ffiOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 85

December 1950

SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA

By 

F. A. Johnson
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

W. E. Wrather, Director

WASHINGTON, D. C.
SOME RESERVOIR SITES IN THE SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA

Introduction...............................................

feather River drainage basin........................

Greenville (Indian Valley) reservoir site,

Indian Creek..........................................

American Valley reservoir site, Spanish

Creek...................................................

Grizzly Valley reservoir site, Grizzly

Creek...................................................

Clio reservoir site, Middle Fork Feather

River...................................................

Nelson Point reservoir site, Middle Fork

Feather River........................................

Bidwell Bar reservoir site, Middle Fork

Feather River..,..,..,...,,.....,........,..,......,,

Big Bend reservoir site, North Fork

Feather River....,..,....,...,,...,,.......,.,..,.,..

Oroville reservoir site, Feather River...,.,,. 

Little Grass Valley reservoir site, South

Fork Feather River................................

Lost-Sly Creek reservoir site. Lost Creek.. 

Yuba River drainage basin............................

Narrows Reservoir site, Yuba River...........

New Bullards Bar Reservoir site, North

Fork Yuba River....................................

Jackson Meadows reservoir site, Middle

Fork Yuba River....................................

Cisco reservoir site, South Fork Yuba

River...................................................

New York Flat reservoir site, 'New York

Flat Creek............................................

Virginia Ranch reservoir sitej Dry Creek....

By 

F. A. Johnson

CONTENTS

Page 

3 

3

8

9

11

11

11

11

12

13

14

14

15

Page 

Bear River drainage basin............................ 15

Rollins reservoir site, Bear River.............. 15

Garden Bar reservoir site, Bear River........ 16

Waldo reservoir site, Dry Creek (Bear River

drainage)............................................... 16

American River drainage basin...................... 17

French Meadows reservoir site, Middle

Fork American River.............................. 17

Rock Bound diversion and Buck Island Lake

reservoir sites, Rubicon River drainage

basin.................................................... 18

Loon Lake Reservoir site, Gerle Creek........ 19

Gerle Creek reservoir site, Gerle Creek,..,. 20 

Upper and Lower Hell Hole and Parsley Bar

reservoir sites, Rubicon River,,,...,..,.,,,.., 21 

Union Valley reservoir site, Silver Creek,,,, 22 

Icehouse reservoir site. South Fork Silver

Creek.............................................,.,.,. 22

Junction reservoir site, Silver Creek........... 23

Auburn and Oregon Bar reservoir sites,

North Fork American River...................... 23

Coloma and Webber Creek (Salmon Falls)

reservoir sites, South Fork American

River.................................... ................ 24

Folsom reservoir site, American River..... 25

Cosumnes River drainage basin..................... 26

Nashville reservoir site, Cosumnes River.... 26

Sly Park and other reservoir sites, Sly Park

Creek, Clear Creek, and Cosumnes River.. 27

ILLUSTRATION

Figure 1. Location map showing reservoir sites in the Sierra Nevada, Calif.

Page 

2
40

0

120"

	DAM SITES

2. American Valley

3. Grizzly VeMey

4. Clio 5. Upper Nelson Point

6. Lower Nelson Point

7. BidwellBer

8. BicBend

9. Qroville

10. Little Grass Valley

11. Lost-Sly

2. Narrows

3. New Bullards Bar

4. Jackson Meadows

5. Cisco

6. New York Flat

,7. Virginia Ranch

18. Roffins

19. Garden Bar

20. Waldo 21. French Meadows

22. Rubicon Diversion

23. Rock Bound Lake

24. Buck Island Lake

25. Loon Lake

26. Qerle Creek

27. Upper Hell Hole

28. Lower Hell Hole

	Parsley Bar 

. Union Valley

1. Ice House

2. Junction

3. Auburn

<. Oregon Bar

! . Coloma i . Salmon Falls

	Folsom 	Nashville

yP.rk 

lasant w . . 

jhlgan Bar

asant Valley
INTRODUCTION

The following summary reports were prepared to 

provide the basis for the review of the classification 

of public lands within a group of reservoir sites, most 

of which were mapped recently by the Bureau of Reclamation. These sites are in foothill and headwater areas 

of several streams from the Feather River to the Cosumnes River, California.

The reports give brief summaries of proposals for 

use of the sites and information that is readily available as to potential storage capacities, water supplies, 

and power and irrigation possibilities. Recent applications to the State of California for appropriation of waters at several of the sites are listed.

These reports were prepared in the Water and Power 

Branch of the Conservation Division of the Geological 

Survey under the direction of H. J. Duncan, chief of 

the division, and B. E. Jones, chief of the branch. 

The Sacramento regional office of the Bureau of Reclamation; the Sacramento district office, Corps of Engineers; the San Francisco regional office, Federal 

Power Commission; and the Division of Water Resources, State of California, contributed reviews of 

material referring to the investigations and conclusions 

of the several agencies. Copies of reservoir-site maps 

were furnished by the Bureau of Reclamation and the 

Corps of Engineers, and information about current investigations was furnished by all the agencies. Thanks 

are due to the San Francisco office, Geological Survey, 

for reviewing the material relating to gaging stations 

and the records of runoff.

Many helpful suggestions were contributed by engineers of the Water and Power Branch in the preparation 

of these reports.

FEATHER RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN 

Greenville (Indian Valley) reservoir site, Indian Creek

This site is between the altitudes of 3, 450 and 3, 600 

feet along Indian Creek, a tributary of the East Branch 

of the North Fork Feather River. The dam site now 

under consideration is approximately in the east half 

of sec. 34, T. 26 N., R. 9 E., Mount Diablo base line 

and meridian, ij The proposed reservoir would flood 

more than 20 square miles of land, including several 

small towns, a railroad, and highways.

The site was described by F. E. Bonner in his report on "Water powers of California" (1928). The potential storage capacity was listed as 688,000 acrefeet with a 120-foot dam. It was pointed out that 500 

feet of head could be developed by 3 miles of tunnel 

immediately below the dam. The controlled flow, plus 

the unregulated runoff of Spanish Creek, could then be 

diverted from Indian Creek through an 8-mile tunnel to 

the afterbay of the Caribou powerhouse on the North 

Fork Feather River for utilization in downstream 

plants. The maximum-flowage line was .shown as 3, 570 

feet, and the altitude of the stream bed as 3, 450 feet.

1 The same base line and meridian apply to all land 

descriptions herein*

Bonner did not list this project in his summation of potential powers of the Feather River because of uncertainty as to feasibility.

The Division of Water Resources, State of California, investigated the Greenville (Indian Valley) site, 

but it was not included in the State water plan as described in State Bulletin 26. According to the State investigators, a dam 140 feet high, the maximum considered, would flood 13, 250 acres of land and create a 

reservoir capacity of 688.000 acre-feet. This is the 

same potential capacity listed by Bonner. It was estimated that the annual irrigation yield of the Feather 

River at Oroville would be increased nearly 500, 000 

acre-feet by the Greenville reservoir with a capacity 

of 688, 000 acre-feet. (In a State review of a Bureau of 

Reclamation proposal for the Greenville site, it was 

mentioned that the site was first investigated by the 

U. S. Reclamation Service in 1905 and has been studied 

by the California Debris Commission and the Federal 

Power Commission.)

The Bureau of Reclamation listed the Greenville Reservoir as a major prospective reservoir in the plan for 

development of the Central Valley as described in the 

Department of the Interior report of November 1945. 

(This report, and reviews by State and Federal agencies, were published as Senate Document 113, 81st 

Congress, 1st session.) The potential capacity was 

listed as 833, 000 acre-feet; the dead storage as 80, 000 

acre-feet; the maximum-flowage line as 3, 590 feet; and 

the altitude of the stream bed as 3,440 feet. It was 

pointed out that the reservoir would be valuable for 

holding water from wet periods to dry periods and that 

releases would increase the power output in prospective 

single-purpose developments on the North Fork Feather 

River.

The State of California, commenting on the Bureau 

of Reclamation proposal in a review dated April 1946, 

concluded that the project is feasible from an engineering standpoint but that indicated data are not available 

to permit comment on the economic feasibility. The 

cost estimate ($8,500,000 for dam and reservoir, 

based on January 1940 prices) was judged to be low.

The Federal Power Commission, San Francisco office, commenting on the power feature of the Bureau 

proposal, concluded that the project probably is economically feasible but that considerable further investigation is needed. The potential power revenues were 

considered as being limited to those resulting from additional energy and capacity that could be produced at 

proposed plants 4, 5, and 6 of the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. on the North Fork Feather River because of 

better regulation. The annual irrigation yield was estimated as 144, 000 acre-feet. It was pointed out that 

flowage costs, estimated as $4,800,000, constitute a 

serious drawback to the construction of this reservoir 

(report, not for release, dated January 1946).

A gaging station, Indian Creek near Crescent 

Mills, was operated at the lower end of the site from 

January 1906 to December 1909 and from September 

1911 to March 1918. It has also been in operation from 

October 1930 to date. The average discharge for 24 

years of complete record to September 30, 1945, was 

534 second-feet. This corresponds to a mean annual 

runoff of 385, 000 acre-feet. The average annual runoff for the 6 water years 1929-34 was about 150,000 

acre-feet (partly estimated). There are some irriga-
In view of the low period 1929-34, it seems unlikely 

that the dependable irrigation yield of the Feather River could be increased nearly 500,000 acre-feet per 

year by the Greenville reservoir, as was estimated by 

the State investigators. The contemplated capacities 

of 688, 000 acre-feet or 833, 000 acre-feet are more 

than would be needed for independent regulation of Indian Creek runoff in a critical period like that from 

1929 to 1934. Evidently it is planned to use this reservoir for stand-by purposes and for coordinated operation with other Feather River reservoirs. The releases with such operation probably would be too irregular to justify development of power from Indian Creek 

water directly, as was contemplated by Bonner.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

Greenville site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) 

showing the topography generally to an altitude of 3, 600 

feet. An assembled edition of the map is printed on a 

scale of 1:24,000, and the contour interval is 10 feet. 

The NW. corner of sec. 1 and the NE. corner of sec. 

24, T. 26 N., R. 9 E.; the SW. corner of sec. 15, the 

SE. corner of sec. 14, and the NW. corner of sec. 4, 

T. 26 N., R. 10 E., are shown as having been found. 

Corners of the quarter sections at the W. boundary of 

sec. 28, the N. boundary of sec. 2, and the S. boundary of sec. 4, T. 26 N., R. 10 E., also are shown as 

found. For the purpose of listing land status, approximate locations in the reservoir area were determined 

by reference to these corners and the land net shown on 

a 1938 map of Plumas National Forest. The land net 

and topography as shown on this- map match the found 

corners and topography of the reservoir-site map reasonably well.

The potential maximum-flowage line was assumed to 

be at the 3, 600-foot contour, and tentative land classifications were made accordingly.

American Valley reservoir site, Spanish Creek

The American Valley reservoir site is between the 

altitudes of 3, 380 and 3, 640 feet along Spanish Creek, 

a tributary of the East Branch of the North Fork Feather River. The dam site under consideration is in the 

north half of sec. 6, T. 24 N., R. 10 E. A saddle dam 

would be required in sec. 35, T. 25 N., R. 9 E., for 

storage above an altitude of 3, 440 feet.

The reservoir site covers a relatively broad area 

near the confluence of Spanish Creek and its tributary 

Spring Garden Creek (called Greenhorn Creek on the 

Forest Service map of Plumas National Forest). The 

site is crossed by a State highway and by tracks of the 

Western Pacific Railroad. The town of Quincy, county 

seat of Plumas County, is within the site between the 

altitudes of 3, 410 and 3, 500 feet.

F. E. Bonner, in "Water powers of California" 

(1928), reported that there are no favorable opportunities for power development on Spanish Creek, and he 

did not list any storage sites on this stream. In connection with possibilities for power development along 

the East Branch of the North Fork, he called attention 

to the fact that the Western Pacific Railroad in that 

canyon has a uniform, compensated gradient of 1 percent, the controlling maximum, and that, therefore, it 

could not be adjusted. In approximately 9 miles, up 

Spanish Creek to American Valley, the railroad climbs

420 feet to an altitude of 3, SOD feet at the dam site, 

and 3 miles farther, near the upper end of the reservoir site, the railroad is above an altitude of 3, 650 

feet. The contemplated maximum-flowage line at the 

American Valley site apparently is at 3, 640 feet.

The American Valley site was listed in Bulletin 26 

of the State Division of Water Resources as a possible 

unit in the State water plan for maximum utilization of 

water resources. This bulletin also listed a site upstream on Spanish Creek, in sec. 13, T. 24 N., R. 8E.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

American Valley reservoir site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) showing the topography generally to 

an altitude of 3, 640 feet and higher at the two dam 

sites. An. assembled edition of the map was printed on 

a scale of 1:24,000, and the contour interval is 10 feet. 

The apparent location of the main dam site on Spanish 

Creek is in the NWi sec. 6, T. 24 N., R. 10 E. The 

altitude of the stream in this section is 3, 380 feet. 

The width of the canyon at an altitude of 3, 640 feet is 

1, 100 feet. A saddle dam would be required in the 

north half of sec. 35, T. 25 N., R. 9 E. The width of 

the gap at an altitude of 3, 640 feet is 2, 000 feet, and 

the altitude on the ground at the top of the saddle apparently is less than 3, 450 feet. (It is shown as above the 

3, 500-foot contour on the Geological Survey map of the 

Downieville quadrangle.) The saddle is crossed by 

highways and a railroad line.

Rough determinations from the Bureau map indicate 

that areas flooded on the reservoir site would be as 

follows: 1, 070 acres at 3, 400 feet; 4, 000 acres at 3, 450 

feet; and 6, 160 acres at 3, 500 feet. Additional flooded 

area above 3, 500 feet would be relatively small. It appears from these figures that the potential capacity below an altitude of 3, 400 feet probably is less than 

10, 000 acre-feet. The potential capacity between the 

altitudes of 3, 400 and 3, 450 feet may be more than 

100, 000 acre-feet, and between 3, 450 and 3, 500 feet 

more than 200, 000 acre-feet. The town of Quincy would 

be largely flooded at an altitude of 3, 430 feet.

Discharge records have been obtained, since 1913, 

for Spanish Creek near Keddie, a few miles downstream 

from the American Valley site. The gage was moved 

in 1933; the drainage area at the original gage was 196 

square miles, and at the present gage it is 184 square 

miles. The average discharge for the 12 years 1933-45 

was 260 second-feet, corresponding to an average of 

188, 000 acre-feet per year. The dependable yield of 

Spanish Creek might be limited by critical periods such 

as that from 1929 to 1934, when the average annual 

runoff for the 6 years was only 96, 000 acre-feet. It is 

judged that a storage capacity of 150, 000 acre-feet 

would provide for substantial regulation through such 

periods. If a much larger capacity is contemplated, it 

perhaps would be for stand-by purposes so as to provide 

for heavy release in very dry years.

In listing the status of lands and tentative classifications based on the Bureau of Reclamation map, it was 

assumed that the entire area to an altitude of 3, 640 

feet might be utilized, fa view of the probable high 

cost of highway, town, and railroad relocations this 

possibility seems very doubtful. A substantial storage 

capacity could be developed below an altitude of 3, 450 

feet, probably without relocation of the main-line railroad and with only a small saddle dam in sec. 35, T. 25
N., RT 9 E. However, a reservoir with a capacity of 

much more than 20, 000 acre-feet would flood the main 

business section of Quincy.

No land lines were shown on the .reservoir-site map. 

The SE. corner of sec. 1, T. 24 N., R. 9 E.; the SW. 

corner of sec. 15, T. 24 N., R. 10 E.; the SE. corner 

of sec. 11 and the SE. corner of sec. 12, T. 24 N., 

R. 8 E., are shown as found. Locations of lands in 

the area were approximately determined by reference 

to the found corners and the land net shown on the 

Forest Service map of Plumas National Forest.

Grizzly Valley reservoir site. Grizzly Creek

The Grizzly Valley reservoir site is between the altitudes of 5, 640 and 5, 800 feet along Grizzly Creek, a 

tributary of the Middle Fork Feather River. The dam 

site now under consideration is near the south boundary 

of sec. 1, T. 23 N., R. 13 E. There is another possible site for a low dam in the NE^ sec. 2, at a stream 

altitude of 5, 710.

F. E. Bonner, in "Water powers of California" 

(1928), suggested this site for the storage of 92,000 

acre-feet for power purposes. Storage was shown on 

the profile as between the altitudes of 5, 595 feet and 

5, 708 feet. An additional storage capacity of 130, 000 

acre-feet at the proposed Clio reservoir and 116, 000 

acre-feet at the proposed Nelson Point reservoir on 

the Middle Fork Feather River would provide for substantial control of the runoff. Power would be devel* 

oped in six stages from a headwater altitude of 4, 030 

feet at Nelson Point to a stream altitude of 160 feet on 

Feather River.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

reservoir site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) 

showing the topography generally to an altitude of 5, 800 

feet and, at the lower dam site, to an altitude of 5, 960 

feet. An assembled edition of the map is printed on a 

scale of 1:12, 000, and the contour interval is 10 feet.

The Geological Survey obtained discharge records of 

Grizzly Creek below the reservoir site for the water 

years 1926-32. The gage was in the NE± sec. 12, T. 

23 N., R. 13 E., at an altitude of about 5, 500 feet. It 

was described as being 1? miles below the Grizzly Valley reservoir site. This would point to a dam site near 

the north boundary of the township. Judging from & 

map of the site obtained by the Bureau of Reclamation 

in 1946, the topography is favorable for a dam at this 

location to an altitude of 5, 750 feet and possibly, with 

a long saddle dam, to 5, 770 feet. The stream bed is at 

an altitude of about 5, 710 feet, but water at an altitude 

of 5, 750 feet would cover a considerable area upstream. 

The Bureau map shows a possible dam site near the 

south boundary of sec. 1, T. 23 N., R. 13 E., where 

the topography is favorable for storage to an altitude of 

5, 800 feet, the top contour of the reservoir-site map. 

The stream altitude at this section is 5, 640 feet. (If 

the Bureau map is correct, it appears that Bonner"s 

altitudes for the proposed reservoir are possibly 50 

feet too low.)

A Grizzly Valley site was listed in Bulletin 26 of the 

State Division of Water Resources as a possible unit in 

the State water plan for maximum utilization of water 

resources, The location was given as sec. 2, T. 23 

N., R. 13 E.

As roughly determined from the reservoir-site map, 

the areas enclosed by the 5, 800-, 5, 770-, 5, 750-, and 

5, 720-foot contours are 6, 500, 3, 600, 1, 400, and 160 

acres, respectively. It is judged that the potential capacity at a pool altitude of 5, 800 feet would be more 

than 200, 000 acre-feet.

The drainage area at the former gaging station was 

listed as 45 square miles. The average annual runoff 

from 1926 to 1932 was about 20,000 acre-feet. Runoff 

in the water year 1931 was only 5, 600 acre-feet, and 

in 1929 only 6, 700 acre-feet. The greatest runoff was 

38, 600 acre-feet in 1927.

Since there appear to be no favorable possibilities 

for diversions into the site from other sources, it is 

judged that the full potential capacity to an altitude of 

5, 800 feet could not be used advantageously even with 

long hold-over operation. It seems likely that adequate 

regulation of the small Grizzly Creek runoff could be 

obtained in the prospective Clio reservoir if this proves 

feasible.

Status of lands and tentative classifications were 

based on the Bureau of Reclamation map, with an assumed flowage line at 5,800 feet and with a dam site 

near the south boundary of section 1. The SW. corner 

of sec. 19 and the NE. corner of sec. 20, T. 24 N., 

R. 13 E.; and the quarter-section corner at the W. 

boundary of sec. 2, T. 23 N., R. 13 E., were shown 

on the reservoir-site map as found corners. The approximate location of lands was determined on the basis 

of the location of these corners and the land net shown 

on a topographic map of the Plumas National Forest 

published in 1938.

Clio reservoir site, Middle Fork Feather River

The Clio reservoir site is between the altitudes of 

4, 370 feet and 4, 540 feet along the Middle Fork Feather 

River, The dam site is in the north half of sec. 26, T, 

22 N., R. 12 E. The site includes the town of Clio and 

is crossed by a State highway.

F. E. Bonner, in 'Water powers of California" 

(1928), listed the Clio site as having a potential storage 

capacity of 130, 000 acre-feet between the altitudes of 

4, 358 feet and 4, 500 feet. He reported that with the 

proposed Grizzly Valley and Nelson Point reservoirs 

this would provide substantial control for cyclic .regulation of the upper Middle Fork for power development 

downstream from Nelson Point.

The Clio reservoir site was listed in Bulletin 26 of 

the State Division of Water Resources as a possible 

unit in the State water plan for maximum utilization of 

water resources.

A map of the site obtained by the Bureau of Reclamation (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, 1946) shows the topography to an altitude of 4, 540 feet. An assembled edition is on a scale of 1:12, 000, and the contour interval 

is 10 feet. The 4, 540-foot contour is just below the 

grade of the Western Pacific Railroad at the dam site. 

At an altitude of 4, 540 feet the valley width at the dam 

site is 4, 400 feet. The width at an altitude of 4, 500 

feet is 2, 200 feet, The altitude of the stream at the 

dam site is shown as 4, 370 feet.
Reservoir areas and capacities, roughly determined 

from the Bureau of Reclamation map, are as follows:

Altitude 

(feet)

4,370 

4,400 

4,450 

4,500 

4,540

Area 

(acres)

0 

250 

1,200 

2,500 

3,400

Capacity 

(acre-feet)

0 

3,000 

40, 000 

130,000 

240, 000

A gaging station has been operated on the Middle 

Fork in sec. 23, T. 22 N., R. 12 E., just below the 

dam site, since 1925. The drainage area is 699 square 

miles at this place. The average discharge for the 20 

years ending September 30, 1945, was 257 secondfeet, corresponding to an average annual runoff of 

185, 000 acre-feet. The dependable yield perhaps would 

be limited by critical periods such as the six water 

years 1929-34, when the average annual runoff was 

only 95, 000 acre-feet. It is judged that a storage capacity of 130, 000 acre-feet might be sufficient for cyclic operation through similar periods.

For the listing of land status and tentative classifications it was assumed that the maximum-flowage line 

might be at an altitude of 4, 540 feet. The Bureau of 

Reclamation map of the reservoir sites does not show 

land lines or found corners. Most of the site is shown 

on a recent planimetric map of the Sierra City quadrangle made by the Forest Service. The location of 

lands on the reservoir-site map was approximately determined by reference to the land net shown on the 

Forest Service map, as related to topographic features.

Nelson Point reservoir site, Middle Fork 

Feather Rive"r

There are at least two possible sites for storage along the Middle Fork Feather River near Nelson Point. 

One lies between the altitudes of 3, 720 and 4, 050 feet, 

and the other between the altitudes of 3, 800 feet and 

4, 050 feet. The lower dam site is in the SE£ sec. 13, 

T. 23 N., R. 9 E., and the upper dam site is in the 

west half of sec. 16, T. 23 N., R. 10 E. These reservoir sites are at the upper end of the Middle Fork canyon and include very little bottom land; mostly it is a 

V-shaped canyon.

The upper Nelson Point site was listed in Bulletin 

26 of the State Division of Water Resources as a possible unit in the State water plan for maximum utilization of water resources. The location was given as 

sec. 16, T. 23 N., R. 10 E. This bulletin also listed 

a possible Bald Rock reservoir site downstream on the 

Middle Fork. The location was not stated, but the 

drainage area was listed as 1, 113 square miles, or 

208 more than at Nelson Point.

F. E. Bonner, in "Water powers of California" 

(1928), listed the Nelson Point site as having a potential storage capacity of 116, 000 acre-feet between the 

altitudes of 3, 700 feet and 4, 030 feet. He noted the altitude of the Western Pacific Railroad at the Spring 

Garden tunnel near the upper end of the site as 4, 043 

feet. Western Pacifi^ datum. The reservoir was to be 

operated for power regulation in connection with the 

proposed Clio, Grizzly Valley, and Gold Lake reservoirs upstream. Power would be developed in six 

stages from Nelson Point downstream to an altitude of 

160 feet on the main Feather River. The average usable flow at the Nelson Point site was estimated as 590 

second-feet.

A map of the site obtained by the Bureau of Reclamation (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) shows the 

topography to an altitude of 4, 050 feet throughout and 

to 4, 400 feet at two possible dam sites. The width of 

the canyon at an altitude of 4, 050 feet Is about 800 feet 

at the lower site and 650 feet at the upper site. The 

Western Pacific Railroad is shown as adjacent to the 

site through sec. 8, T. 23 N., R. HE., just above 

the 4, 050-foot contour.

Reservoir areas and capacities, roughly determined 

from the Bureau of Reclamation map, are as follows:

Altitude

(feet)

3,720

3,800

3,850

3,900

3,950

4,000

4,050

Lower site

Area

(acres)

0

90

165

340

590

920

1,330

Capacity

(acre-feet)

0

3,000

9,000

20, 000

45, 000

80, 000

140,000

Upper site

Area

(acres)

0

0

30

150

350

625

960

Capacity

(acre-feet)

0

0

1,000

5,000

17,000

50, 000

90, 000

Discharge records were obtained at a station near 

Nelson Point, from December 1923 to September 1932, 

about at the location of the upper dam site mentioned 

herein. Records also have been obtained since December 1940 at a station below Sloat, approximately at the 

upper end of the proposed Nelson Point reservoir site. 

The drainage area at the former gage was listed as 

898 square miles; that at the present gage as 835 square 

miles.

Comparison of these discharge records with the record for the Middle Fork Feather River at Clio indicates 

that the runoff is proportionately much greater downstream from Clio. The drainage area at the former 

Nelsqn Point gage is only 30 percent more than at Clio, 

but the runoff was more than twice as much in the period of overlapping records from 1926 to 1932. During 

the three water years 1926, 1929, and 1931, when precipitation was low, the runoff near Nelson Point was 

more than three times that at Clio.

The average runoff at Nelson Point may be estimated 

on the basis of the relation between the runoff of the 

Middle Fork at Nelson Point and downstream at Bidwell 

Bar during 9 years of overlapping records. This relation, applied to the Bidwell Bar record for the 34 water 

years 1912-45, indicates that the corresponding average 

runoff at Nelson Point was 435, 000 acre-feet per year, 

equivalent to a mean flow of 600 second-feet. It is 

judged that the average was about the same for the period of 20 years ending September 30, 1945, during which 

the mean discharge at Clio was recorded as 257 secondfeet. The mean inflow between Clio and -Nelson Point, 

therefore, was about 343 second-feet, equivalent to an 

'average of 249,000 acre-feet per year.

On the same basis, it is estimated that the average 

discharge near Nelson Point for the six water ears
1929-34 was 345 second-feet, when the average at Clio 

was recorded as 130 second-feet. The corresponding 

inflow below the Clio reservoir site thus was about 215 

second-feet, or an average of 156,000 acre-feet per 

year. The total potential capacity at the Nelson Point 

site, 140, 000 acre-feet, probably would not be sufficient for complete regulation of the Clio-Nelson Point 

runoff in a critical period such as that from 1929 to 

1934. With annual-use operation, the potential capacity 

probably would be sufficient for equalization of the &tHt 

Clio-Nelson Point runoff in a year of average flow.

Lists of land status and tentative classifications were 

based on the Bureau of Reclamation map, with an assumed flood line at an altitude of 4, 050 feet and a dam 

at the lower site. No land lines nor found corners 

were shown on the Bureau map. The location of lands 

on this map was approximately determined by reference to the land net shown on a topographic map of 

Plumas National Forest published in 1938.

Bidwell Bar reservoir site. Middle Fork 

Feather River

Several proposals have been made for the storage of 

water on the Middle Fork Feather River with a dam 

near Bidwell Bar at a stream altitude of about 310 feet. 

Headwater altitudes as high as 1,040 feet have been 

contemplated. The dam site for recent proposals is in 

the east half of sec. 32, T. 20 N., R. 5E., half a 

mile downstream from the junction of the South Fork 

with the Middle and 2 miles upstream from the mouth 

of the Middle Fork.

The Bidwell Bar site was listed in Bulletin 26 of the 

State Division of Water Resources as a possible unit in 

the State water plan for maximum utilization of water 

resources. The location was given as in sec. 32, T. 

20 N., R. 5 E. However, the large Oroville reservoir, 

as proposed in that bulletin and in subsequent State 

recommendations, would flood the Bidwell Bar site.

F. E. Bonner, in his report on "Water powers of 

California" (1928), described a tentative plan for a 

reservoir at the Bidwell Bar site with a 280-foot dam 

just above the confluence of the Middle and North 

Forks. The maximum-flowage line was listed as at 

580 feet; the tailrace altitude as 300 feet; and the 

storage capacity as 60, 000 acre-feet. It was proposed 

to construct a power plant with an installed capacity of 

40,000 kilowatts. The average output was estimated as 

15, 356 kilowatts, with an estimated average flow of 

1,050 second-feet. The over-all plan for power development on the Middle Fork called for considerable 

storage regulation upstream at the proposed Nelson 

Point, Clio, and Grizzly Valley reservoirs.

The Bureau of Reclamation, in the Department of the 

Interior report on water-resources development of the 

Central Valley basin (November 1945), proposed the 

construction of a 679-foot dam at the Bidwell Bar site 

to create a storage capacity of 1, 200, 000 acre-feet, 

including 140, 000 acre-feet of dead storage. The altitude of the stream bed was listed as 310 feet; the 

maximum-flowage line as at 979 feet; and the deadstorage line as at 646 feet. This large project was to 

be constructed with a similar large reservoir at the 

Big Bend site on the North Fork Feather River (estimated active capacity, 908,000 acre-feet) to provide

considerable regulation in the lower Feather River basin for irrigation, flood control, power, and other purposes. Power would be developed at both the main 

dams and at two afterbay dams on Feather River downstream from the confluence of the Middle and North 

Forks. It was planned to export surplus water to the 

San Joaquin Valley. The Bidwell Bar and Big Bend projects, being in the reservoir area of the proposed Oroville reservoir on the Feather I Iver (State water plan) 

are alternative to that project and would serve substantially the same function.

The Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers, prepared a xeport on comprehensive flood control of the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin basin streams (February 

1945). This report was brought up to date by means of 

a supplement June 1, 1948. The report included proposals for the Bidwell Bar reservoir that were substantially the same as those of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The proposed Bidwell Bar reservoir and an afterbay 

were also reported on by the Corps of Engineers in 

House Document 649, 78th Congress, 2nd session. 

Both reports suggested a capacity of 1, 200, 000 acrefeet at Bidwell Bar. The flood-control report suggested 

a maximum flood-control reservation of 190, 000 acrefeet. The new irrigation yield was estimated at 500, 000 

acre-feet per year. The first cost of the Bidwell Bar 

dam, reservoir, and power plant was given as 

$ 111, 571, 000 on the basis of May 1948 prices. It may 

be noted that this agrees closely with an estimate of 

the cost of the Bidwell Bar project, capacity 1, 250, 000 

acre-feet, as listed in the office report of the State 

Division of Water Resources, dated August 1949 and 

based on April 1949 prices.

The State of California commented on both the Bureau 

and Army proposals for the Bidwell Bar and Big Bend 

projects in reviews dated April 1946. It was concluded 

that further investigations should be made, including 

consideration of the alternative Oroville site. On the 

basis of further investigations made by the State and 

the interested Federal agencies, the State issued a report in August 1949 giving a detailed comparison of the 

several sites. The study included consideration of 

dams at the Bidwell Bar site as high as 730 feet above 

stream bed, with a corresponding reservoir capacity 

of 1, 700,000 acre-feet. From this analysis it was concluded that major storage capacity on the Feather River can be most feasibly and economically provided at 

the Oroville site. In October 1949 a joint statement 

was issued by officials of the State of California, Bureau of Reclamation, and Corps of Engineers verifying 

this general conclusion and recommending that further 

studies be made of the proposed Oroville project. According to the State report, a large storage capacity 

at the Bidwell Bar site would be much cheaper than the 

same capacity at the Oroville site, mainly because of 

lesser flowage costs. However, the Bidwell Bar reservoir alone would not be adequate for control of the 

Feather River without an extremely large diversion 

from the North Fork to the Middle Fork.

The Bidwell Bar site is partly covered by a plan and 

profile of the Middle Fork Feather River prepared by 

the Geological Survey in 1912. The scale is 1:31, 680, 

and the contour interval 100 feet on land and 5 feet on 

the water. The topography is shown from 100 to 400 

feet above the water surface. The map was published 

in the report of the State Water Commission of California for 1912.
8

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

Bidwell Bar reservoir site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, 

May 1946) showing the topography generally* to an altitude of 1,050 feet and higher in the dam-site area, An 

assembled edition of this map is on a scale of 

1:24, 000, and the contour interval is 10 feet, In addition, topographic maps of quadrangles in this region 

are being prepared on a scale of 1:24,000, with a contour interval of 25 feet,

A gaging station has been operated on the Middle 

Fork at Bidwell Bar since October 1911. The average 

discharge for 34 years, to 1945, was 1,807 secondfeet, corresponding to an average annual runoff of 

1, 310, 000 acre-feet. The average annual runoff for 

the six water years 1929-34 was 775,000 acre-feet. 

There are relatively small irrigation diversions upstream. The potential effective storage capacity on the 

upper Middle Fork is estimated as 140, 000 acre-feet 

at the Nelson Point site and 130, 000 acre-feet at the 

Clio site.

Areas and potential capacities at the Bidwell Bar 

site, as determined by the Bureau of Reclamation, are 

listed in the following condensed table. The figures 

have been verified by the State Division of Water 

Resources.

Altitude 

(feet)

320

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,050

Area 

(acres)

0

83

375

950

1,929

3,176

4,584

6,489

7,524

Capacity 

(acre-feet)

0

2,769

24,889

88, 754

230,062

484,008

870,661

1,420,667

1,770,972

For the purpose of making tentative land classifications, it was assumed that the maximum-flowage line 

might be at the 1,050-foot contour of the Bureau map. 

The classifications would not be greatly different for a 

flowage line at 979 feet. '

Big Bend reservoir site, North Fork Feather River

The Bureau of Reclamation proposed the construction 

of a large dam at the Big Bend site as part of a project 

for the utilization of storage capacity and power drop 

in the lower Feather River basin (Department of the 

Interior report on Central Valley development, November 1945). The dam site is at a stream-bed altitude of 

720 feet on the North Fork Feather River, approximately in the NWi sec. 10, T. 21 N., R. 5 E. The 

proposal called for the construction of a 624-foot dam 

to create a storage capacity of 1,000,000 acre-feet, including 94,000 acre-feet of dead storage, The 

maximum-flowage line was listed as at 1, 334 feet, and 

the dead-storage line as at 920 feet.

The project was contemplated in connection with a 

similar large project on the Middle Fork at Bidwell 

Bar, as an alternative to the proposed Oroville project 

on the Feather River below the confluence of the North 

and Middle Forks. (See p. 7.) In addition to two afterbay dams below the confluence, it was planned to construct the Kennedy after bay dam on the North Fork at 

a stream altitude of about 300 feet, This would be approximately in sec. 2, T. 20 N., R, 4 E. The afterbay dams would provide for minor reregulation and for 

utilization of the power drop downstream from the Big 

Bend site,

The Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers, in a 

flood-control survey report dated February 1945 and 

revised by a supplement dated June 1, 1948, included 

the Big Bend project in its plan of development. The 

reservoir design evidently was the same as that of the 

Bureau of Reclamation. A maximum flood-control reservation of 225, 000 acre-feet was suggested. A power 

plant having an installed capacity of 149, 000 kilovoltamperes was proposed in connection with this project, 

and the maximum head was listed as 879 feet. This 

would develop the power drop down to the tailwater of 

the existing Big Bend plant. The new irrigation yield 

was estimated as 500,000 acre-feet. The capital cost 

of the Big Bend reservoir and power plant was estimated as $ 140, 291, 000 on the basis of prices as of 

May 1948. The over-all benefit-cost ratio was found to 

be about 1:1. It may be noted that the cost of the proposed Big Bend reservoir, with power plant, given in 

a report of the State Division of Water Resources was 

about $206, 000, 000. This estimate was made on the 

basis of April 1949 prices and after further investigations by the interested agencies. It is for a dam about 

50 feet higher than that reported on by the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the district office of the Corps of Engineers, Recent maps had shown that the potential capacity of the site is much lower than first estimated,

The State of California discussed the proposals of the 

Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers in a 

review dated April 1948, As a result of further studies 

by the State and the interested Federal agencies, joint 

conclusions were reached as summarized herein on 

page 7. The later studies favor the proposed Oroville 

site on the main stem of the Feather River. This site 

is an alternative to the Bidwell Bar and Big Bend projects and, for maximum development, would flood both 

sites. In the event that the Oroville site should not be 

constructed to maximum height, development of the 

Big Bend site as a coordinate feature with a lesser 

Oroville reservoir might be advantageous. It would be 

possible to obtain a storage capacity of at least 

1, 400, 000 acre-feet at the Oroville site and at least 

700, 000 acre-feet at the Big Bend site. The headwater 

altitude of the Big Bend reservoir would be limited by 

the tailwater altitude, 1, 380 feet, at the Cresta power 

plant of the Pacific Gas*& Electric Co. The headwater 

altitude of the Oroville reservoir might be determined 

within limits by the altitude at which there would be 

optimum conditions for storage and power development. 

With 1, 400,000 acre-feet of capacity the headwater altitude would be at the low-water altitude of the Big Bend 

site, A substantially greater capacity might be obtained 

by encroaching slightly on the power drop at the Big 

Bend site. Although the cost of the two units doubtless 

would be more than that of a single unit of the same 

storage capacity at the Oroville site, investigation may 

show that the benefit-cost ratio would be greater. A 

considerably greater power drop would be utilized, and 

with coordinated operation of the two reservoirs there 

might be an increase in irrigation yield. The floodcontrol reservation could be limited to the Oroville reservoir. It may be noted, also, that there would not be 

a proportionate increase in flowage costs owing to the
addition of the Big Bend unit, since the Oroville reservoir alone would flood the existing Big Bend power 

plant and would necessitate a major part of the required 

railroad relocation.

If the Oroville dam should be constructed to the maximum altitude of about 870 feet, there would be a power 

drop of roughly 500 feet between the Cresta power plant 

and the headwater of the reservoir. This could be developed by tunnel diversion to a power plant at the 

headwater of the reservoir, or possibly by a large 

storage and power dam upstream from the Big Bend 

site, or by a combination of dam and tunnel diversion. 

However, a large storage capacity upstream from the 

maximum Oroville reservoir to the Cresta plant probably would not be required for optimum control of the 

North Fork water and would be relatively costly. Previous plans for power in this reach of the North Fork 

Feather River, as outlined by F. E. Bonner in "Water 

powers of California, " contemplated the construction 

of a dam and a 7-mile tunnel to utilize the power drop 

between the altitudes of 1, 455 feet and 960 feet. The 

recently constructed Cresta plant is downstream from 

the headwater of this proposed unit.

The Big Bend dam would necessitate a relocation of 

the Western Pacific Railroad totaling about 27 miles, 

and would flood the diversion works of the existing Big 

Bend power plant.

Gaging stations have been operated on the North Fork 

Feather River at or near Big Bend for varying periods 

since 1911. The present gage is in sec. 6, T. 22 N., 

R. 5 E., 10 miles upstream from the Big Bend dam 

site. The average discharge for 29 years of complete 

record since 1911 is 2,702 second-feet. This corresponds to an average annual runoff of 1, 960, 000 acrefeet. For the six water years 1929-34, the average annual runoff was about 1, 200, 000 acre-feet (partly estimated). There is considerable storage regulation at 

Lake Almanor, Bucks Creek Reservoir, and Butt Valley Reservoir.

Preliminary estimates of the potential storage capacity at the Big Bend site presumably were based on the 

Geological Survey map of Bidwell Bar quadrangle. This 

is on a scale of 1:125, 000, with a contour interval of 

100 feet. Probably owing to the limitations of map 

preparation on this scale and the reconnaissance nature 

of the survey, the canyon is made to appear considerably wider than it actually is.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

reservoir site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) 

showing the topography generally to an altitude of 1, 400 

feet and higher at the dam site. An assembled edition 

of this map was printed on a scale of 1:24, 000, and the 

contour interval is 10 feet. The part of the site south 

of latitude 39°45' is shown on a map of Las Plumas 

quadrangle prepared under the direction of the Bureau 

of Reclamation. This is on a scale of 1:24,000, with a 

contour interval of 25 feet. The reservoir-site map 

and a preliminary edition of the quadrangle map were 

used for the purposes of this report.

These maps indicate that the river altitude is 725 

feet at the dam site. The canyon width is about 1, 800 

feet at an altitude of 1, 385 feet at the dam site. The 

potential capacity at an altitude of 1, 385 feet would be 

about 730, 000 acre-feet.

Rough determinatipns of reservoir areas and capacities are as follows:

Altitude 

(feet)

725

800

900

1,000

1, 100

1,200

1,300

1,400

Area 

(acres)

0

80

240

690

1, 160

1,730

2,330

3, 150

Capacity 

(acre-feet

0

3,000

19,000

65, 500

158,000

302, 500

505, 500

779, 500

Land classifications in the Big Bend, reservoir area 

were made on the assumption that the maximumflowage line might be at the top contour of the Bureau 

map, 1,400 feet. The classifications would be substantially the same for the proposed storage altitude, 1, 385 

feet. The land net was not shown on the reservoir-site 

map. Locations of lands upstream from the boundary 

of the Las Plumas quadrangle map were determined 

roughly by reference to the locations shown on the Forest Service map of Plumas National Forest.

Oroville reservoir site. Feather River

The Oroville reservoir is a major unit of the State 

water plan, as proposed in Bulletin 26 of the State Division of Water Resources. The dam site is at a 

stream-bed altitude of 190 feet in sees. 1 and 2, T. 19 

N., R. 4 E. The original proposal was for a dam 580 

feet high, creating a storage capacity of 1, 700, 000 

acre-feet.

The alternative proposals of the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers for use of the Bidwell Bar 

and Big Bend sites, and the increased storage requirements indicated by a sequence of dry years subsequent 

to the State report, led to further investigations of the 

lower Feather River sites.

An office report of the State Division of Water Resources, dated August 1949, gives the results of these 

further studies by the State agency in cooperation with 

the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers. 

Four sizes of reservoir were contemplated at the Oroville site: 1,000,000; 1,700,000; 2,400,000; and 

3, 000, 000 acre-feet. Estimates of cost and performance were compared with the cost and performance 

of Bidwell Bar reservoirs with capacities of 1, 000,000 

and 1, 700, 000 acre-feet, operated with a Big Bend reservoir having a capacity of 700, 000 acre-feet. An afterbay power plant of 25, 000 kilowatts was used with each 

combination. It was concluded that major storage capacity on the Feather River can be most feasibly and 

economically provided at the Oroville site. The joint 

statement, issued by officials of the State, the Bureau 

of Reclamation, and the Corps of Engineers, also 

pointed out that a reservoir capacity of 2, 500,000 to 

about 3, 000, 000 acre-feet should be provided on the 

lower Feather River for proper control and 

conservation.

The State report of August 1949, based on prices as 

of April 1949, indicates that the Oroville reservoir, 

with a capacity of 2, 400, 000 acre-feet, would cost about 

$282,000,000; the accompanying power plant (capacity,
10

350,000 kilowatts) $46,000,000; and the afterbay dam 

and power plant about $ 14,000, 000, The annual energy 

output was estimated as 1,402 million kilowatt-hours, 

and the irrigation yield, with incidental power, as 

1, 371, 000 acre-feet. With a capacity of 3, 000, 000 

acre-feet it was estimated that the Oroville reservoir 

would cost $296,000, 000 and the accompanying 

400, 000-kilowatt power plant $51, 000, 000. The annual 

energy output would be increased 147 million kilowatthours and the irrigation yield 99, 000 acre-feet by this 

increase in capacity. In comparison it was estimated 

that the Bidwell Bar-Big Bend reservoirs with a total 

capacity of 2, 400, 000 acre-feet, and their power 

plants, would cost about as much as the maximum 

Oroville reservoir and produce considerably less power 

and less irrigation water.

A maximum flood-control reserve of 400, 000 acrefeet was used in the Oroville reservoir studies, and 

415, 000 acre-feet for the Bidwell Bar-Big Bend combination; these figures were suggested by the Corps of 

Engineers. The amount of reserve was varied between 

November 1 and May 15, with the maximum in effect 

from January 1 to April 1. The reserve was allocated 

between the Big Bend and Bidwell Bar reservoirs in the 

ratio of 60:40, which is roughly the ratio of the average 

flow of the North Fork to that of the Middle Fork Feather River.

The Oroville dam, to have a capacity of 2, 400, 000 

acre-feet, would be 629 feet above the stream bed, 

with a crest length of 4, 820 feet. At any of the heights 

considered it would necessitate a relocation of the 

Western Pacific Railroad, totaling 19^ miles and estimated to cost about $44, 000, 000, and a relocation of 

a State highway estimated to cost nearly $7, 000, 000. 

It would also flood the existing Big Bend power plant of 

the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. estimated to cost about 

$37,000,000.

An afterbay dam and powerhouse would be provided 

downstream from the Oroville site, and in the comparative studies the same afterbay unit was considered as 

a part of the Bidwell Bar-Big Bend project. The installed capacity would be 25, 000 kilowatts, and the annual output about 140 million kilowatt-hours. The afterbay would provide for some day-to-day reregulation 

to equalize power releases for irrigation diversions. 

The power drop would be 60 fe,et.

The Oroville reservoir and the afterbay would flood 

power sites considered by previous investigators. On 

the North Fork Feather River, a scheme outlined by 

F. E. Bonner in "Water powers of California" (1928) 

would develop the drop between the altitudes of 920 and 

445 feet by enlargement of the existing Big Bend power 

plant. Downstream it was proposed to develop the drop 

to an altitude of 160 feet in two stages by means of 

power dams. On the Middle Fork, powerhouses would 

have been located at the altitudes of 580 and 300 feet, 

with some storage at the Bidwell Bar site. On the 

South Fork a plant would have been located at an altitude of 610 feet with conduit-type development for a 

drop of 1, 490 feet. The afterbay and maximum Oroville reservoir would lie between the altitudes of 150 

feet and 865 feet.

As noted on page 8, it would be possible to construct 

both the Oroville and Big Bend reservoirs by limiting 

the capacity at the Oroville site to less than 2,000, 000

acre'feet. Construction of both reservoirs might be 

advantageous if it is determined that a total capacity of 

approximately 2, 500,000 acre-feet would be adequate 

for control of the Feather River. In that event, the 

maximum pool altitude of the Oroville reservoir might 

be limited to about 770 feet.

A gaging station has been operated on the Feather 

River at and near Oroville since January 1902. The 

average discharge for 43 years, to Sept. 30, 1945, was 

5,881 second-feet, corresponding to an average annual 

runoff of nearly 4, 300, 000 acre-feet. There are some 

irrigation diversions upstream and considerable regulation by storage reservoirs. The recent studies presented in the State report of August 1949 were based on 

runoff during the 25 years ending Sept. 30, 1945. The 

average annual runoff for this period1 was 3, 604, 000 

acre-feet. The future water supply at the Oroville site 

was estimated by correcting recorded flows for the 

storage effect of the Lost Creek and Little Grass Valley reservoirs in the South Fork basin. (The Palermo 

Canal, now diverting irrigation water from the South 

Fork, would be supplied from the Oroville reservoir.) 

Prospective storage developments in the upper North 

Fork, Middle Fork, and South Fork drainage basins 

may result in some modification of the future supply to 

the Oroville site.

The recorded mean annual runoff for the six water 

years 1929-34 was 2,230, 000 acre-feet, and the ultimate requirements for diversions upstream presumably 

would reduce this to about 2, 000, 000 acre-feet in a similar critical period in the future. The existing storage 

capacity in the Feather River basin is about 1, 500, 000 

acre-feet. With the recommended addition of a capacity 

of at least 2, 500, 000 acre-feet, there should be enough 

for substantial control through a critical period like the 

years 1929-34, provided the reservoirs are located 

properly in the basin. The Oroville site is below all 

major tributaries, including the West Branch Feather 

River. The West Branch would not be controlled by the 

proposed Bidwell-Big Bend project. The average discharge of the West Branch for the 15 years ending 1945 

was 342 second-feet, or 250,000 acre-feet per year. 

The corresponding average for the period from 1921 to 

1945 was 230, 000 acre-feet, and for the six water years 

1929-34 it was 120, 000 acre-feet.

A map of the Oroville site obtained by the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) 

shows the topography to an altitude of 850 feet and 

higher in the vicinity of the dam site. An assembled 

edition of this map is on a scale of 1:24,000, and the 

contour interval is 10 feet. The Bureau, in cooperation 

with the Geological Survey, also is preparing topographic maps of quadrangles in this area on a scale of 

1:24, 000, with a contour interval of 25 feet. Preliminary editions of these sheets were used to determine 

locations in the reservoir site for the purpose of listing 

the status of lands.

Reservoir areas and capacities at high stages, as 

roughly determined on the basis of figures recently 

used by State investigators, are given in the following 

skeleton table. Areas and. capacities are listed to two 

significant figures.
11

Altitude 

(feet)

190

650

700

750

800

850

900

Area 

(acres)

0

6,000

7,500

9, 300

11,000

13,000

15,000

Capacity 

(acre-feet)

0

920,000

1,200,000

1,700,000

2,200,000

2,800,000

3, 500, 000

In view of uncertainty as to the final design of this 

reservoir, if it is selected, the maximum-flowage line 

was assumed to be at the 900-foot contour. This would 

correspond to a storage capacity of roughly 3, 500, 000 

acre-feet. Classifications of public lands would be 

about the same, with flowage lines at 800 or 850 feet, 

except at extremities of reservoir arms where little 

public land is involved.

Little Grass Valley reservoir site. South Fork 

Feather River

The Little Grass Valley site is between the altitudes 

of 4, 850 and 5, 100 feet on the South Fork Feather River. The dam site is in sec. 31, T. 22 N., R. 9 E.

This site was included in a plan for development in 

the South Fork Feather River basin as proposed by the 

Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. An outline of 

the plan was given by F. E. Bonner in "Water powers 

of California" (1928). The potential capacity of the 

Little Grass Valley site was listed as 70,000 acre-feet, 

with storage to an altitude of 5, 100 feet. Power would 

be developed along the South Fork and Lost Creek in 

four stages through an over-all drop of 4, 100 feet. The 

average output of the four plants was estimated as 

32,876 kilov/atts.

The Little Grass Valley site was listed in Bulletin 26 

of the State Division of Water Resources as a possible 

unit of the State water plan for maximum utilization of 

water resources.

The Bureau of Reclamation has obtained a map of 

this site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946), which 

shows the topography to an altitude of 5, 100 feet generally and to an altitude of 5, 200 feet through the damsite area. An assembled edition of the map is on a 

scale of 1:12, 000, and the contour interval is 10 feet.

In June 1948 the Board of Supervisors of Yuba County 

applied to the State of California (application 12573) for 

a permit to appropriate 80, 000 acre-feet per year from 

several streams, including the South Fork Feather River, for power purposes. One diversion point was listed 

as in sec. 31, T. 22 N., R. 9 E., evidently at the 

Little Grass Valley site.

The Bureau of Reclamation map of this site was used 

in listing the status of lands. Land lines and found corners were not shown on this map. The approximate location of lands was determined by the location of land 

lines relative to topography, as shown on a topographic 

map of the Plumas National Forest (1938) and the land 

plats. Part of the reservoir site is included in the topographic map of the American House quadrangle (scale, 

1:24,000; contour interval, 25 feet), which is in 

preparation.

Lost-Sly Creek reservoir site, Lost Creek 

(South Fork Feather River basin)

The Lost-Sly Creek reservoir site lies mainly along 

Lost Creek between the altitudes of 3, 290 and 3, 500 

feet. The dam site is on Lost Creek in sec. 20, T. 20 

N., R. 8 E., just downsfream from the mouth of Sly 

Creek.

This site is listed in Bulletin 26 of the State Division 

of Water Resources as a possible unit in the State water 

plan for maximum utilization of water resources.

The Lost-Sly Creek site was included in a plan for 

development of the South Fork Feather River basin as 

proposed by the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. 

An outline of the plan was given by F. E. Bonner in 

"Water powers of California" (1928). The potential capacity at this site was listed as 35,000 acre-feet, with 

storage to an altitude of 3, 470 feet. The site is just 

upstream from the present Lost Creek Reservoir of the 

irrigation district. It was proposed to develop power 

in two stages through a drop of 2,496 feet along Lost 

Creek and the South Fork Feather River, downstream 

from the Lost Creek Reservoir.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the site 

(Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) showing the topography generally to an altitude of 3, 500 feet and to 

3, 600 feet in the dam-site area. An assembled edition 

of the map is on a scale of 1:9, 600, and the contour interval is 10 feet.

Yuba County applied to the State of California in June 

1948 (application 12573) for a permit to appropriate 

80,000 acre-feet per year from the "South Fork Feather 

River, Sly River and Lost Creek, tributary to Feather 

River and Yuba River, " for power purposes. One diversion point is listed as in sec. 20, T. 20 N., R. 8 E., 

evidently at the site of the proposed Lost-Sly Creek 

reservoir.

In August 1948 the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District applied to the State of California (application 12644) 

for a permit to appropriate (1)5, 500 second-feet, (2) 

2,000 second-feet, (3) 500 second-feet from (1) Lost 

Creek, (2) the South Fork Feather River, (3) Wyandotte 

Creek, tributaries of the Feather River, to be diverted 

in sec. 14, T. 18 N., R. 4 E., for irrigation and domestic purposes.

YUBA RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN 

Narrows Reservoir site, Yuba River

This reservoir site is along the Yuba River and the 

South Fork Yuba River between the altitudes of 290 and 

860 feet. The dam site is on the Yuba River just downstream from the existing Narrows debris-storage dam, 

in sees. 14 and 23, T. 16 N., R. 6 E.

The Narrows Reservoir was listed in Bulletin 26 of 

the State Division of Water Resources as a major unit 

in the State water plan. The reservoir was proposed 

primarily for irrigation purposes but would also be used 

for flood control and power generation. A description 

of the site and estimates of the performance of the project are given in Bulletin 26. It was concluded that a 

dam 580 feet high should be constructed to provide a
12

storage capacity of 853,000 acre-feet. A power plant 

at the dam would have a capacity of 160, 000 kilovoltamperes. With operation primarily for irrigation, it 

was judged that the annual yield would have been about 

870, 000 acre-feet of new water and the annual energy 

output about 528 million kilowatt-hours during a period 

like that from 1889 to 1929. It was pointed out that the 

water yield would have been only about half the potential supply.

The Bureau of Reclamation, in the Department of the 

Interior report on Central Valley development (November 1945), proposed the construction of a 483-foot dam 

at the Narrows site to provide a storage capacity of 

500,000 acre-feet. The reservoir would be operated 

for irrigation, flood-control, power, and other purposes. With a 70, 000-kilowatt power plant at the dam 

it was estimated that the average annual energy output 

would be 245 million kilowatt-hours during a period 

like that from 1928 to 1934.

A reservoir such as proposed in the State water plan, 

or by the Bureau of Reclamation, would flood the existing 240-foot dam used for debris control and the existing Colgate power plant of the Pacific Gas & Elec trie 

Co.

The State of California commented on the Bureau plan 

in a review dated April 1946. It was concluded that the 

project is feasible from the engineering standpoint but 

that there is no immediate need for an irrigation supply 

in the service area in an amount that would justify construction at this time. It was judged that an aggregate 

storage capacity of 1, 500, 000 acre-feet would be 

needed for the ultimate development of the water resources of the Yuba River. It was pointed out that this 

could be obtained with a capacity of 653, 000 acre-feet 

at the Narrows site and with a capacity of 675, 000 

acre-feet at the Bullards Bar site.

In June 1948 Yuba County applied to the State of California (application 12517) for a permit to appropriate 

60, 000 acre-feet of water per year, to be diverted 

from the Yuba River in sec. 14, T. 16 N., R. 6 E., 

for irrigation and domestic purposes. The prospective 

diversion point is at the Narrows site.

A gaging station was operated on the Yuba River near 

Smartville from 1903 to 1941, and one has been in operation at the existing Narrows Dam since October 

1941. The drainage areas are listed as 1,201 and 

1, 110 square miles, respectively. The average annual 

runoff at the former station, for 38 years of record, 

was 2, 130,000 acre-feet. The average during the six 

water years 1929-34 was 967,000 acre-feet.

A map of the reservoir site was published by the 

Geological Survey in 1937. It is on a scale of 1:12,000, 

with a contour interval of 20 feet on land and 5 feet on 

the river surface. The topography is shown to an altitude of 900 feet. The map is designated "Upper Narrows reservoir site." A map of the dam site is included on a scale of 1:2,400 and with a contour interval 

of 10 feet.

New Bullards Bar Reservoir site, North Fork 

Yuba River

The New Bullards Bar Reservoir site lies between 

the altitudes of about 1, 400 and 1, 950 feet along the

North Fork Yuba River and its tributary Willow Creek. 

The dam site is in sec. 24, T. 18 N., R. 7 E., just 

downstream from the existing Bullards Bar Dam.

The existing Bullards Bar site was listed in Bulletin 

26 of the State Division of Water Resources as a possible unit in the State water plan for maximum development of water resources.

The existing dam and power plant was constructed by 

the Yuba River Power Co. for the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. A plan for the ultimate development of the 

North Fork as proposed by the Yuba River Power Co. 

is described in "Water powers of California" by F. E. 

Bonner (1928). This includes a proposal for increasing 

the height of the present Bullards Bar Dam to 360 feet 

(altitude, 1, 800 feet), providing additional storage capacity of 200, 000 acre-feet for regulation to increase 

the power potential.

The New Bullards Bar Reservoir was listed as a 

major prospective project for the comprehensive development of the Central Valley basin in the Department 

of the Interior report of November 1945. The Bureau 

of Reclamation suggested a maximum-flowage line at 

1, 900.feet to create a storage capacity of 675, 000 acrefeet. This would require a dam 520 feet above the 

stream bed, which would flood the present Bullards Bar 

Dam and powerhouse. The reservoir would be operated 

for several purposes, including irrigation and flood control in coordination with the Narrows Reservoir on the . 

Yuba River downstream (proposed capacity, 500, 000 

acre-feet). Power would be developed between these 

reservoirs at New Bullards Bar and New Colgate plants 

with capacities qf 60, 000 and 50, 000 kilowatts, respectively. The Pacific Gas & Electric Co. operates a power plant with a capacity of 6, 500 kilowatts at Bullards 

Bar Dam. This company also operates the Colgate 

plant downstream at an altitude of about 534 feet, with 

water supplied by tunnel from the North Fork downstream from the Bullards Bar Dam, The capacity of 

this plant was 14, 200 kilowatts until recently it was enlarged to about 40, 000 horsepower. The drop between 

the stream bed at Bullards Bar and the maximumflowage line of the proposed Narrows Reservoir is approximately 630 feet.

The New Bullards Bar Reservoir also was proposed, 

in 1945, by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers, 

with 330, 000 acre-feet of the total, 675, 000 acre-feet, 

listed for maximum flood-control reservation. The capacity of the proposed power plant was listed as 46,000 

kilovolt-amperes. The Corps of Engineers did not recommend the Narrows project.

The State of California, commenting on both proposals 

in April 1946, found each to be economically feasible if 

it included the estimated irrigation benefits, but held 

that there is no immediate need for an irrigation supply 

in the tributary area and therefore that construction 

should be deferred. The State further concluded that 

the ultimate development of the Yuba River required an 

aggregate capacity of 1,500, 000 acre-feet at the Bullards and Narrows sites and recommended that the Narrows site be developedjo a capacity of 853, 000 acrefeet, which, with 6 7 5^ acre-feet at Bullards Bar, would 

meet the requirement,

In June 1648 Yuba County applied to the State of California (application 12518) for a permit to appropriate 

130, 000 acre-feet per year from the Yuba River, for
13

power purposes, to be diverted in sec. 24, T. 18 N., 

R. 7 E. The New Bullards Bar Dam site is within this 

section. Production was estimated as 772 million 

kilowatt-hours annually. (If it is intended to relate to 

the amount of water requested, this evidently is an erroneous estimate.)

The average annual runoff of the North Fork Yuba 

River at Bullards Bar since 1903, when records were 

first obtained on the Yuba River, is estimated as about 

1,400,000 acre-feet. During the six water years 1929- 

34, the average annual runoff is estimated as about 

570, 000 acre-feet. These estimates are based on discharge records for the North Fork at the Colgate diversion dam since 1940, as compared with records for the 

Yuba River near Smartville and the Yuba River at Narrows Dam.

The New Bullards Bar site is partially covered in a 

plan and profile of the South, Middle, and North Fork 

Yuba River published by the Geological Survey in 1940. 

The topography is shown only to an altitude of 1, 700 

feet or less in much of the area.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

reservoir site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) 

showing the topography to an altitude of 1, 950 feet. An 

assembled edition of the map is on a scale of 1:12, 000, 

and the contour interval is 10 feet. Land lines are not 

shown. The approximate location of lands was determined by reference to the location of land lines on the 

river survey map, relative to topographic features. 

For the tentative classification of public lands it was 

assumed that the maximum-flowage line might be at 

1, 950 feet. The area covered at 1, 950 feet is not much 

more than at 1, 900 feet.

Jackson Meadows reservoir site, Middle Fork 

Yuba River

The Jackson Meadows site lies between the altitudes 

of 5, 820 and 6, 060 feet along the Middle Fork Yuba 

River. The dam site is in sec. 18, T. 19 N., R. 13 E.

F. E. Bonner, in his report on "Water powers of 

California" (1928), suggested a storage capacity of 

45,000 acre-feet for the Jackson Meadows site, with a 

140-foot dam and a maximum-flowage line at an altitude of 6, 020 feet. He noted that a capacity of 75, 000 

acre-feet might be created by a dam 30 feet higher. It 

is uncertain whether Bonner's altitudes are related to 

the datum of recent maps, which show the stream altitude as 5, 830 feet at a fairly well defined dam site. 

This would correspond with a dam height of 190 feet at 

an altitude of 6, 020 feet. Bonner judged that a capacity 

of 45, 000 acre-feet would be sufficient unless considerable cyclic operation should be practised. At the time 

of his report the potential water supply was somewhat 

uncertain because of a conflict in the plans of the Yuba 

River Power Co. and the Nevada Irrigation District as 

to the diversion of Middle Fork waters. The Nevada 

Irrigation District diverts water from the Middle Fork 

at Milton, in sec. 12, T. 19 N., R. 12 E. The average 

diversion for 16 years, from 1928 to 1930 and from 

1931 to 1945, was 71 second-feet. Bonner assumed 

that water in excess of the diversion at that time would 

be available for regulation at Jackson Meadows with 

diversion to the North Fork Yuba River at the proposed 

Sierra City reservoir for power development downstream. He judged that the amount of water available 

for diversion would'be too small to justify development 

of the power drop between the Middle and North Forks."

The Jackson Meadows site was listed in Bulletin 26 

of the State Division of Water Resources as a possible 

unit in the State water plan for maximum development 

of water resources.

In the Department of the Interior report on water resources development of the Central Valley basin, the 

Bureau of Reclamation listed the Jackson Meadows site 

as under consideration in connection with the future 

development of the Nevada irrigation district. The potential storage capacity was listed as 67, 000 acre-feet.

A gaging station was operated during 1926-30, 1931- 

34, 1935-40, and 1941-42 on the Middle Fork Yuba River at Milton. After 1943 it was again operated and has 

remained in operation to date. The average discharge 

for 14 complete years of record after Sept. 30, 1928, 

to Sept. 30, 1945, was about 29 second-feet. There 

was no flow during three of these water-years: 1931, 

1934, and 1939. Water has been diverted just upstream 

from this station to the Milton-Bowman tunnel of the 

Nevada irrigation district since May 1928. The combined river and tunnel flow during the 15 years of overlapping records to 1945 was 104 second-feet. The dependable water supply may be limited by critical periods such as the six water years 1929-34, when the average discharge of the Middle Fork at Milton was less 

than 8 second-feet. During the same period the average Milton-Bowman diversion was about 61 second-feet. 

The combined river and tunnel discharge from 1929 to 

1934 was equivalent to an average runoff of 50, 000 acrefeet annually.

It seems unlikely that the small remainder after 

Milton-Bowman diversion during critical periods such 

as that from 1929 to 1934 would justify any separate 

development like the contemplated diversion to the 

North Fork. However, the Jackson Meadows storage 

might be used advantageously for power regulation 

through the Nevada Irrigation District-Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co. system if power releases can be reregulated at downstream sites. Hold-over operation at this 

site also might increase the dependable supply for 

irrigation.

The Jackson Meadows site is shown on a plan and 

profile map of the South, Middle, and North Forks 

Yuba River published by the Geological Survey in 1040. 

The scale is 1:31, 880, with a contour interval of 20 

feet. The topography is shown to an altitude of 8,000 

feet. A map of the dam site was printed on a scale of 

1 inch = 200 feet, with a contour interval of 5 feet.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

Jackson Meadows site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 

1946) showing the topography generally to an altitude 

of 6, 060 feet and to an altitude of 8, 200 feet at the dam 

site. An assembled edition of this map is on a scale of 

1:12,000, and the contour interval is 10 feet. The channel altitude at the dam site is 5, 820 feet, and the width 

of the canyon at an altitude of 8,080 feet is about 1, 200 

feet. The potential storage capacity, as roughly determined from this map, is 97,000 acre-feet below an altitude of 6,080 feet and 59,000 acre-feet below an altitude 

of 6, 025 feet. It is judged that a storage capacity of 

70, 000 or 80, 000 acre-feet might be sufficient for con-
14

trol of the runoff during critical periods such as the 

years 1929-34.

The reservoir-site map of the Bureau of Reclamation 

does not show found corners or a land net. For the 

purpose of listing the status of lands, the approximate 

locations of lands were determined by reference to the 

land net shown on the river-survey map. For the tentative classification of public lands, it was assumed 

that the maximum-flowage line might be at an altitude 

of 6,060 feet.

Cisco reservoir site, South Fork Yuba River

The Cisco reservoir site lies between the altitudes 

of 5, 590 and 5, 850 feet along the South Fork Yuba River. The dam site is in sees. 19 and 30, T. 17 N., R. 

13 E., on the South Fork a short distance downstream 

from the mouth of the Rattlesnake Creek.

The "Cisco" reservoir site of the Bureau of Reclamation map dated May 1946 (Fairchild Aerial Surveys) 

presumably is at the location of the "Rattlesnake" reservoir site mentioned by F. E. Bonner in "Water powers of California" (1928). Bonner said there was a possibility that this site might be used eventually to provide 26, 000 acre-feet of storage for stand-by purposes, 

presumably in connection with power and irrigation 

projects of the ultimate Yuba-Bear River system. He 

did not suggest any power development at the site or in 

the reach downstream to the Lake Spaulding Reservoir. 

The Rattlesnake site was shown at a stream altitude of 

5, 600 feet, with storage to 5, 730 feet.

This site was listed in Bulletin 26 of the State Division of Water Resources as a possible unit in the State 

water plan for maximum utilization of water resources.

In the Department of the Interior report of November 

1945 on the development of the Central Valley basin, 

the Bureau of Reclamation listed the Cisco site as under consideration for the future development of the 

Nevada irrigation district, The potential capacity was 

listed as 93, 500 acre-feet,

In October 1948 Placer County applied to the State of 

California (application 12748) for a permit to appropriate 500 second-feet and 150,000 acre-feet per year 

from the South Fork Yuba River for power purposes. 

The diversion point was listed as within sec. 19, T. 

17 N., R. 13 E., presumably near the Cisco dam site.

Stream-flow records have been obtained on the South 

Fork Yuba River near Cisco since April 1942. The 

gage is in sec. 19, T. 17 N., R. 13 E., near the proposed dam site. The average discharge for the three 

water years 1943-45 was about 180 second-feet. It is 

judged that the long-time average may be about the 

same. The average discharge during the six water 

years 1929-34 is estimated as roughly 60 percent of 

this figure or 110 second-feet, equivalent to an average 

annual runoff of 80, 000 acre-feet. Judging from these 

rough estimates, the proposed storage capacity of 

93, 500 acre-feet would not be sufficient for complete 

control during dry periods such as the years 1929-34, 

but it would provide for considerable hold-over operation during such periods.

The Bureau of Reclamation map was printed on a 

scale of 1:12, 000, and the contour interval is 10 feet. 

The topography is shown generally to an altitude of 

5, 850 feet and to above 6, 000 feet at the dam site. The 

channel altitude at the dam site is shown as 5, 590 feet. 

The SE. and NW. corners of sec. 29, and the quartersection corners at the W. boundary of sec. 29, T. 17 

N., R. 13 E., are, shown on the map as found corners, 

but land lines are not indicated. For the purpose of 

listing status and tentative land classifications, the approximate locations of lands were determined by reference to the land net on the river-survey map.

New York Flat reservoir site. New York Flat Creek 

(tributary by way of Dry Creek to Yuba River)

The New York Flat reservoir site lies between the 

altitudes of 2, 290 feet and 2, 480 feet along New York 

Flat Creek. The dam site is in sees. 25 and 26, T. 19 

N., R. 6 E., just upstream from the junction of New 

York Flat Creek with Dry Creek.

This site was included in a plan of development of 

the South Fork Feather River which was proposed by 

the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. An outline 

of the plan is given in "Water powers of California, " 

by F. E. Bonner (1928). It was proposed to develop 

power in four stages below the Little Grass Valley site 

on the South Fork Feather River and the Lost-Sly Creek 

site on Lost Creek, tributary to the South Fork Feather 

River. As an alternative to the direct routing of water 

along Lost Creek and the South Fork it was proposed 

to useHhe New York Flat reservoir site of the Yuba 

River basin for reregulation. This site has a potential 

storage capacity of more than 80,000 acre-feet, and 

its tributary drainage area ip only a few square miles, 

By either plan the water would be utilized for power 

down to the intake of the Palermo Canal, which diverts 

from South Fork Feather River at an altitude of 610 feet 

for irrigation in the Oroville-Wyandotte district, The 

potential drop would be reduced by construction of the 

proposed Oroville or Bidwell Bar dams,

The Naw York Flat lit* wai lilted in Bulletin 26 of 

the State Division of Water Resources as a possible unit 

in the State water plan for maximum utilization of water 

resources.

In June 1948 the Board of Supervisors of Yuba County 

applied to the State of California (application 12573) for 

a permit to appropriate 80,000 acre-feet per year from 

the South Fork Feather River and certain tributaries of 

the South Fork Feather River and the Yuba River. One 

of the diversion points was listed as in sec. 25, T. 19 

N., R. 6 E., evidently at the New York Flat dam site. 

The purpose was described as power, and the capacity 

has been estimated as 90, 000 kilowatts.

In August 1948 the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District applied to the State (application 12644) for a permit to appropriate waters from Lost Creek, the South 

Fork Feather River, and Wyandotte Creek for irrigation 

and domestic purposes. Details were not stated,

The average discharge of the Palermo Canal from 

1811 to 1945 was 18, 7 second-feet, The average discharge of the South Fork Feather River below the Palermo Canal diversion from 1811 to 1945 was 304 

second-feet.
15

The Bureau of Reclamation has obtained a map of the 

New York Flat reservoir site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) showing the topography to an altitude 

of 2, 480 feet. An assembled edition of the map is on a 

scale of 1:12.000, and the contour interval is 10 feet. 

The apparent location of the dam site is on New York 

Flat Creek about a quarter of a mile upstream from its 

junction with Dry Creek. The altitude of the stream at 

this point is 2, 290 feet. For the purpose of listing the 

status of lands it was assumed that the maximumflowage line would be at the top contour, 2, 480 feet. 

The Bureau map does not show land lines. The NW. 

corner of sec. 25, T. 19 N., R. 6 E., was found. The 

site is included in a recent Forest Service planimetric 

map of part of the Bangor quadrangle. It is also included in the topographic maps of the Forbestown and 

Rackerby quadrangles now in preparation. The approximate locations of lands on the reservoir-site map 

were determined by reference to the land net shown on 

these maps, as related to topographic features.

Virginia Ranch reservoir site, Dry Creek 

(tributary to^ Yuba^ River)

The Virginia Ranch site is between the altitudes of 

1, 050 and I, 220 feet along Dry Creek. The dam site 

is in the NWi sec. 21, T. 17 N., R. 6 E.

The site was listed in Bulletin 26 of the State Division 

of Water Resources as a possible unit in the State wa* 

ter plan for maximum utilization of water resources.

This site evidently is the one mentioned in the Department of the Interior report of November 1945 as 

being under investigation by the Bureau of Reclamation 

for irrigation purposes. It would serve parts of the 

Browns Valley area, now partly under irrigation from 

the North Fork Yuba River, Dry Creek, and Tennessee 

Creek. The altitude of the stream bed at the dani site 

is 1, 050 feet, and a dam to an altitude of 1, 220 feet 

would have a crest length of nearly 3, 000 feet. Water 

at this altitude would flood about 1, 270 acres. It is 

judged that the potential storage capacity is 75, 000 

acre-feet or more. The tributary drainage area is 

roughly 75 square miles, mostly in foothill country. 

There is a small reservoir, Lake Mildred, on Dry 

Creek about a mile upstream from the Virginia Ranch 

site.

A gaging station was installed on Dry Creek in the 

SW£ sec. 16, T. 17 N., R. 6 E., in June 1946 by the 

Bureau of Reclamation. The station has been operated 

by the Geological Survey since Oct. 1, 1948.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of this 

site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) which shows 

the topography to an altitude of 1, 220 feet. The scale 

is 1:12,000, and the contour interval is 10 feet. No 

land lines nor found corners were shown on this map. 

For the purpose of listing land status, a land net was 

added by reference to the net shown on the Geological 

Survey map of the Bangor quadrangle, as related to topographic features and grids of the California coordinate system. The site is in the Oregon House quadrangle, now being mapped on a scale of 1:24,000 and 

with a contour interval of 25 feet. Lands within and adjacent to the reservoir site are all patented.

BEAR RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN 

Rollins reservoir site, Bear River

The Rollins reservoir site is between the altitudes of 

1, 950 and 2, 200 feet along Bear River and its tributary 

Greenhorn Creek. The dam site is in sec. 22, T. 15 

N., R. 9 E., half a mile downstream from the mouth 

of Greenhorn Creek and near the intake of the Bear 

River Canal.

This site was listed in Bulletin 26 of the State Division 

of Water Resources as a possible unit in the State water 

plan for maximum utilization of water resources. (It 

was here called "Bear River reservoir site. ")

The Rollins reservoir site was listed by the Bureau 

of Reclamation as a major prospective storage reservoir in the Department of the Interior report on the 

Central Valley basin of November 1945. The proposal 

was for the storage of 60,000 acre-feet, including 

17, 000 acre-feet for the control of mining debris. A 

total of 43, 000 acre-feet would be utilized to conserve 

water for the irrigation, initially, of 8,000 acres of 

land near Wheatland and, eventually, of foothill areas. 

No power development was contemplated.

The proposal was reviewed by the State of California 

in April 1946, and it was concluded that the project 

probably is feasible from an engineering standpoint and 

that there may be need for the reservoir to control 

mining debris in the near future, but that there is no 

apparent immediate need for the project for irrigation. 

It was recommended that further studies be made, including investigations of alternative sites.

The Federal Power Commission, San Francisco regional office, commenting on power features of the 

Bureau proposals for Central Valley development, 

pointed out that a power plant of 5, 000 kilowatts would 

be feasible in connection with the Rollins project unless 

the debris storage is to be filled quite rapidly.

A gaging station has been operated on Bear River 

near Auburn since December 1940. The gage is 13 miles 

downstream from the Rollins site, -but there is relatively 

little intervening drainage. Water is diverted into the 

Bear River basin upstream from the Rollins site for 

power development. Water is diverted from the Bear 

River channel at the Rollins site by way of the Bear River Canal for power and irrigation purposes, with the 

surplus wasted to the American River. The canal discharge has been measured since 1914. According to 

F. E. Bonner, in "Water powers of California" (1928), 

a total of 73,000 acre-feet annually was to have been 

diverted into the Bear River basin for power development and returned to the Nevada irrigation district 

(Bear ..nd Yuba River basins) for irrigation. A diversion point for this water from the Bear River channel 

presumably would be at the Combie Reservoir (operated 

by the Nevada Irrigation District), about 3 miles upstream from the gaging station near Auburn.

In view of the complicated system of storage and diversion upstream, it appears that the water supply 

available for conservation at the Rollins site cannot be 

determined readily from the published records. The 

average annual runoff of the Bear River near Auburn 

from 1942 to 1945 was about 243,000 acre-feet. It is 

judged that with similar storage and diversions the av-
16

erage runoff from 1929 to 1934 may have been roughly 

100,000 acre-feet per year, but this estimate is subject to gross error.

The listing of land status and tentative classifications 

were based on a Bureau map of the site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) showing the topography to an 

altitude of 2, 200 feet. An assembled edition of this 

map is printed on a scale of 1:9, 600, and the contour 

interval is 10 feet. The land lines were approximately 

located on this map relative to topographic features by 

reference to the Forest Service map of the Giant Gap 

quadrangle, which shows planimetric features and land 

lines on a scale of 1:31,680.

Garden Bar reservoir site. Bear River

The Garden Bar reservoir site is between the altitudes of 290 feet and 610 feet along the Bear River. 

The dam site on the river is in sec. 31, T. 14 N., R. 

7 E., and a saddle dam would be required in adjacent 

section 30 for development above an altitude of 555 

feet.

The Garden Bar reservoir site was proposed by the 

Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior 

report of November 1945 as a major project in the development of the Central Valley basin. The maximumflowage line was listed as at an altitude of 590 feet. 

The total storage was listed as 200,000 acre-feet, including 30, 000 acre-feet of dead storage. A power 

plant with a capacity of 4,000 kilowatts was proposed 

in connection with this reservoir. The average annual 

output for a period like that from 1928 to 1934 was estimated as 20 million kilowatt-hours. The primary 

purpose of the reservoir would be irrigation, but it 

would also serve for flood control.

The Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers, in the 

flood-control survey report of February 1945, brought 

up to date by means of a supplement of June 1, 1948, 

also included the Garden Bar reservoir in its plan of 

development. A maximum flood-control reservation of 

42, 000 acre-feet was recommended. Power development was not included in this plan.

The State of California, reviewing both proposals, 

found that the project is not economically feasible and 

recommended that further studies be made of Garden 

Bar and alternative sites on the Bear River, including 

the Camp Far West and Rollins sites (State reviews 

dated April 1946). The Camp Far West site was proposed in Bulletin 26 of the State Division of Water Resources as a major reservoir unit in the State'water 

plan. There is an existing reservoir at this site with 

a capacity of 5,000 acre-feet for irrigation use by the 

Camp Far West Irrigation district. The State proposed 

the construction of a 180-foot dam to create a storage 

capacity of 151,000 acre-feet. It was estimated that 

this would provide a seasonal yield of 130,000 acrefeet of new water. There would have been a maximum 

flood-control reservation of 50,000 acre-feet but no 

power installation. The dam site is in sec. 21, T. 14 

N., R. 6 E., and it is roughly 10 miles downstream 

from the Garden Bar site.

The Federal Power Commission, in a report of the 

San Francisco regional office (not for release), reviewed the Garden Bar proposal of the Bureau of Reclamation as to power features and suggested no change, 

although commenting that the proposed power plant 

seemed larger than necessary.

The listing of land status and tentative classifications 

were based on a map of the reservoir site obtained by 

the Bureau of Reclamation (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, 

May 1946). This shows the topography to an altitude of 

610 feet, which was assumed as the possible flowage 

line of the reservoir. The scale is 1:12,000, and the 

contour interval is 10 feet. Land lines and found corners are not shown. The approximate location of lands 

as related to the topographic features of this map was 

determined by reference to the land net shown on a recent Forest Service map of the Grass Valley quadrangle 

(scale 1:31,680). The reservoir site also is included 

in a topographic map of the Wolf quadrangle (scale, 

1:24,000; contour interval, 20 feet) which is in 

preparation.

Waldo reservoir site, Dry Creek 

(Bear River drainage system)

The Waldo reservoir site is along Dry Creek and 

several of its tributaries between the altitudes of 225 

feet and 409 feet. The main dam site is in sec. 33, T. 

15 N., R. 6 E.

The site is approximately the same as one that was 

surveyed and studied by the State of California in connection with investigations for the State water plan. It 

is designated "Cabbage Patch reservoir site" in Bulletin 

26 of the State Division of Water Resources,

,The Bureau of Reclamation listed the Waldo site as 

a major prospective reservoir of the Central Valley 

basin plan in the Department of the Interior report 

dated November 1945. It was proposed to construct a 

199-foot dam to create a storage capacity of 202,000 

acre-feet, with a dead storage of 5,000 acre-feet. The 

reservoir would flood an area of 3, 275 acres. This 

reservoir would be used in connection with the proposed 

Narrows and New Bullards Bar projects in the Yuba 

River drainage basin. It was proposed that power releases be diverted by means of a canal to the Waldo 

r eservoir for reregulation, and it was stated that this 

would materially improve the power output of the Yuba 

plants. (The headwaters of the Waldo reservoir would 

be roughly 6 miles southwest of the prospective Narrows 

dam.) Gravity diversion from a plant at the Narrows 

dam to the Waldo site evidently would entail a sacrifice 

of power drop at the Narrows site, which is at a 

stream-bed altitude of 286 feet. The State and Bureau 

reports indicate that the potential water supply from 

the Yuba River will be in excess of that needed for local irrigation requirements. It is assumed, therefore,, 

that the plan of development utilizing the Waldo site 

may contemplate the routing of water southward by 

means of canals along the foothills.

The State of California, commenting on the proposal 

in a review dated April 1946, concluded that more data 

would be needed to judge the engineering and economic 

feasibility and the desirability of the project as compared with-equivalent storage on the Yuba River or its 

branches.

The drainage area at the Waldo site was listed as 80 

square miles. The State review reports the mean annual runoff as about 35,000 acre-feet.
17

The Bureau of Reclamation used a map of the reservoir site showing the topography to an altitude of 460 

feet. (It is believed that the map was prepared by 

Fairchild Aerial Surveys for the Army military establishment at Camp Beale.) An assembled edition of the 

map is on a scale of 1:12, 000, and the contour interval 

is 20 feet. The map indicates that a small saddle dam 

would be required above an altitude of 400 feet near the 

south end of the site. The entire area, taking in the 

Waldo and Narrows reservoir sites and intervening 

terrain, is being mapped by the Geological Survey on a 

scale of 1:24,000. .

AMERICAN RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN

The several reservoir sites described in the following paragraphfare at relatively high altitudes and would 

control runoff from the most productive parts of the 

American River drainage basin. There is a potential 

storage capacity of about 600,000 acre-feet at the sites 

on the Middle Fork American River and its main tributary, the Rubicon River, above an altitude of 4, 000 

feet. There are several alternative routes for the conveyance of storage releases by means of tunnel and 

conduit for utilization at high-head plants on the Rubicon and Middle Fork channels. From the junction of 

the Rubicon River with the Middle Fork at an altitude 

of 1, 150 feet, downstream to the headwater of the proposed Folsom reservoir at an altitude of 466 feet, utilization of the controlled and uncontrolled flows could 

be accomplished by means of power dams, unless a 

multiple*purpose reservoir should be constructed on 

the North Fork.

In the upper South Fork American River drainage 

basin the main storage possibilities are "at the Union 

Valley site on Silver Creek, febove an altitude of 4, 500 

feet, and at the Icehouse site on the South Fork Silver 

Creek above an altitude of 5, 300 feet. The potential 

active capacities are about 225,000 and 50, 000 acrefeet, respectively. Water could be conveyed from 

these sites by means of tunnel and conduit for utilization at high-head plants down to an altitude of 1, 890 

feet at the South Fork American River channel. There 

would be an additional drop of 1, 000 feet along the 

South Fork down to the headwater of the proposed Coloma reservoir. Power could be developed in this 

reach by means of power dams and conduits or tunnels.

The descriptions of sites in the upper American River basin are followed by descriptions of major projects 

in the lower basin that have been proposed for flood- 

<¥>ntrol, irrigation, and power uses. These comprise 

the Auburn and Oregon Bar reservoirs on the North 

Fork; the Coloma and Webber Creek (Salmon Falls) 

reservoirs on the South Fork; and Folsom reservoir 

on the American River.

French Meadows reservoir site. Middle Fork 

American River

The French Meadows reservoir site is between the 

altitudes of 5, 050 feet and 5, 380 feet along the Middle 

Fork American River. The dam site is mainly in sec. 

36, T. 15 N., R. 13 E., extending into adjacent sec. 

25.

The site was listed in Bulletin 26 of the State Division 

of Water Resources as a possible unit in the State water 

plan for maximum utilization of water resources.

Various proposals have been made for use of the 

French Meadows site for power purposes. The California Power Board, reporting to the Federal Power 

Commission in 1924, listed the available capacity as 

64,000 acre-feet. F. E. Bonner, in "Water powers of 

California" (1928), suggested that a capacity of 55. 000 

acre-feet would be needed to control the runoff. This 

would be provided by a 150-foot dam to an altitude of 

5,140 feet. In his "Report on power withdrawals on 

Middle -Fork American River" (1935), W. R. Parley 

proposed a capacity of 210,000 acre-feet for the French 

Meadows site, to be provided by a 277-foot dam having 

a crest length of 3, 000 feet. Flood, level would be at an 

altitude of 5, 335 feet. (Bonner shows the stream-bed 

altitude as 4, 990 feet; Parley puts it at 5,063 feet. 

Parley reported that a line of levels run into French 

Meadows by the Forest Service in 1934 found the altitude of the Middle Fork at French Meadows to be 63 

feet higher than is shown on the 1912 plan and profile 

of the stream.) The larger storage capacity suggested 

by Parley would provide for hold-over operation and 

also for the regulation of waters diverted into the site 

from the North Fork American River (drainage area, 

30 square miles) and from Duncan Creek (drainage 

area, 9. 2 square miles).

E. F. Sullivan, of the Bureau of Reclamation, in an 

unpublished report dated Nov. 10, 1943, suggested an 

active-storage capacity of 200,000 acre-feet for. 

French Meadows. His proposal included diversion into 

the site as suggested by Parley. The maximum headwater altitude of the French Meadows reservoir site 

was listed as 5, 325 feet.

In March 1948 Placer County applied to the State of, 

California (applications 12456 and 12457) for permits 

to appropriate waters in the American River, basin,- including diversion from the Middle Fork American River 

in sec. 36, T. 15 N., R. 13 E., the location Qf the r ^ 

French Meadows dam site. The water would t»r used-,/-» 

for power, municipal, irrigation, stock-watering, and 

domestic purposes. Details of the plan were not stated.-

The French Meadows reservoir would control 

from 87 square miles, including areas of the North 

Fork and Duncan Creek basins. It is judged that the av 

erage annual flow subject to capture would be roughly 

170,000 acre-feet for 40-year periods similar to that '", 

ending with 1945 and 150,000 acre-feet for periods like 

that from 1921 to 1945.

A map of the site obtained by the Bureau of Reclamation (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) shows the 

topography to an altitude of 5. 380 feet. The altitude of 

the stream at the apparent location of the dam site is 

shown as 5,050 feet. An assembled edition of the map 

is on a scale of 1:9, 600, and the contour interval is 10 

feet. For the purpose of obtaining the status of lands 

in the reservoir area, it was assumed that 5, 380 feet 

would be the maximum pool altitude. Land lines and 

found corners are not shown on the Bureau map. Locations of lands on this map were approximately determined from the location of land lines, sho^wn on a recent 

Forest Service planimetric map of the Granite Chief 

quadrangle, as related to topographic features. The 

dam site is in sees. 25 and 36, T. 15 N., R. 13 E.,
18

about 2, 400 feet west of the township boundary according to this determination.

Rock Bound diversion and Buck Island Lake reservoir 

s*tes' Rubicon River drainage basin"

The Rock Bound diversion area is between the altitudes of 6, 500 teey&tottg'ti$0Rubicon River and Rock 

Bound Lake. The dam site is on the Rubicon River in 

sec. 9, T. 13 N., R. 16 E. There is a saddle west of 

this site, at an altitude of 6, 560 feet, separating the 

Rubicon River and Rock Bound Lake. The outlet of 

Rock Bound Lake is at an altitude of 6, 525 feet, and 

the drainage is to the west through Buck Island Lake 

(altitude, 6, 430 feet) to the Rubicon River downstream 

from the prospective diversion point. A dam on the 

Rubicon River; another dam 2,000 feet long across the 

outlet of Rock Bound Lake in sees. 6 and 7, T. 13 N., 

R. 16 E., and a short saddle dam near the boundary 

joining sections 5 and 6 would provide for storage in 

the entire diversion area. About half a mile of tunnel 

or cut would be required to connect the Rubicon area 

with the Rock Bound area at the present level of Rock 

Bound Lake. The Rock Bound Lake site was listed in 

Bulletin 26 of the State Division of Water Resources as 

a possible unit in the State water plan for maximum 

utilization of water resources. The location was given 

as sec. 6, T. 13 N., R. 16 E.

The Buck Island Lake reservoir site is between the 

altitudes of 6, 430 feet and 6, 490 feet, and storage 

would be obtained by constructing a dam extending 

1, 400 feet across the outlet. The dam site is in sec, 

6, T. 13 N., R. 16 E.

In a report to the Federal Power Commission by the 

California Power Board in April 1924, the Rock Bound 

and Buck Island sites were listed as having a potential 

storage capacity of 24, 000 acre-feet. It was proposed 

that water from the Rubicon River be routed by way of 

Rock Bound, Buck Island, and Loon Lakes to Gerle 

Creek and back to the Rubicon River near Parsley Bar 

for power development.

F. E. Bonner, in "Water powers bf California" 

(1928), suggested diversion to Rock Bound Lake and 

Buck Island Lake from the Rubicon River, with a storage capacity of 7, 000 acre-feet at Rock Bound Lake 

and a small additional amount at Buck Island Lake. 

Water would be routed thence to Loon Lake Reservoir 

for power development downstream. Storage at Rock 

Bound Lake was listed as between the altitudes of 

6, 450 and 6, 555 feet.

W. R. Parley, in his "Report on power withdrawals 

of Middle Fork American River" for the Forest Service 

in 1935, suggested a similar scheme with a storage capacity of 22, 000 acre-feet at the Rock Bound site below 

an altitude of 6, 575 feet. He listed the potential capacity of the Buck Island site as 2, 300 acre-feet below an 

altitude of 6,445 feet.

E. F. Sullivan, of the Bureau of Reclamation, also 

suggested diversion of upper Rubicon River water by 

way of Rock Bound and Buck Island Lakes to the proposed Loon Lake and Gerle Creek reservoirs for power development (unpublished report, Nov. 10, 1943).

In March 1948 the Georgetown Divide Public Utility 

District applied to the State of California (applications 

12421, 12422, and 12423) for permits to appropriate 

waters from several drainage basins within the American River basin, including the Rubicon River area. 

Water would be used for irrigation, domestic, stockwatering, and power purposes. One of the diversion 

points was listed as Rock Bound Lake, sec. 6, T. 13 

N., R. 16 E. Details of the plan were not stated.

Investigations of power possibilities in the upper 

Rubicon River area were made by the Stone & Webster 

Engineering Corp., from about 1908 to 1912, for the 

Loon Lake Water & Power Co. (controlled by the Southern Pacific Co.). Several gaging stations were operated 

for this study, including one on the Rubicon River at 

Rubicon Springs, a mile downstream from the proposed 

diversion point. The drainage area at the gage was 

listed as 31.6 square miles. The drainage area tributary directly and by diversion to Rock Bound and Buck 

Island Lakes is roughly 32 square miles. During the 

three water years ending Sept. 30, 1913, the annual 

runoff of the Rubicon River at Rubicon Springs was 

recorded as 4, 050, 1, 820, and 2,120 acre-feet per 

square mile. The 1910-11 water year was unusually 

wet, whereas the following 2 years were relatively dry. 

From November 1910 to August 1911, the runoff of the 

Little Rubicon River near the outlet of Buck Island 

Lake was recorded as 4, 570 acre-feet per square mile.

Records also were obtained at a downstream station 

on the Rubicon River during these early years and have 

been kept from 1944 to date. This station is now called 

Rubicon River near Georgetown. Its drainage area is 

listed as 198 square miles and included the Little South 

Fork Rubicon River drainage basin. Comparisons with 

the long-time record of the American River at Fair 

Oaks indicate that the average annual runoff at this station from 1905 to 1945 was about 2,100 acre-feet per 

square mile. The records for the early years show 

that the unit runoff at Rubicon Springs was roughly 20 

percent more than at the Georgetown station during wet 

seasons and 30 to 40 percent more during the drier 

seasons. From these and other comparisons it is judged 

that the average annual runoff subject to capture at the 

Rock Bound Lake and Buck Island Lake reservoir sites 

is 2, 650 acre-feet per square mile during periods like 

that from 1905 to 1945 and 2, 500 acre-feet per square 

mile during periods like the years from 1921 to 1945. 

Thus the average annual supply from diversion and inflow at Buck Island Lake may be between 80, 000 and 

85,000 acre-feet. The records indicate that the runoff 

in the upper Rubicon River area is unusually well sustained during dry years and periods. The average annual runoff during the dry period of six water years 

ending Sept. 30, 1934, is estimated as 1,850 acre-feet 

per square mile, or a total of 59, 000 acre-feet from 

the Rubicon diversion and natural inflow at Rock Bound 

and Buck Island Lakes.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

Rock Bound Lake and Buck Island Lake areas (Fairchild 

Aerial Surveys, May 1946) showing the topography to 

an altitude of 6, 600 feet at Rock Bound Lake and along 

the Rubicon and to 6,490 feet around Buck Island Lake, 

The scale is 1:12,000, and the contour interval is 10 

feet. This map shows the altitude of the Rubicon channel as 6, 500 feet at the dam site, The width of the can-
19

yon at an altitude of 6, 600 feet is about 1,000 feet. No 

land lines nor found corners were shown, and for the 

purposes of this report the locations were approximately determined by reference to a planimetric map 

of the Fallen Leaf quadrangle prepared by the Forest 

Service (scale, 1:31,680).

Rough determinations from the reservoir-site map 

indicate that the potential storage capacity of the Rock 

Bound site, including the Rubicon diversion area, is 

perhaps 30, 000 acre-feet between the altitudes of 

6, 525 and 6, 600 feet. At Buck Island Lake the potential capacity between the altitudes of 6, 420 and 6, 490 

feet is perhaps 8,000 acre-feet. It is judged that the 

potential storage capacity is not sufficient for complete control in a year of average runoff, since the annual runoff is largely concentrated in the snow-runoff 

period.

For the purpose of listing land status and reviewing 

the classifications, possible flow lines were assumed 

to be at the limiting contours of the Bureau map. Rock 

Bound Lake is within the Desolation Primitive Area of 

Eldorado National Forest, although the site was substantially covered by power withdrawals before this 

area was set aside. It seems possible that the decision 

as to the range of permissible reservoir operations 

may depend partly on the effect of varied reservoir levels on scenic and recreation values.

Loon Lake Reservoir site, Gerle Creek 

River drainage basin)"""

The Loon Lake Reservoir site is between the altitudes of 6, 315 and 6, 430 feet and comprises the present Loon Lake Reservoir and surrounding areas. The 

main dam site is in sec. 5, T. 13 N. , R. 15 E. , at the 

Gerle Creek outlet of the lake. The stream bed is at 

an altitude of 6, 315 feet, and the crest of the present 

dam is at an altitude of 6, 350 feet, as shown on a map 

of the site obtained by the Bureau of Reclamation in 

1946. There is an auxiliary dam at another outlet of 

the lake (tributary to Gerle Creek) in sec. 7, T. 13 N., 

R. 15 E. , at a stream-bed altitude of 6, 340 feet. A 

saddle dam would be required in sec. 33, T. 14 N. , R. 

15 E. , for development above an altitude of 6, 390 feet, 

Another saddle dam would be required near the west 

boundary of sec/^f, T. 13 N., R. 15 E., for development above an altitude of 6,415 feet. The Loon Lake 

area, like the upper Rubicon drainage basin, is characterized by extensive granite outcrops and scanty 

growth of timber.

The Loon Lake Reservoir was constructed in 1884 to 

provide a water supply for mining purposes on Geor gettown Ridge. Later the supply was used mainly for irrigation. The present reservoir capacity is 11,000 acrefeet, increased from 8,000 acre-feet in 1934. The reservoir, as well as a canal system from Gerle Creek by 

way of Pilot Creek to Georgetown Ridge, is operated 

by the Georgetown Divide Water Co.

The Loon Lake site was listed in Bulletin 26 of the 

State Division of Water Resources as a possible unit in 

the State water plan for maximum utilization of water 

resources.

Various plans have been suggested for an increase 

in the capacity of the reservoir and use for power purposes. In "Water powers of California" (1928), F. E. 

Bonner listed the ultimate capacity as 44, 000 acre-feet 

below an altitude of 6, 397 feet. He suggested the diversion of water to Loon Lake from the Rubicon River by 

way of Rock Bound and Buck Island Lakes and also from 

the Little South Fork Rubicon River. Power would be 

developed through a drop of 425 feet to the proposed 

Gerle Creek reservoir and thence through a series of 

plants with an additional drop of more than 5, 000 feet. 

In his "Report on power withdrawals on Middle Fork 

American River" (1935), W. R. Parley suggested the 

same plan for the Loon Lake site, listing the headwater 

altitude as 6, 400 feet and the storage capacity as 42,000 

acre-feet with a 50-foot drawdown. He suggested that 

the irrigation requirements on Georgetown Ridge could 

be supplied by storage on Pilot Creek and diversion to 

Pilot Creek from Rubicon River conduits at a lower altitude than Loon Lake. Parley's plan also contemplated 

the storage of about 24,000 acre-feet at the Rock Bound 

Lake and Buck Island Lake sites.

E. F. Sullivan, of the Bureau of Reclamation, in an 

unpublished report dated Nov. 10, 1943, also proposed 

the use of Loon Lake site for power purposes. He estimated that the ultimate requirement for diversion to 

Georgetown Ridge may be 26, 700 acre-feet per year, 

including an allowance for transport losses.

In March 1948 the Georgetown Divide Public Utility 

District applied to the State of California (applications 

12421 and 12423) for permits to appropriate 220 secondfeet and 260,000 acre-feet from some American River 

basin streams, including several tributaries of Rubicon 

River, for irrigation, domestic, and stock-watering 

purposes and 240 second-feet and 260,000 acre-feet 

from the same sources for power. Prospective diversion points included Rock Bound Lake and Loon Lake, 

the latter in sec. 5, T. 13 N., R. 15 E., presumably 

at the Gerle Creek outlet.

As pointed out by Bonner and Far ley, it would be possible to divert water from the Little South Fork Rubicon 

River for an additional supply to Loon Lake. About half 

a mile of conduit leading from the stream channel to the 

southwest corner of the reservoir site would tap 4 

square miles of the headwater area in the Little South 

Fork drainage basin. It is judged that the potential additional supply would be equal to 50 percent of that directly tributary to the lake from its drainage area of 8 

square miles.

A gaging station was operated on Gerle Creek at the 

Outlet of Loon Lake from July 1910 to April 1914, but 

the records are incomplete and the discharge was affected by storage in Loon Lake. Records for the Little 

South Fork Rubicon River at stations upstream and 

downstream from the mouth of Gerle Creek, corrected 

for diversions from Gerle Creek, indicate that the annual runoff from the entire Gerle Creek drainage area 

of 33 square miles was roughly 3,190, 1,070, and 

1,390 acre-feet per square mile, respectively, during 

the three water years ending Sept. 30, 1913. The unit 

runoff during this period apparently was somewhat less 

than from the upper Little South Fork drainage basin 

and was roughly only 70 percent of that of the upper 

Rubicon River drainage basin. The area directly tributary to Loon Lake is about 8 square miles and is in the 

upper part of the Gerle Creek drainage basin. Figuring 

the unit runoff from this area as 80 percent of the estimated Rubicon figures (and ignoring evaporation losses
20

from Loon Lake), the potential annual supply would'be 

roughly 2,100 acre-feet per square mile for periods 

like that from 1905 to 1945 and 2,000 acre-feet per 

square mile for periods like that from 1921 to 1945. 

The entire supply from the 8 square miles thus would 

be roughly 17,000 and 16,000 acre-feet per year for 

periods like the years 1905-45 and 1921-45, respectively. It is judged that the difference in unit runoff as 

compared with that of the upper Rubicon results mainly 

from lesser precipitation, rather than from a difference in drainage-basin losses. The average annual 

runoff during the dry period 1928 to 1934, therefore, 

is also estimated on the basis of 80 percent of the Rubicon rates, or a total of 12,000 acre-feet per year at 

Loon Lake.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

Loon Lake site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) 

showing the topography to an altitude of 6, 430 feet. An 

assembled edition is printed on a scale of 1:12, 000, 

and the contour interval is 10 feet. Rough determinations from this map indicate that the potential storage 

capacity between the altitudes of 6, 350 and 6, 400 feet 

is 60, 000 acre-feet; between the altitudes of 6, 400 and 

6, 415 feet, 21, 000 acre-feet; and between the altitudes 

of 6,415 and 6,430 feet, 24,000 acre-feet. Thus it 

would be topographically feasible to provide a capacity 

of more than 100,000 acre-feet above the present flowage line of the reservoir. This evidently is more than 

required for the control of runoff directly tributary to 

the site, but possibly it could be used advantageously 

for control of the entire potential supply from inflow 

and diversion. For a period like that from 1921 to 1945 

it is estimated that the average annual supply from all 

sources would be 104,000 acre-feet. The potential capacity at Loon Lake would provide for substantial control without regulation at Rock Bound and Buck Island 

Lakes. It is probable, therefore, that the storage requirement will depend .primarily on the relative economy of the several sites.

For the purpose of listing land status and tentative 

power-site classifications, it was assumed that 6, 430 

feet represents the possible headwater altitude from 

the ultimate dam. The reservoir-site map does not 

show land lines or found section corners. The approximate locations of lands were determined from land 

lines indicated'on recent planimetric maps of the Robbs 

Peak and Granite Chief quadrangles obtained by the 

Forest Service (scale, 1:31,680).

Gerle Creek reservoir site, Gerle Creek 

(Rubicon River drainage basin)

The Gerle Creek reservoir site is between the altitudes of 5,800 feet and 6,020 feet along Gerle Creek, 

a few miles downstream from Loon Lake. The main 

dam site is in sees. 2 and 3, T. 13 N.. R. 14 E. A 

short saddle dam would be required in sees. 1 and 2, 

T. 13 N., R. 14 E., for development above an altitude 

of 5, 950 feet. Another saddle dam would be required 

in sec. 34, T. 14 N., R. 14 E., for development above 

an altitude of 5, 975 feet. The Rubicon River is 3 miles 

west of this site, at an altitude of 4, 200 feet.

This site was listed by F. E. Bonner, in "Water 

powers of California" (1928), for a small storage of 

8, 000 acre-feet and diversion from the reservoir at an 

altitude of 5, 850 feet via tunnel and penstock to a powerhouse on the Rubicon River at an altitude of 4,170 

feet. Investigations of the project had been made previously by the Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. for 

the Loon Lake Water & Power Co. Test borings of the 

dam site were made in 1911. (Unlike the Loon Lake 

and upper Rubicon eites, this section has a considerable 

overburden of sand, boulders, and clay.)

W. R. Parley, of tile Forest Service, included the 

Qerle reservoir site in his plan for the development of 

the Middle Fork American River, suggesting a capacity 

of 83,000 acre-feet between the altitudes of 5,830 and 

5, 980 feet.

A brief report by E, F. Sullivan, of the Bureau of 

Reclamation, dated Nov. 10, 1943 (unpublished), suggested a reservoir at this site with an active capacity 

of 70, 000 acre-feet between the altitudes of 5, 860 and 

5, 964 feet.

Applications were made to the State of California 

(applications. 12421 and 12423) in March 1948 by the 

Georgetown Divide Public Utility District for permits 

to appropriate waters of Gerle Creek in sec. 2, T. 13 

N., R. 14 E., for irrigation, domestic, and power 

purposes, in addition to waters from several other locations in the upper Middle Fork and South Fork American River basins.

The drainage area downstream from Loon Lake to 

the Gerle Creek site is approximately 13 square miles. 

Records for the Little South Fork Rubicon River at stations upstream and downstream from the mouth of 

Gerle Creek indicate that the unit runoff in the Gerle 

Creek drainage basin from 1911 to 1913 was only 70 

percent of that in the upper Rubicon River drainage 

basin. On this basis, it is judged that the average annual runoff from the 13 square miles below Loon Lake 

would be 1, 850 acre-feet per square mile for periods 

like that from 1905 to 1945. It is believed that losses 

in this area are relatively large, as compared with 

losses in the upper Rubicon drainage basin, because of 

greater soil and forest cover and a somewhat lower altitude. The average annual supplies for drier periods 

like the years 1921-45 and 1929-34 accordingly are estimated as even less than 70 percent of the corresponding Rubicon rates, or 1, 700 acre-feet per square mile 

during the 25-year period and 1,100 acre-feet per 

square mile during the 6-year period. The corresponding averages for the drainage area of 13 square miles 

are 24,000 acre-feet per year from 1905 to 1945; 

22.JOOO acre-feet per year from 1921 to 1945, and 

14, 000 acre-feet per year from 1929 to 1934.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

reservoir site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) 

showing the topography to an altitude of 6,020 feet and 

higher at the dam site. An assembled edition is on a 

scale of 1:12,000, and the contour interval is 10 feet.

The reservoir areas and capacities, roughly determined from this map, are listed in the following skeleton table:

Altitude 

(feet)

5, 800 

5,850

5,900

5,950

6,000

Area 

(acres)

0 

120

720

900

1,160

Capacity 

(acre-feet]

u 

6,000

30,000

70, 000

120,000
21

The potential capacity evidently is considerably more 

than needed for the control of runoff below Loon Lake. 

The degree of use probably will depend largely on the 

relative economy of storage at this and upstream sites.

For listing land status and making power-site classifications, it was assumed that the maximum-flowage 

line would be at an altitude of 6, 020 feet. The Bureau 

map shows the corners of the quarter sections at the 

W. boundary of sec. 35, T. 14 N., R. 14 E., and the 

W. boundary of see. 2, T. 13 N., R. 14 E., as having 

been found. The approximate location of lands was determined by reference to these corners and to land 

lines as shown on the Forest Service map of the Granite Chief quadrangle (scale, 1:31, 680).

Upper Hell Hole, Lower Hell Hole, and Parsely Bar 

reservoir sites, Rubicon River

These sites cover almost a continuous reach of the 

Rubicon canyon in T. 14 N., Rs. 14 and 15 E. The 

Upper Hell Hole dam site is in sec. 2, T. 14 N., R. 

14 E., a mile downstream from the mouth of Five 

Lakes Creek. The Lower Hell Hole dam site is in sec. 

16, T. 14 N., R. 14 E, The Parsley Bar dam site is 

in the NW$ sec. 32, T. 14 N., R. 14 E. The range of 

altitude is from 4, 030 feet on the channel at the Parsley 

Bar site to 4, 820 feet'at the contemplated maximumflowage line of the proposed Upper Hell Hole reservoir. 

The dam sites are on bedrock granite, exposed or with 

only a sparse overburden.

According to W. R. Parley's report, "Power withdrawals on Middle Fork American River" (1935), the 

Parsley Bar site was investigated by the Stone & Webster Engineering Corp,, and F, Baum & Co,, for the 

Loori Lake Water & Power Co,, from 1906 to 1912, In 

1905 a survey was made of the Lower Hell Hole site by 

the Rubicon Water & Power Co, (controlled by the 

Southern Pacific Co,), and a survey of Upper Hell Hole 

site was made by F, Baum it Co. about 1908, Parley 

suggested net capacities of 80,000, lib, 000, and 

25, 000 acre-feet, respectively, for the Upper Hell 

Hole, Lower Hell Hole, and Parsely Bar reservoirs. 

Active storage was listed as between the altitudes of 

4, 800 and 4, 600 feet; 4, 500 and 4, 323 feet; and 4, 150 

and 4, 025 feet, respectively. The function of the reservoirs would be the power regulation of runoff downstream from a proposed diversion point on the upper 

Rubicon to the Loon Lake-Gerle Creek project which 

would return water to the Rubicon at Parsely Bar.

Previously the California Power Board, reporting to 

the Federal Power Commission in April 1924, had 

listed capacities of 32,000 acre-feet available at Hell 

Hole and 13,000 acre-feet at Parsley Bar. F. E. 

Bonner's report to the Federal Power Commission in 

1928 listed a capacity of 14, 000 acre-feet for the Parsley Bar site but did not include the Hell Hole sites.

The Lower Hell Hole site was listed in Bulletin 26 

of the State Division of Water Resources as a possible 

unit of the State water plan for maximum utilization of 

water resources.

Recently E, F, Sullivan, of the Bureau of Reclamation, has suggested an active storage capacity of 

180,000 acre-feet for the Lower Hell Hole site and a 

dam below Parsley Bar for reregulation and diversion 

(unpublished report of Nov. 10, 1943).

In March 1948 applications were made to the State of 

California by Placer County (applications 12456, 12457, 

and 12458) for permits to appropriate waters of the 

Middle and North Fork American Rivers, including diversions from the Rubicon River in sees. 2 and 16, T. 

14 N., R. 14 E., presumably at the Upper and Lower 

Hell Hole dam sites. Municipal, irrigation, and power 

uses were listed.

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained maps of the three 

sites in May 1946 (Fairchild Aerial Surveys). The topography at the Upper Hell Hole site is shown to an altitude of 4, 820 feet, and the altitude of the river at the 

dam site is shown as 4, 520 feet. The topography at the 

Lower Hell Hole site is shown to an altitude of 4, 480 

feet, and the altitude of the river at the dam site is 

4, 250 feet. The topography at the Parsley Bar site is 

shown to an altitude of 4, 260 feet, and the altitude of 

the stream at the dam site is 4, 030 feet. The maps are 

printed on a scale of 1:6,000, and the contour interval 

is 10 feet.

Rough determinations from these maps indicate that 

potential storage capacities at the Upper Hell Hole, 

Lower Hell Hole, and Parsley Bar sites are about 

93, 000 acre-feet, 68, 000 acre-feet, and 51, 000 acrefeet, respectively. The drainage area above Upper Hell 

Hole to the diversion point to the Loon Lake-Gerle 

Creek project is 71 square miles; abdve Lower Hell 

Hole 82 square miles; and above Parsley Bar 88 square 

miles.

The runoff of the Rubicon River near Georgetown was 

measured from 1910 to 1914 and has likewise been 

measured from 1944 to date. The gaging station is 8 

miles downstream from the Parsley Bar site and a mile 

downstream from the mouth of the Little South Fork 

Rubicon River, The annual runoff at the Rubicon station 

for other years can be estimated fairly accurately by 

correlation of the record with the long-time record of 

the American River at Fair Oaks. Also, there is a 

fair correlation between the figures of annual runoff 

for the Rubicon River and Little South Fork stations 

during the early years. From these relations it is deduced that the average annual runoff of the Little South 

Fork for a period like that from 1921 to 1945 would be 

1, 800 acre-feet per square mile. This is taken as a 

rough measure of the unit runoff from the entire area 

of 76 square miles between Parsley Bar and the Rubicon 

River near Georgetown, which includes 17 square miles 

in addition to the South Fork drainage area at a similar 

altitude. Allowing for runoff in the upper Rubicon drainage basin as estimated on page 18, the average annual 

rate for the intervening 88 square miles upstream from 

Parsley Bar is computed, accordingly, as 2, 000 acrefeet per square mile from 1921 to 1945. The runoff 

from this area represents the dependable supply at 

Parsley Bar after the prospective diversion through 

Rock Bound and Buck Island Lakes to Loon Lake.

The water supplies available from intervening areas 

between the Parsley Bar and other Rubicon River sites, 

as similarly estimated, are as follows:
22

Area x

Between Rubicon diversion and Upper Hell Hole

Between Upper Hell Hole and Lower Hell Hole

Between Lower Hell Hole and Parsley Bar ^

(sq. miles)

71

11

6

Average annual runoff (acre-feet)

1905-45

141,000

22, 000

11,500

1921-45

134,000

20, 000

10,700

1929-34

89.000

13. 500

7,000

The Bureau of Reclamation maps of 1946 do not show 

land lines or found corners. For the purpose of listing 

status of lands and tentative power-site classifications, 

the land lines were approximately located on these 

maps from the land net shown on recent Forest Service 

planimetric quadrangle maps. Flow lines were taken 

as at the top contour of the Bureau maps.

Union Valley reservoir site, Silver Creek 

(jjTouth Fork American River drainage basin)

The Union Valley reservoir site is along Silver Creek 

and the North and Middle Forks Silver Creek between 

the altitudes of 4, 510 and 4, 900 feet. The dam site is 

a mile downstream from the confluence of the North 

and Middle Forks, mainly in sec. 20. T. 12 N., R. 14 

E., and possibly extending into adjacent section 29,

This reservoir site was listed in Bulletin 26 of the 

State Division of Water Resources as a possible unit in 

the State water plan for maximum utilization of water 

resources. It was designated Silver Creek No. 2. Another site was listed in sec. 15, T. 12 N., R. 14 E., 

as Silver Creek No. 1 (on North Fork Silver Creek). 

The latter would be within the Union Valley site.

The Union Valley site was investigated by the City of 

Sacramento and later by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District with a view, to storage and regulation for 

proposed municipal and power developments. The district plans call for a storage capacity of 225,000 acrefeet below a pool level of 4, 843 feet and an outlet at an 

altitude of 4, 625 feet for diversion by tunnel to the proposed Big Bend powerhouse on Silver Creek at an altitude of 3, 705 feet. Water from the Icehouse reservoir 

on South Fork Silver Creek would be diverted into the 

Union Valley reservoir by way of the Middle Fork Silver Creek. In February 1948 the Sacramento Municipal Utility District applied to the State of California for 

permits to appropriate water from Silver Creek and the 

South Fork for municipal, irrigation; and power purposes (applications 12321, 12322, and 12323).

W. R. Parley, in his report on "Power withdrawals 

of the South Fork American River" (June 1936), suggested the use of Silver Creek waters primarily for 

power purposes, substituting water from the proposed 

Folsom or Coloma reservoirs downstream for other 

proposed uses. He suggested a storage capacity of 

160,000 acre-feet for the Union Valley site, with a 

330-foot dam to an altitude of 4, 815 feet. Water would 

be conveyed by tunnel and penstock to the Junction powerhouse at an altitude of 4, 300 feet.

A gaging station was operated near the dam site from 

1924 to 1927 and has been operated continuously since 

1928. Discharge records show that the average flow 

for 20 years was 200 second-feet, corresponding to an 

average annual runoff of 145,000 acre-feet. The average during the six water years 1929-34 was 90,000

acre-feet. It is judged that a storage capacity of 

160,000 acre-feet would provide for complete regulation 

during such periods.

The Bureau of Reclamation has obtained a map of the 

Union Valley site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, May 1946) 

showing the topography to an altitude of 4, 900 feet. An 

assembled edition of this map is on a scale of 1:12,000, 

and the contour interval is 10 feet. The status of lands 

and tentative power-site classifications were determined 

on the assumption that the flowage line would be at 

4, 900 feet. The Bureau map shows the SW. corner and 

the quarter-section corners at the W. boundary of sec. 

23, T. 12 N., R. 14 E. as found. Land lines used for 

listing status were approximately located on the Bureau 

map on the basis of these corners and the land net 

shown on a recent Forest Service planimetric map of 

the Robbs Peak quadrangle (scale, 1:31,680).

Icehouse reservoir site, South Fork Silver Creek 

(South Fork American River drainage basin)

The Icehouse site is along the South Fork Silver 

Creek between the altitudes of 5, 300 and 5,460 feet. 

The dam site is in sec. 1, T. 11 N., R. 14 E.

This site was listed in Bulletin 26 of the State Division of Water Resources as a possible unit in the State 

water plan for maximum utilization of water resources.

The City of Sacramento (later the Sacramento Municipal Utility District) has planned the full development of 

Silver Creek and made extensive investigations of the 

project. The original plan contemplated the storage of 

45, 000 acre-feet at the Icehouse site on the South Fork 

Silver Creek between the altitudes of 5, 275 and 5, 420 

feet in addition to 165, 000 acre-feet at the Union Valley 

site on Silver Creek. In February 1948 the Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District applied to the State of California for permits (applications 12321, 12322, and 12323) 

to appropriate 310 second-feet and 275,000 acre-feet 

from the South Fork and Silver Creek for municipal 

and irrigation purposes and 400 second-feet and 275,000 

acre-feet from these sources for power purposes 

(112. 600 horsepower). These applications listed diversion points as in sec. 1, T. 11 N,, R. 14 E.; sec. 20, 

T. 12 N., R. 14 E.; sec. 33, T. 12 N., R. 13 E.; sec. 

15, T. UN., R. 12 E.; and sec. 19, T. UN., R. 12 

E. These recent applications presumably have been 

made to protect the interests of the district in view of 

the accelerated development of California streams.

In a report on "Power withdrawals of South Fork 

American River" by W. R. Farley (June 1936), it was 

suggested that the Icehouse site be planned for active 

storage of 50, 000 acre-feet between the altitudes of 

5, 325 and 5, 435 feet and that water be conveyed from 

the reservoir by flume, tunnel, and penstock to the 

Junction powerhouse on Silver Creek at an altitude of 

4, 300 feet. The district plan contemplated diversion
23

from the Icehouse to the Union Valley reservoir on 

Silver Creek without utilizing the power drop above 

Union Valley.

A gaging station has been operated near the dam site 

since October 1924. The average discharge for the 21 

years ending Sept. 30, 1945, was 71 second-feet, corresponding to an average annual runoff of 52, 000 acrefeet. The average during the six water years 1929-34 

was 34, 300 acre-feet.

The Bureau of Reclamation has obtained a map of the 

Icehouse reservoir site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, 

May 1946) showing the topography to an altitude of 

5,460 feet. An assembled edition is on a scale of 

1:12,000, and the contour interval is 10 feet. The status of lands and tentative power-site classifications 

were determined on the assumption that the flowage 

line might be at 5, 460 feet. The Bureau map does not 

show land lines or found corners. Land lines were approximately located on this map from the land net as 

shown on a recent Forest Service planimetric map of 

the Robbs Peak quadrangle, as referred to topographic 

features.

Junction reservoir site, Silver Creek 

(South Fork American River drainage basin)

The Junction reservoir site is between the altitudes 

of 4, 290 and 4, 500 feet along Silver Creek and the 

South Fork Silver Creek. The dam site is in the 

sec. 30, T. 12 N., R. 14 E. It is half a mile downstream from the mouth of the South Fork Silver Creek.

This site was suggested by W. R. Farley in his report on "Power withdrawals of South Fork American 

River" (June 1936). It consists of narrow reaches of 

Silver Creek and South Fork Silver Creek canyons not 

favorable for storage.

The stream altitude at the proposed dam site is 

4, 290 feet. The topography is shown on a recent Bureau of Reclamation map to 4, 540 feet. The average 

canyon width in the reservoir area at an altitude of 

4, 540 feet is less than 500 feet, .and the over-all length 

of the reservoir (including tributary arms) would be 

about 3 miles. It is judged that the reservoir capacity 

with a 250-foot dam would be less than 10,000 acrefeet.

Farley estimated the usable capacity as 15,000 acrefeet with a 135-foot dam (4, 300 feet to 4, 435 feet) on 

the basis of topography shown on the Pyramid Peak 

quadrangle map. The drawdown would have been 85 

feet. The reservoir was proposed for the control of 

runoff from 30.6 square miles below the Icehouse and 

Union Valley sites.

In view of the unfavorable possibilities for storage, 

the writer Judges that a 250-foot dam would not be 

justified. It is conceivable, however, that a diversion 

dam might be needed below the Junction of Silver Creek 

and the South Fork Silver Creek for the capture of 

some unregulated runoff. Also, public lands in sec. 

30, T. 12 N., R. 14 E., might be heeded for proposed 

tunnel or conduit locations. It is doubtful that public 

lands in section 19 would be affected by either pondage 

or conduit locations.

In September 1948 Placer County applied to the State 

of California (applications 12689 and 12690) for permits 

to appropriate 1,000 second-feet and 250,000 acrefeet per year from Silver Creek in sec. 30, T. 12 N., 

R. 14 E., for power, domestic, and irrigation 

purposes.

Auburn and Oregon Bar reservoir sites, North Fork

 

The Auburn reservoir site is along the North Fork 

and Middle Fork American Rivers between the altitudes 

of 520 and 960 feet. Two dam sites have been investigated. The lower site is on the North Fork American 

River in the south half of sec. 11, T. 12 N., R. 8E., 

1.4 miles downstream from the junction of the Middle 

Fork with the Nork Fork, at a stream altitude of 520 

feet. The upper site is on the North Fork in the NW£ 

sec. 12, extending into sec. 11. It is just downstream 

from the mouth of the Middle Fork, at a stream altitude 

of about 533 feet.

The Oregon Bar reservoir site is along the North 

Fork and Middle Fork American Rivers between the 

altitudes of 410 and 950 feet. The dam site is on the 

North Fork, mainly in sec. 35, T. 12 N. , R. 8 E., 

extending into sec. 34. The site is just downstream 

from the mouth of Pilot Creek and is at the upper end 

of the Pilot Creek dam site, considered as an afterbay 

site for the prospective Auburn dam.

The Auburn site was selected as a major unit of the 

State water plan and .is described in Bulletin 26 of the 

State Division of Water Resources. It was proposed to 

construct a 440-foot dam at the lower site to create a 

storage capacity of 831,000 acre-feet. The project 

was considered in connection with the prospective 

Coloma reservoir on the South Fork American River 

and the prospective Folsom reservoir on the main stem 

downstream. A power plant with a capacity of 85, 000 

kilovolt-amperes would have been constructed at the 

dam. Power also would have been developed at the 

prospective Pilot Creek dam, 6 miles downstream at 

a stream altitude of 407 feet, to utilize a head of 110 

feet between the Auburn dam and the Folsom reservoir. 

A capacity of 90, 000 acre -feet would have been used at 

the Auburn site for flood-control reserve. With operation primarily for irrigation, it was estimated that the 

annual yield in new water would have been 838, 000 

acre-feet for periods like that from 1889 to 1929 with 

permissible deficiencies. A recent decision to provide 

a storage capacity of 1, 000, 000 acre-feet instead of 

355,000 acre-feet at the Folsom site affects the possibilities at the Auburn and Pilot Creek sites. Th.e 

Pilot Creek site will be inundated.

The Bureau of Reclamation did not select the Auburn 

site or alternatives on the North Fork in the plan of 

development outlined in the Department of the Interior 

report dated November 1945. However, the Bureau 

has investigated the Auburn site and has been making 

investigations of other North Fork sites. One preliminary proposal has been for the construction of a 300- 

foot dam at the Oregon Bar site at a stream altitude 

of about 410 feet. There would be an active capacity 

of 110, 000 acre-feet with a drawdown of 60 feet, and 

the dam would be used for power development. The 

reservoir would flood the Auburn site. The proposed 

Oregon Bar dam would be subject to some backwater
from the Folsom reservoir. This site also has been 

considered for a high dam as an alternative to the 

Auburn dam. Preliminary investigations by the Bureau 

of Reclamation have indicated that it may be better than 

the Auburn site.

The State of California commented on the Bureau of 

Reclamation proposals for Central Valley development 

in a review dated April 1946. It was brought out in this 

review that additional information has been obtained 

recently about the foundation conditions at the Auburn 

site. The investigations have shown that stripping for 

the foundation would be much greater than originally 

estimated. The Bureau of Reclamation also reported 

that recent geological investigations have indicated 

that the cost of the Auburn reservoir would be very 

high. However, the State review concludes with a recommendation that the reservoir, as a feature of the 

State water plan, be included for future consideration 

in a study for formulating an ultimate plan for development of the water resources of the American River for 

all beneficial purposes. In connection with the review 

of the Department of the Interior report, the State 

made additional studies of the Auburn, Coloma, and 

Folsom units and afterbays. It was concluded that the 

total energy output of all the units would be in excess 

of a billion kilowatt-hours annually and that the irrigation yield would be l| million acre-feet of new water 

per year. There would be a maximum flood-control 

reserve of 260,000 acre-feet. The over-all benefitcost ratio, figuring the amortization of reimbursable 

costs without interest, was estimated as about Ii2.

The State of California described some further 

studies and investigations of the Auburn and Oregon 

Bar sites in a "Supplemental report with reference to 

size of Folsom reservoir of American River development" (Aug. 8, 1947). These studies favored the upper 

site, instead of the lower site previously contemplated. 

The cost and performance were listed for four sizes of 

reservoir at the Auburn site, ranging from 250, 000 to 

850, 000 acre-feet in capacity. Similar figures also 

were listed for reservoirs with capacities of 450, 000, 

650,000, and 850,000 acre-feet, operated coordinately 

with reservoirs of varied capacities at the Folsom and 

Coloma sites so that the three would provide a total of 

2, 500,000 acre-feet. Power plants would be operated 

in connection with each reservoir and at an afterbay 

below the Folsom reservoir. The maximum floodcontrol reserve for the three American River units of 

this study was 400, 000 acre-feet, instead of the 

260, 000 acre-feet assumed for earlier studies. This 

was in accord with a recommendation of the Sacramento 

District, Corps of Engineers, dated July 2, 1947. The 

studies indicated that the cost and incremental cost of 

irrigation yield would be less at the Folsom site than 

at the North or South Fork sites, thus favoring the Folsom site for initial development.

An examination of the several American River dam 

sites was made by a board of consultants for the purpose of this supplemental report. The conclusions of 

the supplemental report include a statement that the 

limit of capacity at the Upper Auburn site would be 

about 650,000 acre-feet and, at the Oregon Bar site, 

about 700, 000 acre-feet. The board of consultants reported on the Upper Auburn site, the Lower Auburn 

site, and the Oregon Bar site. Foundation conditions 

at the Oregon Bar site were found to be the most favorable; those at the Lower Auburn site were considered 

the least favorable.

In October 1948 El Dorado County and Placer County 

applied to the State of California (applications 12755 

and 12759) for permits to appropriate water from the 

North Fork American River at or near the Auburn dam 

site. Power, irrigation, domestic, and stock-watering 

purposes were listed.

Stream-flow records have been obtained for the 

American River and its main branches for varying 

periods and published in water-supply papers of the 

Geological Survey. The runoff at the Auburn dam site 

may be estimated from these records, with allowances 

for diversions and inflow. The State Division of Water 

Resources, using data supplied by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers, has estimated the mean annual runoff for the 27-year period from 1915 to 1942 as 

1,490,200 acre-feet.

The Geological Survey published a river plan and 

profile in 1942 which includes the Lower Auburn and 

Pilot Creek sites. The scale is 1:24,000, and the contour interval is 20 feet on land and 5 feet on the river 

surface. The topography is shown to a minimum altitude of about 960 feet on the Auburn reservoir site. 

The Lower Auburn dam site was mapped on a scale of 

1:2,400, with a contour interval of 10 feet on land and 

1 foot on the river surface. The topography is shown 

to an altitude of 1,000 feet. The Pilot Creek dam site 

was mapped on the same scale and with the same contour interval, and the topography is shown to an altitude of 560 feet.

The Bureau of Reclamation has prepared a map of 

the Oregon Bar dam site on a scale of 1:1, 200 and with 

a contour interval of 5 and 10 feet. The topography is 

shown to an altitude of 1, 020 feet.

Coloma and Webber Creek (Salmon Falls) reservoir 

sites, South Fjark American River

The Coloma reservoir site is along the South Fork 

American River between the altitudes of 545 and 920 

feet. The dam site is at a stream altitude of 543 feet 

in sec. 28, T. UN., R. 9 E., a mile and a half upstream from the mouth of Webber Creek.

A site three-quarters of a mile downstream from 

Webber Creek (Webber Creek or Salmon Falls dam 

site), at a stream altitude of 460 feet, also has been 

considered for a high dam as an alternative to the Coloma dam or for a low dam to develop the power drop 

between the Coloma dam and the Folsom reservoir. 

Preliminary investigations by the Bureau of Reclamation have indicated that this site may be better than the 

Coloma site for a high dam. The location is near the 

south boundary of sec. 30, T. UN., R. 9 E.

The Coloma site was selected as a major unit of the 

State water plan and is described in Bulletin 26 of the 

State Division of Water Resources. It was proposed to 

construct a 345-foot dam to create a storage capacity 

of 766, 000 acre-feet. The project was considered in 

connection with the prospective Auburn reservoir on 

the North Fork American River and the prospective 

Folsom reservoir on the American River below the 

confluence of the North and South Forks. It was proposed that a capacity of 35,000 acre-feet be reserved 

for flood control at the Coloma site. The annual irrigation yield In new water (subject to permissible deficiencies) was estimated as 637, 500 acre-feet. Power would
25

be developed at the Coloma dam through a maximum 

drop of 340 feet and, at the Webber Creek dam, . 

through a drop of 105 feet. The output was considered 

only in connection with the entire system output, which 

included production for the prospective Auburn, Folsom, Pilot Creek, and Folsom-afterbay units. A recent decision to provide a storage capacity of 

1, 000,000 acre-feet instead of 355, 000 acre-feet at 

the Folsom site affects the possibilities at the Coloma 

and Webber Creek sites as outlined in the original 

State proposal.

The Bureau of Reclamation selected the Coloma site 

as a major prospective reservoir of the Central Valley 

project, as proposed in the Department of the Interior 

report dated November 1945. A 363,-foot dam would be 

constructed to provide a capacity of 800, 000 acre-feet. 

The project was considered in connection with the prospective storage of 1, 000, 000 acre-feet at the Folsom 

reservoir, now authorized. A power plant with a capacity of 40, 000 kilowatts would be constructed at the 

Coloma dam, and the average annual output for the dry 

period from 1928 to 1934 was estimated as 130 million 

kilowatt-hours. A low dam would be constructed at the 

Salmon Falls site to develop the head of about 80 feet 

between the proposed Coloma dam and the Folsom reservoir. The output at the Salmon Falls site was estimated as 55 million kilowatt-hours with an installed 

capacity of 12,000 kilowatts.

The State of California commented on the Bureau 

proposal in a review dated April 1946. It was pointed 

out that there have been recent additional investigations 

of the foundation conditions at the Coloma site which 

have an appreciable influence on estimates of cost. It 

was stated that the foundation rock is suitable for a 

concrete dam but that moderate excavation would be 

required in the stream bed and considerable excavation 

on the abutments. The State review recommended that 

a reservoir with a capacity of 800, 000 to 1,000,000 

acre-feet be deferred at the Coloma site until the unit 

is needed and justified as a step in American River development. (The storage of 1,000,000 acre-feet would 

back water to an altitude of about 920 feet.)

The State of California described some further studies and investigations of the Coloma and Salmon Falls 

sites in a "Supplemental report with reference to size 

of Folsom reservoir of American River development" 

(Aug. 8, 1947). The cost and performance were listed 

for four sizes of reservoir, at the Coloma site, 

ranging from 300,000 to 1,050,000 acre-feet in capacity. Similar figures also were listed for a reservoir 

with a capacity of 1, 050, 000 acre-feet, operated coordinately with reservoirs of three different capacities 

at the Folsom and Auburn sites so that the three reservoirs would provide a total capacity of -2, 500,000 acrefeet. These studies indicated that the cost and performance of the several combinations would not be greatly 

different. The range was limited to capacities of 

600, 000, 800, 000, and 1, 000, 000 acre-feet at the 

Folsom site.

An examination of the several American River dam 

sites was made by a board of consultants for the purposes of this supplemental report. The conclusions of 

the supplemental report include a statement that the 

upper limit of capacity at the Coloma site would be 

about 800,000 acre-feet and, at the Salmon Falls site, 

about 1,000,000 acre-feet. The board of consultants

pointed out that a higher dam would be required at the 

Salmon Falls site than for the same capacity at the 

Coloma site, but that the foundation conditions are better and the topography is favorable for the construction 

of a spillway at a saddle some distance from the dam.

In November 1948 El Dorado County applied to the 

State of California, (applications 12783, 12784, and 

12785) for permits to appropriate water from the South 

Fork American River at or near the Coloma and Salmon 

Falls sites. The purposes were listed as power, irrigation, domestic, and stock watering.

A gaging station was operated on the South Fork 

American River at Coloma from 1929 to 1941. The average discharge for 12 years was 964 second-feet, corresponding to an average annual runoff of 700, 000 acrefeet. The drainage area at the gaging station is 635 

square, miles and, at the dam site 6 miles downstream, 

708 square miles. The State Division of Water Resources, using data supplied by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers, has estimated the mean annual runoff at the Coloma site as 734, 800 acre-feet for 

the 27-year period 1915 to 1942.

The .Geological Survey published a river plan and 

profile in 1942 which includes the Coloma reservoir 

site. The scale is 1:24,000, and the contour interval 

is 20 feet on land and 5 feet on the river surface. The 

topography is shown to a minimum altitude of 940 feet. 

The Coloma dam site was mapped on a scale of 1:4, 800 

and with a contour interval of 10 feet on land and 1 foot 

on the river surface. The topography is shown to an 

altitude of 1, 000 feet. The Webber Creek dam site was 

mapped on the same scale and with the same contour 

interval, and the topography was shown to an altitude 

of 650 feet.

The Bureau of Reclamation has prepared a map of 

the Salmon Falls (Webber Creek) .dam site on a scale 

of 1:^, 200 and with a contour interval of 5 and 10 feet. 

The topography is shown to an altitude of 1,000 feet.

Folsom reservoir site, American River

The Folsom reservoir site is along the American 

River and the North Fork and South Fork American 

Rivers, between the altitudes of 196 and 487 feet. (The 

normal maximum pool altitude will be 466 feet.) The 

main dam site is on the American River in sec. 24, T. 

ION., R. 7 E., a mile downstream from the mouth of 

the South Fork. A number of auxiliary or saddle dams 

will be required for a considerable distance on both 

sides of the river. The aggregate crest length of the 

dams will be 5 1/3 miles.

The reservoir was selected as a major unit of the 

State water plan, and a proposal for development to a 

capacity of 355, 000 acre-feet, with a description of the 

site, is given in Bulletin 2$ of the State Division of 

Water Resources.

The Bureau of Reclamation selected the site as a 

major prospective reservoir of the Central Valley project, with a storage capacity of 1,000,000 acre-feet at 

the maximum-flowage line, 488 feet. The proposal is 

contained in the Department of the Interior report of 

November 1945.
28

The Corpi of Engineer! first proposed a reservoir 

with a capacity of 355,000 acre-feet at the Foliom site, 

and the project was so authorized for construction in 

Public Law 534, 78th Congress, 2d session, It was 

authorized in the same form by the California legislature, California statutes of 1945, chapter 1514, 

section 47.

A flood-control survey report of the Sacramento 

District, Corps of Engineers, of February 1945, 

brought up to date by a supplement of June 1948, proposed the construction of Folsom reservoir to a capacity of 1,000,000 acre-feet, with a maximum floodcontrol reservation of 260, 000 acre-feet. One of the 

reasons for the change in plan is the fact that investigations had indicated less favorable conditions for 

storage upstream at the Auburn and Coloma sites than 

was anticipated.

The State of California discussed the proposals of 

the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers 

in reviews dated April 1946. As a result of further 

studies by State investigators it was concluded that the 

optimum storage capacity would be 600, 000 acre-feet. 

The studies indicated that the financial aspect of the 

project became progressively less favorable with an 

increase in capacity above 355,000 acre-feet, but that 

a capacity of 600, 000 acre-feet was needed at the Fol-. 

som site to meet requirements. It was also concluded, 

however, that with Federal financing a project having 

a reservoir capacity of 1,000, 000 acre-feet would be 

financially feasible, assuming that the estimated water, 

and power revenues would be realized.

The State of California described some further stud* 

ies and investigations of the Folsom site in a "Supplemental report with reference to size of Folsom reservoir of American River development" (Aug. 8, 1947), 

The cost and performance were listed for five sises of 

reservoir at the Folsom site, ranging from 600,000 to 

2, 500,000 acre-feet in capacity. Similar figures also 

were listed for reservoirs with capacities of 600,000, 

800, 000, and 1, 000, 000 acre-feet, operated coordinately with reservoirs of different capacities at the 

Auburn and Coloma sites so that the three reservoirs 

would provide a total capacity of 2, 500, 000 acre-feet. 

The maximum flood-contro} reserve for the three 

American River units of this study was 400,000 acrefeet, instead of the 260, 000 acre-feet assumed for earlier studies. It was concluded that a capacity of 

1, 000, 000 acre-feet at the Folsom site is the practicable limit. It was recommended that the reservoir be 

constructed to this capacity, and because of favorable 

performance in flood control, irrigation, and power it 

should be the initial unit for American River 

development.

The studies and recommendations of the several interested State and Federal agencies have led to authorization of the construction of the Folsom reservoir to 

a capacity of 1,000,000 acre-feet. The reservoir is to 

be constructed by the Corps of' Engineers, with operation and maintenance by the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Bureau is authorized to construct a power plant in 

connection with the project, with a capacity of approximately 120,000 kilowatts, and an afterbay dam and 

power plant (Public Law 356, 81st Congress, 1st 

session).

The State of California has estimated that the annual 

irrigation yield with a capacity of 1,000,000 acre-feet 

at the Folsom reservoir will be about a million acrefeet annually. This will be more than needed in the local service area, and there will be a surplus available 

for export to the San Joaquiri Valley and other regions, 

The State investigators estimated the energy output as 

480 million kilowatt-hours per year, with a capacity of 

140,000 kilovolt-amperes at the dam and 25,000 

kilovolt-amperes at the afterbay.

According to the State review of April 1948, there 

will be an ultimate need for a reservoir capacity of 

2, 500, 000 acre-feet in the lower American River 

drainage basin for complete control and utilization. 

This could be obtained with the future addition of the 

Auburn and Coloma units. The Bureau of Reclamation, 

in the Department of the Interior report dated November 1945, concluded that a considerable portion of the 

American River flow could be stored in the proposed 

lone reservoir in the Mokelumne River drainage basin. 

This would be accomplished by diversion of water from 

the Folsom reservoir southward by canal for eventual 

use in the San Joaquin Valley. The Bureau concluded 

that this would limit the major storage requirements 

on the lower American River to the Folsom and Coloma 

sites. The State of California, commenting on this proposal in 1946, questioned that the proposed Folsomlone-Mendota canal with off-stream storage of American 

River water is justified. It was proposed instead to use 

the lone reservoir in the plan of development for the 

Mokelumne River. Canal diversion southward from 

Folsom would provide a supplemental irrigation supply 

in the service areas dependent on the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras Rivers.

A gaging station has been operated on the American 

River at Fair Oaks since 1904. The mean annual runoff for 42 years of record, to 1947, was 2, 680, 000 

acre-feet. The drainage area at the gage is 1, 918 

square miles and, at the Folsom dam site, 1,875 

square miles. The State Division of Water Resources, 

using data furnished by the Sacramento District, Corps 

of Engineers, estimated the mean annual runoff at the 

Fair Oaks gage as 2,447,000 acre-feet for the 27-year 

period from 1915 to 1942.

The prospective storage reservoirs in the upper 

American RivSr drainage basin that have been described 

herein would have some incidental effect in reducing 

the storage requirements for flood control and irrigation, but it is judged that this would be relatively small.

COSUMNES RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN 

Nashville reservoir site, Cosumnes River

The Nashville reservoir site is along the Cosumnes 

River and Its tributaries, the North Fork and Middle 

Fork Cosumnes Rivers, and Big Indian Creek, between 

the altitudes of 785 and 1,100 feet. The dam site is on 

the Cosumnes River half a mile downstream from the 

confluence of the North and Middle Forks and a quarter 

of a mile downstream from the mouth of Big Indian 

Creek. It is in sees. 14 and 15, T. 8 N.. R. 10 E.

The Nashville reservoir is a unit of the State water 

plan and is described in Bulletin 29 of the State Division 

of Water Resources. The State proposal called for a 

storage capacity of 281,000 acre-feet as adequate for 

regulation of the flow without waste. A storage capacity 

of 56,000 acre-feet was to be used for flood control. 

The maximum water-surface altitude, was listed as 

1,020 feet, and the he: ;ht o'f the dam above stre ..a bed
27

as 270 feet. It was pointed out that the water supply 

available from the Nashville reservoir would not be 

sufficient for the irrigation requirements of the Cosumnes River service area and that supplemental supplies would ultimately be obtained from the American 

River. The State proposal did not contemplate the development of water power.

The Bureau of Reclamation, in the Department of 

the Interior report on the Central Valley basin of November 1945, proposed a reservoir with a storage capacity of 550, 000 acre-feet at the Nashville site and 

with a dead storage of 44, 000 acre-feet. The 

maximum-flowage line was listed as at 1, 087 feet, and 

the stream-bed altitude as 765 feet. It was estimated 

that the reservoir would provide a firm water supply 

of 100, 000 acre-feet annually and that surplus water 

would be available for export southward in the San 

Joaquin Valley. (On the basis of records then available, the State investigation indicated that there would 

have been a mean annual yield for irrigation of 163, 000 

acre-feet for the period from 1918 to 1929.) The Bureau proposed to install a power plant with a capacity 

of 18,000 kilowatts in connection with the reservoir. 

The average annual output was estimated as 55 million 

kilowatt-hours during a period like that from 1928 to 

1934.

The Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers, in a 

flood-control survey report of February 1945, brought 

up to date by a supplement of June 1948, also contemplated use of the Nashville site. The proposal was for 

a reservoir with a capacity of 550, 000 acre-feet and a 

maximum flood-control reservation of 300, 000 acrefeet. The project would include a power plant with a 

capacity of 10, 000 kilovolt-amperes, and the annual 

output was estimated as 61 million kilowatt-hours.

The State of California, commenting on both the Bureau's and the Corps of Engineer's proposals in reviews published April 1946, found that they were not 

economically feasible at that time. It was recommended 

that the project be reexamined on the basis of a smaller 

capacity of 250, 000 to 300, 000 acre-feet, as this was 

judged to be sufficient for irrigation and flood-control 

purposes. The mean annual runoff at the dam site was 

listed as 333, 000 acre-feet, and the estimated maximum flood for the period of record as 27, 500 secondfeet.

The Federal Power Commission, San Francisco office, commenting on the power features of the Bureau 

of Reclamation's proposals, pointed out that the cost 

of the Nashville power installation would be relatively 

high and that the full plant capacity would be used for 

only 2 months in an average year. It was mentioned 

that the plant would be located 1.5 miles downstream 

from the dam, connected to an arm of the reservoir by 

a 4, 400-foot tunnel. The report suggested an installed 

capacity of about 12,000 kilowatts as more appropriate 

than the Bureau's proposed 16,000 kilowatts (report, 

not for public release, dated January 1946).

In February 1948 Amador County applied to the State 

of California (application 12342) for a permit to appropriate 100 second-feet and 18, 322 acre-feet from the 

Cosumnes River in sec. 14, T. 8 N., R. 10 E., and 

sec. 18, T. 9 N., R. 12 E., the former location being 

at the Nashville dam site.

In November 1948 El Dorado County applied to the 

State of California for 21 permits to appropriate waters 

of the Cosumnes River and tributaries for municipal, 

irrigation, stock-watering, and power purposes. Three 

of the applications (12830, 12831, and 12832) were for 

permits to appropriate 2, 000 second-feet and 795, 000 

acre-feet per year from the Cosumnes River in sec. 

14, T. 8 N., R. 10 E., at the Nashville dam site. A 

number of the applications were for permits to appropriate substantial amounts of water (up to 1, 000 secondfeet and 100, 000 acre-feet per year) from tributaries 

upstream from the Nashville site.

Discharge records have been obtained on the Cosumnes River at Michigan Bar since October 1907. The 

average yearly discharge to Sept. 30, 1945, was 478 

second-feet, corresponding to a mean annual runoff of 

347, 000 acre-feet. During the six water years 1929-34 

the mean annual runoff was about 146, 000 acre-feet. 

The drainage area at the Nashville dam site is 435 

square miles, or 81 percent of that at the gaging station, but the State investigators judged that about 93 

percent of the runoff originates above the dam site. 

There are some diversions to the American River basin and some irrigation diversions within the basin upstream from the dam site, and there have been proposals for larger diversions.

The State investigators determined the potential capacity of the Nashville site from a topographic map 

prepared by Stephen E. Kieffer in 1925 (scale, 

1:24, 000). Areas and capacities were tabulated to an 

altitude of 1, 100 feet, corresponding to a capacity of 

613, 000 acre-feet. (See Bulletin 2<f of the State Divio 

sion of Water Resources.)

The Bureau of Reclamation obtained a map of the 

Nashville site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, March 1946) 

showing the topography to an altitude of 1, 100 feet generally and higher at the dam site. An assembled edition 

of this map is on a scale of 1:24, 000, and the contour 

interval is 10 feet. The approximate locations of lands 

with reference to the topographic features of this map 

were determined from comparable locations as shown 

on other maps. A planimetric map of the Placerville 

quadrangle by the Forest Service was the main source 

for this information.

It was assumed for the purpose of this report that 

the maximum-flo wage line might be at an altitude of 

1, 100 feet. This presumably would require a saddle 

dam in the south half of sec. 2, T. 7 N., R. 10 E., 

near the northern boundary of the town of Plymouth. 

The altitude of the valley bottom in that section is 1,050 

feet, and the width at an altitude of 1, 100 feet is about 

1,500 feet.

Sly Park and other reservoir sites, Sly Park Creek, 

"~~ Clear Creek, and Consumnes River

The Sly Park reservoir site is along Sly Park Creek 

between the altitudes of 3, 310 and 3, 478 feet. The dam 

site is in sec. 17, T. ION., R. 13 E. Sly Park Creek 

joins Camp Creek, a tributary of the North Fork Cosumnes River.

The Bureau of Reclamation, in the Department of the 

Interior report on the Central Valley bastf! of November 

1945, reported that storage at the Sly Park site would
28

be desirable for irrigation use. The prospective service area was described as lands .in and adjacent to 

the El Dorado irrigation district, on the ridge between 

the South Fork American River and Cosumnes River 

basins. Further studies and investigations of this project were reported by the Bureau in "Supplement to 

legislative report on American River development. 

Central Valley basin. Calif., " dated Feb. 25, 1949. It 

was reported that there are about 33,000 acres of irrigable land in the Sly Park division, 20,000 acres of 

which are within the El Dorado irrigation district and 

the remainder adjacent to it. The new water supply 

from Sly Park reservoir would be used in coordination 

with present supplies to continue service to 1,480 acres 

now receiving an adequate supply and to provide supplemental water to 3,850 acres now receiving only a partial supply. An additional 3, 500 acres of dry lands 

would be brought under irrigation.

The Sly Park reservoir, with a capacity of about 

40, 000 acre-feet; a diversion dam on Camp Creek; and 

works.including diversion and delivery waterways were 

authorized as part of the Central Valley project^ (Pub* 

lie Law 356, 81st Congress, 1st session). The Bureau 

of Reclamation was authorized to make the necessary 

investigations.

The Bureau of Reclamation has obtained a map of 

the Sly Park site (Fairchild Aerial Surveys^ May 1946) 

showing the topography to an altitude of 3,500 feet. An 

assembled edition of the map is on a scale of 1:12,000, 

and the contour interval is 10 feet.

A similar map was obtained of the Pleasant Valley 

reservoir site on Clear Creek, a tributary of the North 

Fork Cosumnes River west of Sly Park and Camp 

Creeks. This map indicates that there is considerable 

potential capacity between the altitudes of about 2, 350 

and 2,520 feet in a broad area along Clear Creek and a 

tributary. The dam site is in sec. 32, T. 10 N., R. 

12 E. (An assembled edition of the map is printed on a 

scale of 1:9,600.)

The Bureau of Reclamation also has obtained a map 

of the Michigan Bar reservoir area along the main 

stem of the Cosumnes River downstream from the 

Nashville site. This shows a possible dam site in sec. 

31. T. 8 N., R. 9 E., at a stream altitude of 190 feet. 

The topography is shown to an altitude of 310 feet along 

the river upstream and to varying altitudes over a considerable area downstream. The site presumably is 

being considered as a diversion point for irrigation, 

possibly with some reregulation of releases from the 

prospective Nashville reservoir and its power plant. 

An assembled edition of the map is on a scale of 

1:12,000, and the contour interval is 10 feet.