44 36,600 80,000 7,600 29,700 41,720 192^.4_ll5 38,700 79,300 7,500 31,500 44,290 46 59,700 79,000 7,700 50,700 71,280 47 25,700 80,300 6,800 29,800 41,720 48 39,000 69,400 6,700 29,800 41,720 49 27,100 71,900 6,300 29,800 41,720 191^9-50 44,500 62,900 6,700 29,800 4i,720 51 61,000 70,900 7,600 41,900 57,800 52 155,200 82,400 7,800 65,300 80,900 91,740 53 67,800 83,600 7,700 55,100 4,800 77,440 54 47,600 83,800 7,700 4o,8oo 57,350 1954-55 26,300 82,900 7,000 29,700 41,720 56 144,900 72,500 7,700 77,400 49,300 108,900 Average 56,060 — 6,730 4o,390 8,910 56,570 B-IO I APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES OF COSTS C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Estimated Cost of Modified Richvale Plan C-3 Estimated Cost of Clio-Nelson Point-Swayne Project C-^ Estimated Cost of Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-North Fork Project . . C-^ Estimated Cost of Nelson Point-Meadow Valley-Bald Rock Project ... C-5 Estimated Cost of Turntable -Meadow Valley-Swayne Project C-5 Estimated Cost of Sheep Camp Project 0-6 Estimated Cost of Squaw Queen Project C-6 Estimated Cost of Genesee Recreation Project C-6 C-2 ESTIMATED COST OF THE MODIFIED RICHVALE PLAN (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item ■ Size Cost Capital : Annual I Clio Dam and Reservoir 100,000 AF $ lU, 312,000 $ 73'+,500 Nelson Point Dam and Reservoir 116,000 AF 20,089,000 1,027,000 Nelson Point Tunnel 8' dia. 1,086,000 5^,700 Power Plant No. 1 and penstock 12,000 KW 2,U62,000 208,200 Minerva Dam and Reservoir 1,063,000 54,100 Minerva-Dogwood Tunnel 9' dia. 13,823,000 697,400 Power Plant No. 2 and penstock 28,000 KW 5,095,000 402,300 Dogwood Dam and Reservoir 3,219,000 164,000 Dogwood -Hartman Bar Tunnel 9-5' dia. 9,546,000 ^481,600 Power Plant No. 3 and penstock 28,000 KW 5,122,000 403,800 Hartman Bar Dam and Reservoir 1,328,000 67,700 Hartman Bar-Milsap Tunnel 10.25' dia. 13,409,000 676,500 Power Plant No. 4 and penstock 40,000 KW 6,963,000 531,500 Bald Rock Dam and Reservoir 2,747,000 l40,000 Bald Rock Tvinnel 10.25' dia. 4,992,000 251,900 Power Plant No, 5 and penstock 42,000 KW 6,566,000 509,400 Access roads 6,035,000 399,400 Public recreation facilities 136,600 Taxes foregone 1,269,000 TOTALS $117,853,000 $8,209,600 C-3 ESTIMATED COST OF CLIO-NELSON POINT-SWAYNE PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item Size Cost Capital Annual Clio Dam and Reservoir Nelson Point Dam axid Reservoir Nelson Point Tunnel Power Plant No. 1 and penstock Minerva Dam and Reservoir Minerva-Dogwood Tunnel Power Plant No. 2 amd penstock Dogwood Dam and Reservoir Dogwood -Hartman Tunnel Power Plant No. 3 and penstock Hartman Bar Dam and Reservoir Hartman- Spoon Tunnel Spoon Diversion Spoon- Swayne Tunnel 100,000 AF 116,000 AF 8' dia. 12,000 KW 9.0' dia. 28,000 KW 9.5' dia. 28,000 KW 12.i^-5' and li+.25' dia. 13-75' and l6.0' dia. Swayne Dam and Reservoir 280,000 AF Swayne Tunnel 1^.33' Swayne Power Plant and penstocks 127,500 KW Access roads Public recreation facilities Taxes foregone TOTALS $ li+, 31^^,000 20,088,000 1,086,000 2,509,000 1,063,000 13,820,000 5,260,000 3,219,000 7,591,000 5,738,000 3,887,000 15,501,000 376,000 3,731,000 28,892,000 5,015,000 19,1+85,000 4,i+99,ooo 73^,600 1,026,900 5^,700 211,100 5^^,100 697,200 Ull,100 i6i+,ooo 383,000 i+J+1,900 198,000 782,000 19,000 188,300 i,i+8o,900 253,000 1,1+20,500 281,500 161,800 $156,071^,000 $10,617,600 ESTIMATED COST OF NELSON POINT-MEADOW VALLEY-NORTH FORK PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item Size Cost Capital Annual Nelson Point Dam and Reseinroir Nelson Point-Meadow Valley Tunnel Meadow Valley Dam and Reservoir Meadow Valley-North Fork T\xnnel North Fork Power Plant and penstocks Red Ridge Diversion Red Ridge Tunnel Access roads Public recreation facilities Tajces foregone TOTALS 116,000 AF Ik' dia. 900,000 AF 12.25' dia. 118,500 KW 7' dia. $ 20,089,000 28,350,000 36,753,000 31,590,000 20,255,000 135,000 5,095,000 1,127,000 $1,026,900 1,^30,300 1,913,700 1,593,800 1,1+1+9,000 6,800 257,000 62,200 182,600 1,003,000 $1*43,37^,000 $8,925,700 C-1+ ESTIMATED COST OF NELSON POINT-MEADOW VALLEY- BALD ROCK PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item . Size Cost Capital : Annual Nelson Point Dam and Reservoir 116,000 AF $ 20,089,000 $ 1,026,900 Nelson Point-Meadow Valley Tunnel ik' dia. 28,350,000 1,1+30,300 Meadow Valley Dam and Reservoir 900,000 AF 36,73^,000 1,913,700 Meadow Valley- Hartman Tunnel 11.25' dia. 37,675,000 1,900,800 Meadow Valley Power Plant 85,000 KW 15,691,000 1,118,000 Hartman Bar Dam and Reservoir 1,328,000 67,700 Hartman Bar Tunnel 13.25 15,972,000 805,900 15.5' dia. Hartman Bar Power Plant and penstocks 8,950,000 672, UOO Bald Rock Dam and Reservoir 2,7^+7,000 li+0,000 Bald Rock Tunnel 16- 18.5' dia. 6,969,000 351,^0 Bald Rock Power Plant and penstock 80,000 KW 11,384,000 858,400 Access roads 4,776,000 274,700 Red Ridge Diversion 324,000 l6,400 Public recreational facilities 176,000 Taxes foregone 1,861,000 TOTALS $190,989,000 $12,613,600 ESTIMATED COST OF TURNTABLE -MEADOW VALLEY- SWAYNE PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item ■ Size Cost : Capital : Annual Turntable Dam and Reservoir 48,000 AF $ 14,015,000 $ 713,400 Turntable -Meadow Valley Tunnel 14' dia. 33,591,000 1,694,700 Meadow Valley Dam and Reservoir 900,000 AF 36,733,000 1,913,700 Meadow Valley- Hartman Tunnel 12.5' dia. 42,413,000 2,139,600 Hartman Bar Power Plant and penstock 98,000 KW 15,797,000 1,137,100 Hartman Bar Dam and Reservoir 3,887,000 198,000 Hartman-Spoon Tunnel 14.8- 17.2' dia. 19,700,000 993,900 Spoon Diversion 376,000 19,000 Spoon- Swayne Tunnel 14.25' dia. 4,842,000 244,300 Swayne Dam and Reservoir 280,000 AF 28,893,000 1,408,900 Swayne Tunnel 14.33' dia. 5,015,000 253,000 Swayne Power Plant and penstock 175,000 KW 24,146,000 1,773,900 Red Ridge Diversion 324,000 16, 400 Access roads 3,739,000 226,000 Public recreation facilities 197,500 Taxes foregone 2,309,600 TOTALS $233,483,000 $15,237,900 C-5 ESTIMATED COST OF SHEEP CAMP PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item Size Cost ; Capital : Annual $4,76i+,000 $222,000 596,000 27,500 n6,ooo 20,500 36,000 39,000 70,000 $5,806,000 $»+15,000 Sheep Camp Dam and Reservoir Intercepting distribution canal Pumping plant Public recreational facilities Electrical energy for pumping Operation and maintenance TOTALS 65,000 AF ESTIMATED COST OF SQUAW QUEEN PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item Size Cost Capital Annual Squaw Queen Dam and Reservoir Pipeline and surge teink Access road Power plant and penstock Public recreation facilities Taxes foregone TOTALS 100,000 AF 5' dia. 12,000 KW $k,kl6,000 2,i+98,000 383,000 2,115,000 $235,300 151,000 19,300 195,500 58,100 101,500 $9,39*^,000 $760,900 ESTIMATED COST OF GENESEE RECREATION PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in 1959) Item Size Cost Capital Annual Genesee Dam Park and reservoir land Public recreational facilities TOTALS 9,600 AF $2,367,000 816,000 $3,183,000 $121,360 i+1,200 1^7,^00 $309,900 C-6 BULLETIN NO. 59-2 INVESTIGATION OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVEJX)PMENT APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT ON FISH AND WILDLIFE Prepared under the supervision of DAVID E. PELGEN Fisheries Biologist IV by E. V. DWYER Fisheries Biologist HI and ROBERT MACKLIN Fisheries Management Supervisor STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME D-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LETTER OF TRANSIOTTAL D-$ INTRODUCTION D-7 CHAPTER I. ASSUMPTIONS, CRITERIA AND METHODS D-9 Assumptions D-9 Criteria D-IO Methods D-12 CHAPTER II. PROJECT AREAS AND REM TED FISH AND GAME RESOURCES D-15 Middle Fork Drainage Area D-l5 Upper Section D-16 Sheep Camp Reservoir D-17 Clio Reservoir Area D-17 Gold Lake D-17 Canyon Section D-17 Proposed Dam Locations D-19 Turntable Reservoir D-19 Nelson Point Reservoir D-19 Minerva Bar, Dogwood, Hartman Bar and Bald Rock Reservoirs D-20 Red Ridge and Spoon Diversion Ponds D-20 North Fork Drainage Area D-20 Meadow Valley Reservoir D-20 Swayne Reservoir D-20 Squaw Queen Reservoir D-20 H\imbug Valley Reservoir D-22 Game Resources D-22 Deer D-22 Other Wildlife D-23 .D-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued Page CHAPTER III. EFFECTS OF POSSIBLE WATER PROJECTS ON I FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES D-25 Effects on Fish Popiilation and Habitat D-25 Clio Reservoir D-25 Turntable Researvoir D-26 Nelson Point Reservoir D-26 Minerva Bar Reservoir D-26 Dogwood Reservoir D-26 Hartman Bar Reservoir D-26 Bald Rock Reservoir D-27 Meadow Valley Reservoir D-28 Squaw Queen Reservoir D-28 Genesee Reservoir - Recreation Project D-29 Sheep Camp Reservoir D-29 Effects on Game Population and Habitat D-29 i CHAPTER IV. PREDICTION OF ANGLING USE D-31 General effects of Angling Quality and Attractiveness on Angling Use D-31 Effects of Stream Flow D-32 Effects of Impoundments D-32 Effects of Project Development D-33 Effects of Heavy Angling Pressure on Trout Popiilation D-33 Effects of Population Growth on Angling Use D-3^ Computation of Ultimate Angling Use . . . . , D-35 Effects of Meadow Valley Reservoir D-37 Net Effects of Projects on Angling Use D-'+2 Summary D-'^3 Recommendations B-ho D-3 TABLES Table Page number 1 Predicted Ultimate Seasonal Angling Use in Angler Days per Year, Middle Fork Feather River, by Project and Without Project D-36 2 Predicted Average Annual Angling Use in Angler Days, Middle Fork Feather River by Project and Without Project, 50-Year Period U-37 3 Predicted Net Average Annual Angling Use in Angler Days, Middle Fork Feather River area, by Project 50-Year Period D-38 4 Net Change in Annual Angling Use in Angler Days, Middle Fork Feather River Area, by Project 50-Year Period D-40 FIGURES Figure Following number page 1 Estimated Present and Future Population of California, 1958-2020 D-8 2 Predicted Percentage of Saturation of Angling Pressure Middle Fork Feather River, 1960-2020 D-32 D-4 COMMISSIONERS . RICHARDS. President SACRAMENTO '. ELSER. Vice President BAN DIEGO CARL F. WENTE SAN FRANCISCO JAMIE H. SMITH LOS ANGELES IRY E. CLINESCHMIDT REDDING Edmund G. Brown GOVERNOR ^mM STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. T. Shaimon DIRECTOR ^tpnximtrxt irf ^tgl| nxxb (Bnim 722 Capitol Avenue Sacramento lU March 31, i960 Honorable Harvey 0. Banks, Director Department of Water Resources 1120 N Street Sacramento ik, California Subject: Preliminary Evaluation of the Effect of Upper Feather River Basin Development on Fish and Wildlife. Dear Mr. Banks: I am pleased to transmit herewith a report entitled, "Preliminary Evaluation of the Effect of Upper Feather River Basin Development on Fish and Wildlife." This report was prepared by the Contract Services Section of the Department of Fish and Game as part of the services performed under Contract Number 1503^+5 • The Feather River area is of great importajice to fish and wildlife. Its importance will become even greater as the State's population and demand for outdoor recreation increases. Therefore, in addition to providing adequate measures for the protection and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources, I recommend that specific planning for the enhancement of these resources be initiated and in- corporated into the Upper Feather River Development. Department of Fish and Game studies of necessary measures to preserve and enhance fish and wildlife populations of the Upper Feather River Basin are continuing ajid will be completed late this year. We urge that no decisions or final plajis be made for the development of the Middle Fork Feather or Upper Feather River Basin until this study is completed. urs, iiWWi}^i/L^ W. T. Shannon Director D-5 II INTRODUCTION The California Division of Water Resources, in April 1955, published a report entitled, "Report on Upper Feather River Service Area", including as Appendix D a statement by the Department of Fish and Game of the "Ultimate Water Requirements in the Feather River Drainage Basin for Fish and Game". As a result of the findings of this report and subsequent legislative hearings on the subject, the 1956 session of the California Legislature included as Item 223.1 of the budget, an appropriation to the Department of Water Resoiirces, as successor to the Division of Water Resources, for further studies and reports with recoiranendations for a constrtiction program. Accordingly, the Department of Water Resources examined the proposed Indian Creek, Frenchman, and Grizzly Valley Projects, and published the results with appropriate recommendations in Bulletin No. 59, entitled "Investigation of Upper Feather River Basin Development, Interim Report on Engineering, Economic, and Financial Feasibility of Initial Units". The Department of Fish and Game examined the proposed projects with regard to their effect on fisheries and angling resources and prepared a report which was used by the Department of Water Resources in preparation of Bulletin No. 59. The Department of Water Resources conducted further studies on the possible Squaw Queen Reservoir on Last Chance Creek and the possible Sheep Camp Reservoir on Craycroft Creek. In recent years, several agencies have taken steps toward possible water development on the Middle Fork Feather River, The Department of Water Resources has examined the proposals and other combinations of possible water development. D-7 The Department of Fish and Game was asked to estimate the present, future, arid ultimate use of the fish and game resources of the several project areas, and to estimate the effect of the projects on fish and game resources. The population of California during the last 30 years has grcwn at a rate about twice that of the rest of the United States. This rapid growth has strained all of the resources of the State, especially those supporting outdoor recreation, A prediction of the future population growth in the State was published by the Department of Water Resources in Bulletin No, 78, entitled "Feather River and Delta Diversion Projects — Preliminary Siimmary Report of Alternative Aqueduct Systems to Serve Southern California", This prediction is shown in Figure 1, and indicates that at the year 2020, the population in California will be about 56,000,000. Another prediction of California's future population growth is shown in a report, "Future Population, Economic and Recreation Development of California's Northeastern Cotinties", prepared by the firm of Harold F, Wise and Associates and entitled Appendix A of Bulletin No. 58, "Northeastern Counties Investigation", This report predicts that the population of California will increase at a rate about 50 percent more rapidly, and that of the Northeastern Counties, about three times more rapidly than the rest of the United States, The population will exert greatly increased pressure upon the State's resoTU-ces, and especially upon those of outdoor recreation. Protection and enhancement of these resources require that planning for their development assume large proportions. D-8 TIMATED PRESENT AND FUTURE POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA 1958 - 2020 2020 I CHAPTER I. ASSUMPTIONS, CRITERIA ATJD METHODS Credence placed in any prediction must depend on stated assumptions and criteria and on the application of these through stated methods. Within the limits established by the adoption of assumptions and criteria, the pre- dictions in this report are reliable. The concept of the terra "ultimate" as used in this work pertains to conditions at the end of a stipulated period in the future when land-use and water-supply developnent will have reached a maximum, and be essentially stabilized. This "ultimate" year is taken to be the year 2020. Assumptions The present increase in the population of California is assumed to continue at a rate and in a degree described by the curve shown on Figure 1. The population at the year 2020, based upon this projection, will be about 56,000,000. The standard of living will continue to rise daring this period because of improved technological, economic and sociological conditions. This rise will be reflected in a continued increase per capita use of outdoor recreational resources; therefore, recreational use will increase at a higher rate than the population increase. Eventually, all outdoor recreational resources will be used at saturation level, considering population density and the availability of recreation. Conditions supporting their use will be available, including trcLn sport ati on, lodging, access and sanitary facilities. Means will be pro- vided to match angling quality or angling success to the public demand at that time. It is also assumed that there will be no major catastrophy, such as war. D-9 earthquake, pestilence, or unforeseen cataclysm during the period included in the prediction. In the interests of reasonableness and believability, the increase of disposable income, leisure time, mobility, etc., vd.ll be disregarded, since they would tend to expand the predictions of recreational demand beyond plausibility. It should be noted, however, that these factors, a part of our technological growth, have comparatively recently increased their rate of increase. Sho^ald the world ever again come to a condition resembling "Peace on Earth", the economy will experience a truly fantastic growth of consumer-oriented industry. This growth will include industries supplying recreational facilities, and demanding recreational resources. Criteria Experience of the Department of Fish and Game with bodies of water undergoing angling use at the present time affords some criteria for judgment of the saturation level of angling in streams and lakes. As an example, on the West Fork San Gabriel River in Los Angeles County, more than 1,000 anglers per stream mile at one time have been counted. Present conditions of population, remoteness, accessibility and angling success vary throughout the State, and influence the angling public in accepting various levels of angling saturation on different bodies of water. For instance, anglers near great population centers are willing to continue fishing even though almost in physical contact with other anglers, while in remote areas an angler might move on to another spot if any other angler were in sight. The criteria useful today in deciding on a number describing the acceptable level of angling or other recreational saturation will not apply when predicting future levels of such use. The greatly in- creased urban developnent and proportionately reduced outdoor recreational D-10 area will inevitably cause a greater tolerance for crowding among the majority of the population. This tolerance will manifest itself in acceptance of higher saturation levels of recreational use than are acceptable at the present time. Criteria adopted for deciding upon a number representing this ultimate angler-use per mile along the Middle Fork Feather River at any one time included the following concepts: 1. The Department of Fish and Game is conducting a study to determine the flow required to maintain the fish population of the Middle Fork Feather River. While not yet completed, indications are that the flow recommendations will be between 125 and 175 second-feet. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that flows within this range will create the most suitable condition for maintenance of the fishery below Nelson Point. 2. Anglers will be willing to fish in groups as large as three in pool areas of the stream. These groups need not be out of sight of each other. 3. Anglers will be willing to fish in groups of two in riffle and run areas of the stream. These groups need not be out of sight of each other. 4. Anglers will not fish in chutes or falls, 5. The canyon stretch of the stream is assumed to comprise 50 percent riffle and run, 30 percent pool and 20 percent unfishable water,, such as chutes, falls, or totally inaccessible areas. Pools are here defined as those sections of stream in which the depth is at least one fifteenth of the width and there is a marked decrease in flow velocity. 6. The average length of the aingling season will be 180 days. D-n 7. The reaches of the Middle Fork Canyon, which are highly inaccessible now, will remain relatively inaccessible in the future. Roads necessary for proposed construction will be the only access available to motor vehicles in the immediate future and no roads will follow the river nor the reservoirs in the canyon. 8. A minimum system of trails, foot bridges, camps and sanitary facilities will be installed and maintained, consistent with public health and safety and administrative requirements. Pressure of public use will govern the staging of these installations. Such a plan has been adopted by the Plumas County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, 9. Narrow, steep-sided, widely fluctuating reservoirs which can store only a small amount of water relative to the total flow, are notoriously poor areas for fish and angling. No foreseeable fisheries management practice can improve the productivity of these reservoirs and inundation of a length of stream by this type of reservoir will reduce the amount of fish and of angling available along that stream by an amount proportionate to their length. Such reservoirs cause indirect harm to trout populations in the entire river by furnishing habitat for Sacramento squawfish which prey upon trout. Methods Information about the character of the surrounding area, stream banks, access points and general accessibility, and about the stream itself was gathered by four methods. The first method was to scrutinize maps and aerial photographs. This procedure afforded information about roads, trails and other possible access, and about areas and routes which would probably be inaccessible. D-12 The second method was to interview all persons believed to be authoritative in an aspect of the stream, its recreational use and potential, and its setting. These persons advised on feasibility of running the river by boat, on places, times and methods of angling, and many other subjects relative to this investigation. The third method was by visiting the stream in various seasons, and at various places. Trips were made by jeep, auto, airplane and on foot carrying a pack. The physical, biological, and scenic features of the of the stream were assessed by this method. The fourth method was by hydrological study to ascertain the actual flow patterns in the streams. This was done by stream measurements at three stations along the canyon and by correlations computed frcan recording gages above, in, and below the canyon. This work was performed by personnel of the Department of Water Resources and of Region II of the Department of Fish and Game. D-13 CHAPTER II. PROJECT AREAS AND REUTED FISH AND GAME RESOURCES The areas and resources which would be affected by possible water development projects will be discussed from the point of view of fish and game resources and the utility of the areas for angling and hunting. The resources of fish and wildlife, achieve economic significance in the light of availability and use. This aspect of the resource need not take the form of harvest, but may include such values as research, or of contemplation of the forms as an esthetic pursuit. The requirement of these resources which is of primary concern to this report, however, is that the fish and game species be present and be available for pursuit by sportsmen. The fisheries with which this report is concerned are primarily rainbow trout and secondarily brown trout, and brown bullhead. Other species exist in the area, including carp, several varities of minnows, suckers and largemouth bass; but these do not support angling of any significance. It is possible that a fishery might develop based on one or more of these species, but it is very improbable that any will become important enough to be considered as a recreational resource. The game species of primary interest is deer. Bear, waterfowl and upland game are hunted, but are less important. The fish resources will be discussed by drainage area as affected by project. Because game resources are essentially similar throughout the affected areas, they will be discussed together. Middle Fork Drainage Area The part of the Middle Fork drainage area which is of interest to this study lies between the western edge of Sierra Valley and the upper end of the proposed Oroville Reservoir. It is shown on the map appended. D-15 i\ Grizzly and Frenchman Reservoir sites are located in the upper section of the Middle Fork Feather River drainage area. The Frenchman Reservoir site is being developed as a recreation and irrigation reservoir. Grizzly Reservoir has been considered in another report. Department of V^ater Resources Biilletin No. 59. The benefits vary widely depending on the primary purpose of the project. Since it is doubtful that these proposed reservoirs vjould be included in any of the proposed plans they have not been considered in this report. Upper Section The streams tributary to the Middle Fork Feather River in the western part of Sierra Valley are small. They are largely spring-fed and run across gently sloping meadow lands in well-defined stream beds. They afford good brown and rainbow trout angling to those who know the secrets of success in small streams. Immediately below the outlet from Sierra Valley, Big Grizzly Creek joins the Middle Fork Feather River. From here to the vicinity of the tovm of Clio, the river runs in a wide canyon with several very small tributary streams. It drops only gradually and forms many long pools. There is fair access along the banks. Between the towns of Clio and Sloat, the Middle Fork passes through three rather open valleys in which the stream forms many large pools with a relatively smaller amount of riffle than in the intervening stretches which traverse canyons. The stream in this section drops an average of only about 25 feet permilfi. This entire length is easily accessible at present and supports heavy recreational use, including a great deal of angling. D-16 4 Sheep Camp Reservoir The site of the possible Sheep Camp Reservoir lies mainly in a broad meadow called Carmen Valley through which runs Craycroft Creek, an intermittent stream. The meadow is surrounded on aill sides away from the dam site by an attractive conifer forest with definite edges near the meadow land. The area lies between percipitous moiintains to the west and the broad, flat Sierra Valley to the east. The old abandoned road from Calpine to Beckwourth runs past the dam site and access is easy to any part of the reservoir site, Clio Reservoir Area The area of the proposed Clio Reservoir includes about 3 stream miles of the Middle Fork Feather River and about 2 stream miles of Sulphur Creek. Both of these are good trout stresims and support heavy recreational use. Gold Lake This is, at present, a good angling lake. It contains rainbow, brook and brown trout and kokanee salmon. It supports heavy angling pressure and large amounts of other recreational use. Large numbers of trout are planted in the lake annually, Camyon Section Below Sloat, the stream runs in a narrow, steep-sided canyon, dropping oin average of about 70 feet per mile for about 45 miles to the upper end of the proposed Oroville Reservoir. This rate of fall would indicate that much of the stream should be occupied by riffles, chutes and falls, and this is indeed the case. Bedrock is exposed in many stretches and great boulders are strewn along the canyon bottom showing the power of flood flows in the canyon. D-17 Flows of 32,000 second-feet at Sloat and 62,000 second-feet at Milsap Bar have been measured, and 85,000 second-feet estimated in the Middle Fork at its confluence vd.th the South Fork Feather River. The ccinyon is situated at a medium distance from major population centers. This term means about one short day's drive from the San Francisco Bay Area or the Central Valley, or a long day' s drive from southern California. The forest-type ranges from pine-fir-oak association in the cemyon bottom at the upper end, to oak-digger pine-poison oak association at the lower end. The most common stereotype in trout anglers' minds is that of pine forests, and the canyon does not conform to this picture. The most important factor influencing anglers and hunters against choosing the Middle Fork Canyon as their destination is probably the difficulty of access and the roughness of terrain. There are only two passenger automobile roads to the river between Sloat and Milsap Bar. The upper road, crossing the Middle Fork near Nelson Creek, leads from Quincy to Marysville by way of La Porte. The other road goes south from the Brush Creek Ranger Station to reach the Middle Fork at Milsap Bar where there is a U. S. Forest Service campground. In addition to these roads there are five jeep roads and some foot trails leading to the river. However, once at the river, few trails follow it. In the upper reaches, the canyon walls are laced with beds of limestone ajid shale, or slate-like rock, which lie generally across the path of the stream. Near the beds of shale, the soil is composed of clays and small flat rock chips lying in a slippery mass just at the angle of repose. Any disturbance causes slides and travel over them is precarious. The shale beds themselves, exposed to disintegration and decomposition, are extremely difficult to D-18 traverse, and enforce detours. During high water, stream-side travel past these beds is impossible and the required detour is up and around. Added to this picture of rugged terrain, the lack of trails along the canyon prevents any but the most ambitious and best conditioned hiker from following the stream. Anglers, who almost of necessity must carry tackle, food, sleeping bags and other gear, do not use this stretch of the stream in large numbers. Proposed Dam Locations The dams proposed for construction in the canyon would be located along the Middle Fork as follows, in miles below Sloat: Dam Miles Turntable 10 Nelson Point 12 Minerva Bar 13 Dogwood 23 Hartman Bar 30 Bald Rock A2 The proposed Red Ridge Diversion Dam would be located at the confluence of the several small streams forming Bear Creek, about 5 miles southwest of the proposed Meadow Valley Reservoir, The proposed Spoon Diversion Dam would be located on the Little North Fork Feather River about a mile above its confluence with the Middle Fork of the Feather River, Turntable Reservoir The area of the proposed Turntable Reservoir includes about 6 miles of the Middle Fork Feather River and about 2 miles of Nelson Creek. Both of these are good trout streams and, in the accessible parts, support heavy recreation use. D-29 Nelson Point Reservoir The proposed Nelson Point Reservoir is identical to Turntable except that it would include a total of about 9 miles of the Middle Fork Feather River, Minerva Bar, Dop>jood, Hartman Bar and Bald Rock Reservoirs These reservoirs are all essentially similar in that each would include some length of the Middle Fork Feather River, a good trout stream. The approximate length of stream included in the area of each would be as follows (in feet): Bald Rock Reservoir, 16,$00; Hartman Diversion Pond, 4,000; Dogwood Reservoir, 10,000; and Minerva Reservoir, 4,800, Red Ridge and Spoon Diversion Ponds The areas of these proposed ponds include negligible lengths of stream and are not important to fisheries resources. The streams are small and steep and do not support large amounts of angling or recreation at present, although good trout populations are present in both streams. Fisheries maintenance flows would be required below the dams. North Fork Drainage Area The areas in the North Fork drainage of interest to this study are the proposed Meadow Valley, Swayne and the possible Squaw Queen and Humbug Valley Reservoir sites. Other than Meadow Valley, none of these dams were seriously considered for inclusion in the projects studies. Therefore, no angler use estimates were made. Meadow Valley Reservoir The area of the proposed Meadow Valley Reservoir includes about 5 miles of Spanish Creek and several very small streams for their entire fishable length, Spanish Creek supports angling ajid recreational use. The remainder D-20 of the streams in the reservoir area support fishing. The entire Spanish Creek drainage has been treated recently to eradicate a high population of rough fish. It has been restocked with rainbow trout. Angling pressure and success has increased. Swayne Reservoir The area of the proposed Swayne Reservoir includes about 5 miles of French Creek and about 5 miles of several small creeks. These are good trout streams, especially for early and late season angling. They support moderate amounts of angling and other recreational use. Squavj Queen Reservoir The area of the possible Squaw Queen Reservoir, as described in the report on the Upper Feather River Service Area, 1955, includes about 10 miles of Last Chance Creek and about 3 miles of Squaw Queen Creek. Last Chance Creek in this stretch is a good small stream and supports a good population of trout. This area is relatively inaccessible and the streams are not heavily fished. Typical annual drawdown in the possible Squaw Queen Reservoir would be about 12 feet, and maximum drawdown during the critical dry period would be about 30 feet. The minimum, or dead pool, would then be about 95 feet deep at the darn, contain about 8,000 acre-feet, and have about 300 surface- acres. The authorized Dixie Refuge Reservoir on Last Chance Creek would be about 10 miles above this reservoir, and would be operated for stream flow maintenance. V;ith this assured flow. Last Chance Creek should be an excellent trout stream, provided temperatures are suitable. D-21 Humbug Valley Reservoir The site of the possible Humbug Valley Dam and Reservoir is in a beautiful mountain meadow surrounded by thick forest of conifers and traversed by a very fine trout stream, Yellow Creek. The developed recreation centers at Lake Almanor are only a few miles to the east and people seeking an undeveloped, unspoiled area come to fish and to enjoy this rare combination of remote beauty and easy accessibility. The town of Longville, actually a rsmch family headquarters, lies at the head of Humbug Valley looking to the south along the meadow and to the west toward the higher mountains. Angling is good in the stream and is supported in part by stocking of artificially reared trout. G-ame Resources Deer The major game in all of the project areas is the deer herds. These deer live in the higher mountainous areas during the warmer seasons and move into lower, less rigorous environment during the winter. In the eastern parts of the Feather River drainage, the deer exhibit generally more distinct and more nearly requisite migratory habit. They travel along traditional paths to their winter ranges and are hampered seriously, some- times fatally, by obstacles to their migration along these paths. The site of winter range is also part of this traditional pattern, ajid a migratory herd which loses its winter range might easily be entirely eliminated. In the lower elevations and in the western parts of this basin, the deer herds exhibit less complete dependence upon certain particular routes and winter ranges. Instead, they move for their winter range into lower elevations, usually at a relatively short distance from their summer living areas. D-22 In all cases, severity of winter, availability of natural browse, and population density exert some effect upon the annual migration. Another land -use requirement of deer herds is for fawning areas. After the herds leave their winter range and the bucks have started for the higher country, the does seek a meadow area with suitable food, shelter, cover and concealment, near water, where they can produce their fawns, A hei*d of approximately 500 deer winters in the site of the proposed Meadow Valley Reservoir, in the area between Slate Creek and Rock Creek. Other deer, from adjacent mountains, depend upon winter range in Meadow Valley to the extent of about 3 square miles. Other winter range is included in the land which would be inundated by the proposed Clio, Nelson Point, Turntable, Minerva Bar, Dogwood, Hartraan Bar, Squaw Queen and Genesee Reservoirs. Fawning grounds are included in the land to be inundated by the proposed Squaw Queen, Humbug, Clio and Meadow Valley Reservoirs. Other Wildlife There are small areas of waterfowl nesting along the streams in every proposed project area. Mallards and blue-winged teal are found here. California mountain quail and bandtailed pigeons are common. Muskrat and beaver are found along the smaller streams, and otter are found along the canyon section of the Middle Fork. Black bear are numerous in this region, especially near the lower end of the canyon. Other species of fur bearers ajid predators are present. D-23 CHAPTER III. EFFECTS OF POSSIBLE V/ATER PROJECTS ON FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES The effects of water development projects upon fisheries and wildlife resources are of two categories. The first category includes the effects upon fish, game and other wildlife species, and upon their habitat. The second category includes the effects upon utilization and harvest of these resources and will be discussed in Chapter IV of this report. There are three major combinations of units considered in this investigation. The first, proposed by the Richvale Irrigation District, would include the Clio, Nelson Point, Minerva Bar, Dogwood, Hartman Bar and Bald Rock Reservoirs and is called the Richvale Project. The second combination is called, for convenience in this report, the State Proposed Project No . 1 and would include the Turntable, Meadow Valley, Hartman Bar and Bald Rock Reseinroirs and the Spoon and Red Ridge diversion ponds, with the diverted water returning to the Middle Fork Feather River, The third combination is called, for convenience, the State Proposed Project No, 2 and would include the Turntable and Meadow Valley Reservoirs, with the diverted water continuing northward to the North Fork Feather River. Effects on Fish Populations and Habitat Clio Reservoir The proposed Clio Reservoir would be subject to ratner large annual fluctuation in water level and would have wide expanses of mua flats during the latter part of each recreation season. During dry years, the fluctuation would be even greater because more water would be released to the stream belov. D-25 Vi/ide banks would be exposed during the latter F>art of every summer recreation season. The temperature of the water in this type of reservoir can be expjected to be high in the summer and fall. A temperature problem in the stream below the reservoir may be created by water released provided temperatures are suitable, downstream fisheries benefits are possible. The extent of the benefits would depend on the operation of the reservoir. Since both of these factors are unknown, angler use has not been calculated. The reservoir would not be expected to develop a satisfactory fishery. It would be necessary to stock catchable trout to maintain fishing. Turntable Reservoir Nelson Point Reservoir These two alternative proposed reservoirs would differ primarily in length, due to the different locations of the dams. The Nelson Point dam site is about 3 miles downstream from the Turntable dam site. The water surface elevation would be the same for either. Comparison with other reservoirs of this type indicate that popula- tions of rainbow and brown trout would develop in the proposed reservoirs. However, they would not support heavy angling pressure without stocking catchable trout. The steep sides of the reservoir leave few places where recreational and access facilities could be installed, and ultimate recreational use will depend on facilities, Minerva Bar Reservoir Dogwood Reservoir Hartman Bar Reservoir D-26 Bald Rock Reservoir These proposed reservoirs, essentially similar to each other, can be compared to the existing reservoirs of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's system on the North Fork Feather River. Angling is poor, even with the support of artificially reared trout. The Department of Fish and Game has observed the fish populations in some of these existing reservoirs and in others of similar nature and has found that trout populations are depressed and rough fish populations are dominant. Trout will probably not thrive in these proposed reservoirs and angling will probably never be good enough to attract much angler use. The total length of these proposed reservoirs should be subtracted from the length of stream which would in their absence be available for production of fish. Small forebay reservoirs, such as contemplated in this section, foster populations of Sacramento squawfish, which is considered a rough fish. This species is not only a nuisance to the angler, but is also a detriment to the trout population, since squawfish prey upon trout and compete with them for food. Streams leading into these forebays would be subject to forays by the squawfish which will have grown in the reservoirs. There are no known means of solving this problem. The Department of Fish and Game is not certain how serious it is, but is attempting to evaluate it. It could mean the loss of the entire Middle Fork Feather River as a trout stream. A possible means of reducing the effects of these predators upon trout and trout angling would be the installation of barriers above all such reservoirs, and screens at all outlets to the stream. If water from a power plant were to be released into the stream above the next barrier below the D-27 plamt, means would be required to prevent movement either into the diversion structure, or away from the site of release. Each case would require study to determine what means of predator control would be most feasible and desirable, Meadow Valley Reservoir There is no reservoir in California to which this proposed reservoir can be compared exactly. Lake Almanor is at approximately the same elevation, but is relatively shallow. Shasta Lake is of the same magnitude of size, but is at approximately 1,000-foot elevation. Typical annual drawdown in the proposed Meadow Valley Reservoir would be about 40 feet and maximum drawdown during the critical dry period would be about 130 feet. The minimum or dead pool, would then be about 180 feet deep at the dam, contain about 45,000 acre-feet of water and have about 740 surface acres. Water conditions in the reservoir would be excellent for fish and would support populations of both warmwater and coldwater varieties of fish. Existing reservoirs with fluctuating water levels and containing soft water have generailly produced large fish populations and maintained good angling for a few years after construction and then declined in productivity to a somewhat lower state. A reservoir in Meadow Valley would probably follow this pattern. Squaw Queen Reservoir The possible Squaw Queen Reservoir, operated for electric power production, would fluctuate over a wide range annually. Otherwise, the reservoir would offer fairly good habitat for coldwater fishes. It would be of a highly irregular shape and would offer fair to good fish production. D-28 decreasing in a few years to poor to fair. The existing stream fishery would be replaced by a reservoir fishery of doubtful value, Genesee Reservoir - Recreation Pro.ject The possible Genesee Reservoir would be built and operated as a major feature of a Genesee Valley Recreation Area. It would be formed by a dam about i+4 feet in height and would cover about 675 acres. The water level would fluctuate only that amount caused by increased flow over the spillway of the dam. The lake would be heavily used by family groups for swinnning and boating. Probably the most beneficial fisheries management scheme for the lake would be to reserve a suitable portion of the shore for angling. The lake would be fairly productive of fish. Sheep Camp Reservoir The possible Sheep Gamp Reservoir would be constructed and operated primarily for irrigation in Sierra Valley. At normal pool it v/ould cover about 1,630 acres. It would probably be drawn down each year to minimum pool and this annual fluctuation would severely limit the productivity of the reservoir for fish. It will not produce good fishing without stocking the lake with catchable or subcatchable trout. The reservoir would cause no detriment to existing fisheries resources. Effects on Game Populations and Habitat The general effect of all these possible water projects on game resources would be to reduce populations of game animals and game birds by reducing the area available to them. The most significant loss would be in the valley and meadow lands which are now used by deer as winter range and D-29 fawning area. The two biggest items of this loss would be of deer in Meadow Valley and Mohawk Valley at Clio. The other sites are less important to game species. Another effect on game would be by the closure of deer migration routes. A small herd of deer near Meadow Valley would be eliminated by the closure of their route from the mountains through Meadow Valley into the western portion of American Valley. Upland game animals and birds would suffer some minor losses of a nature similar to that of deer. Migratory waterfowl would be slightly more numerous during their migration periods in the spring and fall because of the additional nesting area on water surfaces. This would not represent a benefit to waterfowl populations because these birds would simply have gone elsewhere to rest in the absence of water in this area. Fur bearers, including beaver and otter, would suffer a slight loss because they do not live in or very near fluctuating reservoirs. Their habitat is typically along streams, and this would be reduced by inundation of streams by reservoirs. The major and most immediate consideration relative to fish and game resources in this study is the effect of project construction and operation upon fishing, particularly in the canyon area of the Middle Fork Feather River and in Meadow Valley. Therefore, quantitative estimates are made for only the projects in these areas. D-30 CHAPTER IV. PREDICTION OF ANGLING USE Economic benefit to be derived from angling use due to a project is the difference between that which would occur without the project, and that which would occur with the project. Therefore, use under both of these conditions must be predicted for a period corresponding to the economic life of the project. It is recognized that the actual and useful life of the project will not be limited to this economic period, but instead will be exceedingly long. For the purposes of this prediction, however, the period between the year I960 and 2010 is taken as the economic life. In a project area, or rather in the angling area affected by a project, the amount of angling can be related to the factors of human population size and angling quality plus esthetic attractiveness. General Effects of An/ajling Quality and Attractiveness on Angling Use Angling and esthetic attractiveness are closely related in that water conditions conducive to high esthetic values also tend to produce high angling use. These conditions include stream flow great enough to form beautiful cataracts, rapids and current patterns, but small enough to allow relatively easy wading and stream-side walking. Angling success, assuming moderate angling skill, depends partly upon the relative number, size and concentration of fish in the stream, and partly upon water conditions. Generally either high- or low-water conditions in streams reduce angling success, while the range of flows which allows good angling success is fairly narrow. In this range, other things being equal, the amount of angling actually available on a given stream D-31 depends largely upon the amount of water flowing in that stream. Thus, below the lower end of the range of suitable flows, the amount of angling possibly- available is much less than would be available at the optimum flows. Likewise, above the higher end of tiie range of suitable flows, the amount of available angling tapers off until high-water conditions prevent angling entirely. Effects of Stream Flow Region II of the Department of Fish and Game is continuing a study to determine the flov/ required to maintain the fish population of the Middle Fork Feather River. This study is not yet completed, however, indications are that flow recommendations will be between 125 and 175 second-feet. Therefore, in this report, it is assumed that a flow in this range would maintain the fishery below Nelson Point. It is doubtful that controlled flows of any magnitude would improve fish production significantly over that occurring with existing natural flow conditions. A considerable reduction in fish populations would occur with a constant flow of 75 second-feet. This flow would approximate tne existing late summer natural flows. It is believed that the trout fishery eventually would be destroyed with a flow of 23 second-feet (Figure 2). Effects of Impoundments Forebay and diversion reservoirs of the size and nature proposed in the Richvale Project and in the State Proposed Project No. 1 are essentially useless in providing desirable fish habitat or angling. High water temperatures combined with suitable rough fish habitat, would result in the replacement of trout by predatory rough fish. Therefore, the length of these reservoirs must be subtracted from the length of stream available in tneir absence to determine their net effect on the fishery. D-32 PREDICTED PERCENTAGE OF SATURATION OF ANGLING PRESSURE MIDDLE FORK FEATHER RIVER , I960 - 2020 1950 2010 2020 NOTE: SEASONAL AVERAGE USE WITH CATCHABLE TROUT. ANGLING SATURATION: 7o AVERAGE. SEASONAL USE AT OPTIMUM CONDITIONS FIGURE 2 Determinations of suitable rainimam pools for project reservoirs was beyond the scope of this investigation. It is believed that agreement on adequate minimum pools can be reached by the Department of Fish and Game and the constructing agency. Effects of Project Development Difficult access to the canyon stretch of the Middle Fork Feather River presently limits angling use. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that construction of water projects in the canyon would result in increased meajis of access. The effect would be to hasten the advent of relatively heavy angling use. Angling use would be greater with the project 'than without the project, provided adequate flows are maintained, because of the greater number of days that flows would be suitable for fishing. As the population increases and crowding occurs in other outdoor recreational areas, public demand will result in the improvement of access whether or not the project is built. With no project, the result would be slower development of angling use. There will, however, be comparable use at the ultimate year if increased access is provided. it is recognized that if plans for reserving the Middle Fork Feather River canyon area as a primitive or natural area are adopted, angler use will be considerably less than would occur with project developnent. However, even these plans provide for improvement over present means of access. Effects of Heavy Angling Pressure on Trout Population Trout are not capable of maintaining large numbers of their kind m the face of heavy angling pressure. Their eggs are large and few, they spawn but once a year and then only very specific environmental conditions. They normally achieve minimum catchable size two or three full years in streams similar to the Middle Fork Feather River. D-33 Considering these factors, it becomes apparent that fish populations will require augmentation from other sources if angling pressure of the magnitude expected is to be supported. It is questionable whether it would be economically possible to manage the fishery with artificially reared trout under present means of financing. However, unless means are developed to increase natural production, artificially propagated trout will play an important part in the management of the fishery. Effects of Population Growth on Angling Use Under the assumption stated in Chapter I, that all recreational resources will be used at saturation by or before the assumed ultimate year of 2020, it is reasonable to expect that use will increase at a rate very close to the rate of population increase. As can be seen in Figure 1, the development curve of population growth approximates a straight line. At the year 2010, the projected popu- lation is about 87.5 percent of that at the year 2020. Similarly, the average angling saturation level under 125-175 second-foot flow conditions is shown as 90 percent at the year 2020 and as 77.5 percent at the year 2010 (Figure 2), By using a straight line from the year I960, to the year 2010, the average angling saturation level for this period can be determined by averaging the figures for I960 and 2010. A further assurance of reasonableness or conservatism is given by the disregard of daily turn-over, or the change-about of anglers through the day. A survey of angling use in the Upper Feather River Basin in 1956 showed that approximately 2.5 times as many anglers fished a stretch of stream as were actually present at any one time during the angling day. In the distant future, and at such a remote place as the canyon, anglers might stay for longer periods each day, thus reducing the rate of turnover, D-3U Computation of Ultimate Angling Use Angling use capacity along a given stretch of stream was computed by multiplying the appropriate number of anglers per mile times the number of miles available. Annual use was computed from this product by multiplying it by the number of days of angling to be available. Reasonableness requires a factor or less than unity, to take into account innibiting influences such as bad weatner, occasional closures for management purposes, and other unforeseen but probable occurrences. This factor must be arbitrary, and will more closely approach unity as human population increases and recreation resources diminisli. In this computation a factor of 0.9 has been adopted for the ultimate year for the stream conditions tnat v;ould exist with a maintained flow of within the 125-175 second-foot range. Correspondingly, smaller factors have been adopted for smaller flows and for t:ie stream without regulation by any project. Prediction of angling use on the Middle Fork Feather River. below Kelson Point site was based upon the use to be expected under conditions which would occur with assumed optimum flop's near Nelson Point. This flow would provide the greatest area of usable fishing water and the greatest amount of beauty or esthetic attractiveness still allowing easy access along the stream and velocities low enough in runs to allow safe wading. At many points along the stream, anglers could wade across the stream on gravel bars. At larger flows angling might be unsafe and at lower flows the area would be less attractive as well as less productive. The conditions under the 125-175 second-foot flow range would produce or attract or support the maximum amount of angling in the year 2020, and this is shown on Figure 2. On this figure the line representing this flow condition arrives at a level of 90 percent saturation in 2020, because of the reducing D-3$ factor of 0.9. A straight line is drawn from the year I960 to the year 2020 between the conditions expected at those two years. It should be noted that the use immediately after construction will be greater under these conditions than with the natural flow because of the publicity and the increased accessi- bility due to the construction of the projects at the upper end of the stream, A straight line is used following the straight line of the projected population increase during this period. Other lines on Figure 2, depict the use to be expected under conditions with no project, with 75 second-feet, and with 23 second-feet. The conditions after construction to be caused by flow of 23 second- feet are very poor for angling and for fish; however, the use under those conditions would be greater in the initial period due to the publicity and increased access. In a very few years however, the use would drop off because of poor angling conditions and because of the disappearance of trout. The reduction in trout populations would be due to the unsatisfactory stream conditions for fish. Angling use with no project would begin at a very low level and would increase in proportion to the population increase in the State at about the same rate as the use would increase with optimum flow conditions. Angling use under conditions with no project would never be quite so high as under the optimum conditions. This difference would be due to the increased number of angling days with the project because of the easy access along the stream during the early part of the summer. With no project the stream would be too large until sometime in June for easy or safe access along and across the stream. Likewise, at the end of the summer, in many years, the flow is too low to be highly attractive or to afford good fishing conditions. D-36 I At a controlled flow of 75 second-feet with the project, angling use would be expected to have the initial spurt due to increased access and publicity. Actual increase through the period would be slower than without the project as with higher flows. Conditions for fish would be less desirable than under these other conditions, and the stream would be less attractive for anglers. Conputations of the ultimate angling use of the Middle Fork Feather River in angler days per year were made for the projects to be compared; namely, the Richvale Proposal and the two state Proposed Projects. The factors and ultimate angler days under project conditions by the several projects are shown in Work Sheets 1, 2 and 3. These sheets are appended to the report. Work sheet 3 also includes the conputations for conditions with no project. These sheets indicate the effects of the projects on the stream assuming a 125-175 second-foot range of flows and 100 percent angler saturation. The ultimate year (2020) seasonal angling use in angler days at different flows is shown in Table 1, The percentages of saturation developed in Figure 2 were used in computing the angler days per year. Table 2, shows the average use per year for the period 1960-2010, by project at different flows, and with no project. The use under conditions with the project, minus use without the project, is the use creditable to or lost because of the project. Effects of Meadow Valley Reservoir The fishing resource to become available at the Meadow Valley Reservoir would be large enough to be of great significance in the recreation attractiveness of Plumas County. About the third year after the reservoir filled, a fish population would become available which would support a large amount of fishing. D-37 During the initial period for perhaps 10 years after construction, the capacity of this reservoir to support angling will be relatively untouched, and the only limits on fishing will be other factors, such as lack of adequate facilities and distance from population centers. Average annual angling use during the initial years is predicted to be about 25,000 angler days; and at the year 2050, to be about 160,000 angler days. Average annual angling use for the 50-year economic life is predicted to be about 90,000 angler days. This amount of recreational fishing is credited to the State proposed projects, increasing the total amount of angling afforded. The final comparison of angling to be afforded by the various projects is shown in Table 3. D-38 W S CO W ^3 o ac: iH S^ H^ >H CQ ^1 2: M O OJ CO cn :z H W < e-i w ^ "^ M tsi E- ai ►J o 3 fc, q w S J E-< Q O Q M M Q s: i3 « CL. ^-> rH C O o ^H •H c ^ -P o --o u o *-' 3 -p o nJ • • «• •• 1 CO •H Cm o ^ -P -. u-\ 3 t>- -P Oi 03 tM ^ O o •H u^ ^P -P O o" ca f-\ ^N ^ I ^_^ s >J\ -p CM cfl rH • • • • O Q) o Oh CO • • to o NO 00 o [>- OJ OJ o; o CTv o to OJ -d- sO o en o ^/^ u^ •* *\ •^ rH c^ o On Ov rH r^ -4- Lf^ -P +> -p o O o 0) H =*fc =«; •'-> nj o > - fn d ■ ch ni (T) O to ^ tu I C- -P to Cm ^- -p c O -4- ctJ O UA -H -P £^- bO -P tfl I t. d d LA 0) -P cv > cn nJ rH Cl3 O to -P o 0) •r-J O a. o nO r-\ r~- o c\; tX) - o^ t^ 03 ~t E>- cv tn >X) -* cv vO u^ ^ •s »\ -t CNi to o r^ c^ <}■ sO CNJ CNi o H cv to (^ •V •i •* -^ cr- rH o Lr\ l.-^ C\i OJ CV -p -p -p o o o

- cv m 1 -4- (U Q> x; -p -P o u as 0) c o +J TJ 0) TJ D-l|l Net Effects of Pro.jects on Anglinfi Use The net effects of the f)rojects on angling use are based on the Middle Fork Feather River from the vicinity of Sloat to the upper end of the proposed Oroville Reservoir. The Middle Fork Feather River above Sloat already supports heavy recreational use. Clio Reservoir is expected to be a marginal reservoir. Depending on operation and temperatures it may increase angler use in the area. Generally, extensive fluctuation in the reservoir or downstream could be expected to decrease the use. Since the operation schedule and water temper- atures are not known at this stage of planning no angler use has been calculated for this area. Other upstream developments have been considered in Department of Water Resources Bulletin No, 59. The predicted 50-year average annual angling use creditable to the Richvale Project would be about 23,000 angler days with a stream maintenance flow in the 125-175 second-foot range. There would be a net loss of about 77,000 annual angler days with a flow of 75 second-feet (Table 4). The predicted 50-year average annual angling use creditable to State Project Number 1 would be about 169,000 days with the 125-175 second- foot range of flows, and 42,000 man-days at 75 second-feet. The predicted 50-year average annual angling use creditable to the State Project Number 2 would be about 180,000 angler days with the 125-175 second-foot range of flows, and about 48,000 at a flow of 75 second-feet. As shown in Table 2, a fisheries maintenance flow of 75 second- feet for either of the state-proposed projects would result in a net loss to the river fishery of from 42,000 to 48,000 annual angler days. It is true that this loss would be more than compensated for by the large number of angler days provided by Meadow Valley Reservoir (Table 3). However, this does not constitute maintenance of the river fishery. D-U2 I The predicted angling use indicates the project area's importance as a recreation resource. Obviously, this is one of the most important economic benefits to be gained in the area of the water's origin. Therefore, it is of statewide importance that the preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife of the area be included as a purpose of the proposed project. TABLE 4 NET CHANGE IN ANNUAL ANGLING USE IN ANGLER DAYS, MIDDLE FORK FEATHER RIVER AREA, BY PROJECT 50-YEAR AVERAGE Project : 125-175 cfs ; 75 cfs • • Richvale Irrigation District 23,000 -77,000 State #1 Proposal 169,000 42,000 State #2 Proposal 180,000 48,000 jummary The California Department of V/ater Resources under Legislative authority contained in the Appropriation Act of 1956 studied the possible water development of the Middle Fork Feather River as contemplated by several agencies and as conceived by the engineers of the department. The Department of Fish and Game was asked to estimate present, future and ultimate use of the fish and game resources of the several project areas and to estimate the effect of the projects on fish and game resources. Accordingly, the Department of Fish and Game studied the existing fisheries resources, the physical environment of the several project areas and the type and amount of use of these resources i in the project areas and along the stream of the Middle Fork Feather River. D-43 In reporting on the results of this survey, certain assumptions and criteria were adopted. The central assumption was that the population of California at the year 2020 would be about 56,000,000. It is also assumed that there will be no major catastrophy and that the standard of living will increase as it has in the past. Water development projects proposed for the Middle Fork Feather River would alter an excellent trout habitat substantially. Certain conditions would need to be met to maintain the present fishery. These conditions would include reservation of reasonable minimum pool storage in all reservoirs and maintenance of adequate stream flows below all dams. In order to assist the engineers in their analysis of the various proposals, the conditions under various project operation schedules were clLso examined. These conditions involved stream flows at three levels in the Middle Fork Feather River; namely 23 second-feet, 75 second-feet and 125-175 second- feet. The major area of concern in this study was the canyon section of the Middle Fork Feather River, which is largely inaccessible now and which will probably remain relatively so during the 50-year period of analysis. In order to estimate the probable angling use of this section, certain criteria were adopted including flows of 125 to 175 second-feet in the stream in the vicinity of Nelson Point, a distribution of anglers appropriate to the stream flow and size of stream at various places and an average angling season length of 180 days. The historic stream conditions and present use were examined for this section to furnish bases for estimates of future conditions and use. All assumptions and conclusions in this report are based on the presence and importance of the fishery which is primarily for rainbow trout and secondarily for brown trout and brown bullhead. The game species of primary interest in this area are deer, with bear, waterfowl and upland gcime species of less importance. The upper reaches of the Middle Fork Feather River runs through Sierra Valley and Mohawk Valley down to the vicinity of Sloat from which the stream goes into the canyon and becomes relatively inaccessible. In the upper reaches use is heavy and angling is maintained partially by planting of catchable trout. Dams suggested for construction in the canyon would be located along the Middle Fork as follows, in miles below Sloat: Turntable, 10; Nelson Point, 12; and Minerva Bar, 13; Dogwood, 23; Hartman Bar, 30; Bald Rock, 42. Clio Dam would be upstream from Sloat. Two small diversion dams would be located on tributary streams to the north of the Middle Fork itself. A large storage reservoir would be constructed in Meadow Valley about 6 miles west of the town of Quincy. Swayne Reservoir would be constructed on French Creek between the Middle Fork and North Fork. Several other dams and reservoirs were studied, but are not included in the analysis of the major proposals. In this report, the major proposals are the Richvale Irrigation District Proposal which includes Clio, Nelson Point, Minerva Bar, Dogwood, Hartman Bar and Bald Rock Reservoirs. The State Proposed Project No. 1, includes the Turntable, Meadow Valley, Hartman Bar and Bald Rock Reservoirs and the Spoon and Red Ridge Diversion ponds. The water would be diverted back to the Middle Fork Feather River. The State Proposed Project No. 2, would include the Turntable and Meadow Valley Reservoirs with the diverted water continuing northward to the North Fork Feather River. Clio Reservoir would be a broad, shallow reservoir fluctuating severely to a small minimum pool. It would not be expected to develop a satisfactory fishery. D-4$ Turntable Reservoir and Nelson Point Reservoir are two aLLternative reservoirs, very similar in character and differing primarily in length. They would be deep and nave steep sides and would support moderate populations of trout. Heavy angling pressure would suppress trout populations below good fishing levels, Minerva Bar, Dogwood, Hartman Bar and Bald Rock Reservoirs would be rather small and would be comparable to the existing reservoirs of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company system on the North Fork Featner River. Angling would be poor, even with the support of cirtificially reared trout. Stream flow maintenance releases would be required from each. Meadow Valley Reservoir would be a large, deep reservoir somewhat between cold water and warmwater types. It would not fluctuate severely and would support both trout and warmwater fishes. Angling use during the period of analysis would be large. The general effect of the small reservoirs would be to reduce available angling and the effect of Meadov; Valley Reservoir would be to increase angling. The effects on game would be harmful, but of relatively small importance. Reservoirs at the higher elevations would inundate deer fawning areas and all would inundate some winter range. Meadow Valley Reservoir would inundate a deer migrating route. Tne prediction of angling use is made for conditions with project and for conditions without project. The difference is considered to be the effect on the resources. Necessarily included in the effects will be the result of construction roads which will bring more recreation seekers, anglers, and hxinters to the project areas. Angling use in this survey was computed by multiplying the appropriate number of anglers per mile, times the number of miles available, times the D-46 number of days of angling to be available in the season. A use development curve was drawn toward the ultimate day and average angling use was computed from this. A reduction factor to take into account normal annual limitations on use was used to reduce the average annual to the most probable actual figure. A factor of 0.9 has been adopted as this reducing factor with a maintained flow in the 125-175 second-foot range. Correspondingly, smaller factors have been adopted for smaller flows and for the stream without regu- lation by any project. Computation of ultimate angling use was made for the projects to be compared, namely the Richvcile Proposal and the State Proposed Projects No. 1 and No. 2. Average angling use at the proposed Meadow Valley Reservoir would be about 25,000 angler days during the initial years, and about 160,000 angler days at the year 2050. Average angling use here would be about 90,000 angler days during the 50-year economic life. The predicted 50-year average angling use creditable to the Richvale Project would be about 23,000 angler days if the stream were maintained in tne range of 125-175 second-feet and a loss of about 77,000 at a flow of 75 second-feet. A trout fishery probably could not be maintained at a flow as low as 23 second-feet. The predicted 50-year average annual angling use creditable to the State Project No. 1 would be about 169,000 angler days at a stream maintenance flow in the 125-175 second-foot range or about 42,000 at a flow of 75 second- feet. The predicted 50-year average annual angling use creditable to the State Project No. 2 would be about 130, JOO angler days with a stream maintenance flow of 125-175 second-feet, and about 48,000 at a flow of 75 second-feet. D-47 Either of the two State Proposails would include the Meadow Valley Reservoir with its large effect upon angling use. Actually there woiild be a net loss in angling days in the river fishery at flows below the 125-175 second-foot range with any of the proposed projects. Results of this investigation point out the importance of the water development area for recreation. The outdoor recreation potential of the area is of great importance of people from large population centers. It is an important economic asset to the people of the area. Therefore, it is urged that preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife be a purpose of any water development project in the area. Recommendations The Department of Fish and Game is presently conducting studies to determine necessary protective measures for fish and wildlife. These studies include minimum pools for project reservoirs, downstream fisheries maintenance releases, fish screens and deer protective deAfices on open conduits and canals. Such necessary protective measures should be incor- porated into construction and operation plans before their final adoption by any construction agency. In planning water development in this area all possible consideration should be given to the enhancement of fish and wildlife. Public access should be guaranteed at all project reservoirs. D-48 E-i M M X W a; o :3 < w * 2 id O S H OEh P^ M Q W S h^ O Q O Q M E-i 2 O W O 1-0 s o O cd < < <: H > o cd H M C cu Q CO w >< w •a: o o W cu O < w CO cu >.-p rt CO •a e ■rH u J-> ti = C C < tH W ** iH ti cd rH rH § bO O -H PO| c o E <~^ (U tx pj r-i CO O bO-H| E CO c E 0) (U E rH ci-i u CO O ■H CU O rH x: > •H +j U E bO 0) C CO C (U cu •H J S-i o tH •H O o o o O o ^ OJ O o VO C\l a\ Ch r-t ^ rH in •l •» •N ^ ^ O cr> in ■* r-t rH CO r-\ VD m ^ in o CM ^ en CTv ^ CV^ >X) i-{ ^ ^ CO ro ^ CO o VO o CO CM ^ o in CO o o^ ^ C\J ^ CM CI in ^ cr\ O ^ CM (VI CJ^ CO in in (M CM rH m rH O in CM CM Co' CM (U ■H C CO -H o E Ol, CO ■a c o CO CO > r-\ u cu (U 2 c •H hO ■rH (U O TJ -P ■P 3 -H rH CO ■P O CO C E O -H CO rH^'-O CO CO C3^ T3 O O 3 bO O Q o cu +J -p ■rl CO CO > Sh E CU CO CT3 O fv-i in CO CO PQ C CO E +J U CO X o CM O in o cu -P 4J •H n CO o O E S cd bOT3 o Q D-49 X o o T3 rH CO m o ■p ■ c CO E CO X a\ CO o in 00 OJ CM ^ ^ VO CM ^ ^ U3 > O u o Jbi O o > o u cc cu to ■O (U CO pa CO < Eh O Eh CO •a cu to E to c o •H ■p CO tl 3 to [0 c cu u (U p. o o u CO c u o bO (U rH o -p CO CO Cm O in CM ■p to 3 o E CO (U -p 00 E-1 o 3 Eh «t * W CO O W M K E-i O H fe Q S w o o O o s z O Eh J O < w 1^ cc o < cc ^« K W W CO 0-. o P-, m o >H vc < Cl, Q W « Eh w < J EH O CO < w Eh < H w ID >>-p CO to •D E U JJ u (1) (H to rH 3 0) bO >> c C < -H ra rH !-i n) 0) tl 4^ .H lU rHi o boa-Hi Eh c to E to CD in rH rH O CO o ■ri b oo E ti J ■H bO C C ■rl •H 6 m E to s 0) •H tu p fH to u bO-Hl E p r E a> to tu cs rH 4h fH O -H to o lU £1 > r-\ P U -H hO d) E C to __3 tu c ti -H tM o to E (B x: to i-\ p ID ^ bO ^ E C P ^ to C •H rH O 2 P o (U •-^ o u cu, (U p to •p CO o o CO o CO o tDO rH en CM in 00 cr\ rH rH rH t-- o IT) CM ^ ^ ^ rH i-i (^ t3\ CO >- in in in vo I3^ a\ vo in fcl c to :3 J- . • >> t^ to ■o a> -p (0 E in co' in CO in o^ J- > o o P o > c t. to lU E to P lU t. CC CO as CO Eh / CO U ■p ■p c (U !h (U a o o rH cd pq B (4 o x: to .-p * a a o o o O T3 E ^ cy VO eX5 •H t. a\ on CM t~- ti 4J (0 m, •« ^ •t a> rH QJ ^ OJ t^ •^ rH a >> rH ^ t^ as bO in in VD c c < tH * rH m ro -* t- 1-1 fc4 (1) 00 OJ o t^ flj OJ ^ rH rH cu CO +3 rH (D -H •, •I ■t o u) a B m CV-l m E-I c OJ ID rH rH O M O O B * E-. Q) rH to CO CD ^ o « rH hO t. ^ o in ^ Q bO C -P O CO CD OJ E C O c cC * *-, r^ -^ W tQ o ^ tQ^-> CJ ^ ^ CM fcg to E !!>'«. C X: CO rH o • • • • o t^ f- CJN M M P CO tl) "H CJ CE-i bO-H Ch E^^ O H C liH -P BhO C CO M O J 3 JU Cm o o c >, Q CM •H CO^-> m CO vo o CO M E • j= cum -P rH rH O • rH rH ^ •a O bO O -H CO rH r^ H 0) O 3 C O E^ 4J ro Z O C^ CO E-i ss ^J E W < w ■P W 1^ tH rH X ta o o to 3 CO W Oh ^ rH 3rH>R +3 CVh L, ^ O en CO fO OJ iH w >' CO* C3^ m o CC a bO«-i E LP, rH rH OJ o IX w C -rl 13 — c 3 W CO d. o CO o P rH • • • J i- to t. bO-H r-^ r- CO ^ P O CO E 4J C E m m =s- c s -H o Eh -p t4 e CO 1 ta 1 o g bO CD r-K C CO C eu (D -H _ tJ ^ __ __ U CO Cm P3 O CO E 0) c £ CO rH in in in tl -P O -H ■ • ■ o bO t. E CTl t^ VD VO £ C P tn ^ -* bO CD CO C ID J -< rH O -P CO CI E CO eu CO • -a r-\ Ch o rH o •z rH •H > in i^ J2 o CM o CO ^ r-\ CD +-> o •r-3 c s o t. o o tl 3 JJ tH CO rA 0-. Eh ■rl CD O < -p o ^H Eh ID E +J -p o u O ■^-3 CO CO I BEDDED kND UliD, lURLV aUNTEO UHD GRAVEL ULT MD •UfllfEBOlBCmfEVEWvEL (E0CE1E lOPLlXEHEl V QLCANIC S VOLCANIC ROCKS AND RELATED SEDIMENTS MiEsiric. UUU.TIC. MO DHTDLinc mvi fum uud FLon. tuff ruft WECCW . KW VOLCANIC OUVEL IWOCEME TO PlEltTOCUEl BEDROCK COMPLEX METAMORPMIC ROCKS DERIVED FROM SEDlfclENTARY ROCKS ■^HUT. 1L«I(. PHTILJIE, OW"niTI, CHE". AND KMIflLt iiiLUBiAnrDiunAHiC) ULTRABASIC INTRUSIVE IGNEOUS AND UETA-ICNEOUS ROCKS UW6ELV SERPEHIIPtE BUT IMCLUDtl PERIMTnt PYROIENfTt ANDTHC jCHin (p*iE-cnn«c£Dui) SY11S0L5 CEOLOGIC COirTACI FauLT.OUHEDIKEREIIFERREO LIlBTl Of UPPtR FEATHER fllVER GAIID DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1960 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN SCALE OF MILES /^ DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES I960 PRECIPITATION STATION ■ SNOW COURSE £ STREAM GAGING STATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASlN INVESTIGATION LINES OF EQUAL MEAN SEASONAL PRECIPITATION 1905-06 THROUGH 1954-55 SCfli-t Of mil£S FEATHER RIVER AT OROVILLE f - I 100 FEATHER RIVER AT BIDWELL BAR ■ 1 1 SO. FORK FEATHER RIVER Al r ENTERPRISE 1 ll — — » 1~ it ll 1 . : T It 1 1 ._!1 1. J A, 1 FEATHER RIVER AT OROVILLE 1 ACCUMULATED DEPARTURE FROM MEAN SEASONAL NATURAL RUNOFF (MEAN PERIOD 1894-95 THROUGH 1946-47) f V \ ^ f \ ^ -f 1 \ \ -A / \ 1 V / J V >A. /^^ ^ i\ -L-l 1 1,. -1111 1 ' 1 ' -1 1 1 1 ..J_l 1 1 V 1 1 i 1 \ J' p... MIDDLE FORK FEATHER RIVER NEAR NELSON POINT 1 1^ 1 _. 1 r \\ - — t liH 1 - - - MIDDLE FORK FEATHER RIVER 1 NEAR CLIO 1 ■ - s < o o — r 1^ o z K - t ilJ I, 1 1 till liUHIIIIIIIIIII STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED NATURAL SEASONAL RUNOFF AT SELECTED STATIONS IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES I960 OlMHTytMT Of WATtR RESOURCES I>e0 cm LEGEND I PneSENTLr IflRICarEO LANOS inniGABLE LANDS UPPER FEATHER RIVER SAS'N eOUMOARY OF HTOROGRAPHIC UNIT REFERENCE NUMBERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION PRESENT AND PROBABLE ULTIMATE LAND USE SCALE or uilES ' " DEPARTMENT OF WftTER RESOURCES I960 ayTKOBIIEB PROJECTS ' PROPOSED PROJECTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION PROJECTS FOR SUPPLYING WATER TO UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN SCaLE OF MILES CEl] LAKE DEPOSITS »ND ADOIILT IFTH SURFACE UPOSUBD. LEGEND ID GRAVEL, IITM AN ORGANIC SOIL COVER OF ClAT, AND VOLCAMIC AGCLWEIUTE. NO ANDEIiriC FLOtS ANDUICFLOII - " ~"~ CEOLOCIC CONTACT -^ "" ■*- FWLT CS^-^^,. UPLOftATIOft TRENCH >K DRILL HOLE .PLAN \ RA-1 FOUNDATiONDRILLMOLE, ItCTION I }' OEOLOCIC SECTION SECTION OF DAM SCiLE OF f£ET 100 £00 CREST OF OflM ELEV 500T' SPILLWAY CUT' -/- -4___.a.-..r5:::pj;T: J I I 1 L Z-jQ 400 600 800 (000 i^OO 1400 1600 1800 LENGTH IN FEET J I L J , I : I I L 2200 2400 2600 2B0O JOOO 5200 JIOO SECTION A-A'-A" STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION SHEEP CAMP DAM ON CARMAN CREEK DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES I960 ^aM\A/ A /v/V V/Ma otsefivoiit :^m ^ — ' ^! '^•'-» e^"~~- ! 2e 3Z 3G LENGTH IN MILES PROFILE OF NELSON POINT - MEADOW VALLEY-NORTH FORK PLAN DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES I960 fc STATE OF CALIFORNIA \ DEPARTMENT OF WATER RES V~ DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANN Pom 1 UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN IN RESOURCES VESTIGATION / ALTERNATIVE MIDDLE FORK PLANS \ RICHVALE PLAN AND NELSON POINT- '— \ MEADOW VALLEY- NORTH FORK PLAN KOLE OF MILES DEPARTNEMT OF W*TER RESOURCE J w N =.,/ J ,0 A ' \w , Av ^ "^" /^n; s^' ^ J ^ ^^ m^ -^= ^^ i 1 Is m^, * te'.^ '" :'• t ^/f' •^ PROFILE OF TURNTABLE-MEADOW VALLEY- SWAYNE PLAN ,„,,,, ,,,„„„» pt* 000 ll»i=^aSTSSi7I^^--. ?^ 'W DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION ALTERNATIVE MIDDLE FORK PLANS MODIFIED RICHVALE PLAN AND TURNTABLE MEADOW VALLEY-SWAYNE PLAN TURNTABLE RES. RELATIVE TumEUNC COWmOKS «T PHOPOSEO GRADE ROCKTVPEl GOOD 1 -j lUPPORT MO URIW - UCKT IN PORTM. UO ISOUTEO »RE« MTEH-MRORUOUNT! ORAima GOOD 10 FAIR 1 1 SUPWJRI AND UNING - UGH? 10 WOERATE IN ?» OF SfTnO* lATER -WKM AHDum ICHffT.PHYUJn gUAHIZITt, LfllEITONE. IUT(,AND«T*- VOLCAma POOH J 1 SUPPORT MC LINING - HEAVY IN TA OF SEaiOH L 1 SguEEZINGOkOUIOLOCALLT t»TER»- yOOERATE AMJUNTI SERPEirTIIEARDURCO» COKOUDATEDWTERIAIJ VERY POOR ^^^^B lUPPOHT AM) UNING- HEAVY ^^^1 IQUEEIOK AND RUNNING CIWUKI lATER-LARGEAMlUHn AILROCRTYPEI «WU.TBlFAUin«« FAULT ZWEI. STATE OF CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION ALTERNATIVE MIDDLE FORK PLANS TUNNELING CONDITIONS • CALC OP MILia DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES I960 SECTION A-A'-A" CHEST ELEV 151 0' NIMUM POOL^ELEV 1427' Miii Mn^w^-jfi^^ u.2o'iM\':Mii-;iiT-iii\.-';ii-)(ikf;ng/jfOiiiv -7--/i i \^-un--iiiiy m i i i if~fTv^ ^ £*COVOflO/> Lir MAXIMUM SECTION SCALE OF CEET I °-' I ED FLUVIOGLACIAL DEPOSITS GL/CIAL OUTWASH-PODRLV CRAQED ANO UNCONIOLIOMEO SILT, UNO, GRAVEL. *KD80ULDtfli LAKE SEDIMEHTS iUQHTLV COHSOLIOATEO LACmtRINE (1LT ANO CLA* IIIH ICAmRtO LEWEJOFWNO ANOOfWVEL OEOLOCIC CONTACT fAULT CEO LOGIC SECTION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASiN INVESTIGATION CLIO DAM ON MIDDLE FORK FEATHER RIVER DEPiRTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES I960 -" Natural Ground GENERAL PLAN 200 «00 600 800 lOOO iZOO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 3-100 2600 2800 SOOO LENGTH IN FEET SECTION A-A' Natural &round PROFILE OF SPILLWAY SCflJ.£ 0*= FEET 50 100 HOHMflL POOL ELEV. 2330' L ElEw 2095 SECTION OF DAM [IT] _•-- GtOLDCIC CONTACT - _ -^ FAULT rvrov^ 5HEAR -•- JOINT, tINGLE <^ JOINT, UULTIPLE STIIEM >W SPRING • LA.1 FOUHOATION DRILL HOLE, VERTICAL *^ ' FOUNDATIDM IffllLL MOLE, INEIINED VLA-I FOUNOnnONORILlWlEISeCTWNI i GEOLOGIC iECTION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION SWAYNE DAM ON FRENCH CREEK OEPAPTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES I960 PROFILE OF DIVERSION DAM THROUGH GATE GENERAL PLAN SCiLE OF F(£T /Vofuro/ Crotj/7 ■ '■ A\ SECTION OF DAM I Qii I *U.OVJUM I I !l.l«>E0.DEE»LTHArraitED«WMtlri[KIOIIE STUBOLS "^ SEOIOCIC WKTACT 'TC«Nva iHEAJt. bmnmo fmd omti hole ut* • •^*'' rOUKUTKHIMIUIIOLE.VEIIIKtLAIlDIMLIIICll _«Sj° nitiKf ikkD Dir or folutim •J*"' 10I«»IICI10«IU,WU (SECTIOHl STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER- RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION TURNTABLE DAM ON MIDDLE FORK FEATHER RIVER DePARTNCNT OF WATCH RESOUHCES l»«0 STATE OF CALIF DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF BESOUHCES PLANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION MEADOW VALLEY DAM ON SPANISH CREEK OEPABTMEUT OF WATER RESOURCES 1959 OEPABTMENT OF WATER flCSOURCES i960 Natural G^vana b ( < 1,1,1 GENERAL PLAN A MDO SPllL«r Cut-WEIB tLEV SW ,1,1,1 imo \^ s«oo 1.1,1. . 1 Qol 1 1 , llHOLf ISECTIOWl •00 eoo :ooo iioo 2*00 zeoo SOOO )200 STATE OP CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES P1_ANNING UPPER FEATHER RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATION GENESEE DAM ON INDIAN CREEK I.EMOTH IN FEET SECTION A-A'-A" pcnitrKNT or »*t[ii ttuoutcti ib«o THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL JAN MAR 1 1972 MAR 8 REC'D JUN i 1984 JUN 1 -.i 1984 ^BRARY ^/lAY2 7RKD DU 9 1931 JUN 1 7 REC'D FEB 2 3 1978 .IAN 8 1979 LIBlJARy, UIJIIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Book Slip-20in-8,'61 (0162384)458 JUN 3 1992 197? 05C -7 199lRtC'fl RECEIVED OEC09 1991 Call Number: _ 2hoLe^ TC82I1 ■ ] California ♦ Dept, of water resources. Rllllpt.-in. C2 I A2 1 _al)Srorirvi^ PHYSICAL SCIENCES ' LIBRARY cz 1 LIBRARY UNTVKRSITY OF CALIFORNIA 'I. ' IS 240485 k fc^,